╌>

5 Dead, 21 Injured in Texas

  
By:  al Jizzerror  •  5 years ago  •  702 comments


5 Dead, 21 Injured in Texas
Another Texas Mass Shooting

Sponsored by group SiNNERs and ButtHeads

SiNNERs and ButtHeads


"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the first responders and the victims of the mass shooting in Odessa Texas".

That statement does NOT solve the growing epidemic of mass shootings in the U.S.

Wayne LaPierre, the spokespsycho for the NRA, always says we need more guns not more gun laws.

Governor Abbott has signed serval new laws (supported by the NRA) that further relax guns laws in Texas.  So,as of today , it is even easier to obtain and carry firearms in Texas.

Texas is also the poster child for "stand your ground".


  • Texas Penal Code, Chapter 9, Subchapter C
    Some of the provisions within this subchapter, "Protection of Persons," are often referred to as the "stand your ground" laws. This section discusses some circumstances under which a person may use deadly force to defend themselves or others.


There are lots of guns in Texas.

512

There are few restrictions regarding carrying assault rifles in Texas.

512

It's also legal to carry a shotgun almost anywhere.

512

Ammunition is readily available in Texas.

512

So, Texas must be the safest place in the world, right?



51 People Died in Mass Shootings in August Alone in the U.S.



Published Aug. 31, 2019




So far this year, there have been at least 38 shootings with three or more fatalities, data shows.


The month of August ended as it began: with a shooting rampage and a significant death toll.

Five people were killed near Odessa, Tex., on Saturday as a gunman started shooting indiscriminately at cars , bringing the number of victims of mass killings by firearms to 51 for the month.

The term mass killings is defined by the Justice Department as three or more killings in a single episode, excluding the death of a gunman. There is no legal definition for the term mass shooting, despite its frequent use by gun control groups and the news media.

This month’s loss of life was most acute in Texas, where four of the eight deadliest shootings occurred, including an Aug. 3 massacre at a Walmart in El Paso that killed 22 people.

The spate of gun violence has left the country on edge and catalyzed a more intense debate over gun control.

The carnage in West Texas on Saturday was the 38th mass killing by firearms in the United States this year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/us/us-mass-shootings.html






Gee, it appears that Texas is NOT the safest place in the world.

Maybe more guns is NOT the best solution for mass shootings.

Australia had a mass shooting in 1996.


The Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 was a mass shooting in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded in Port Arthur, Tasmania . The murderer, Martin Bryant , pleaded guilty and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole. Fundamental changes of gun control laws within Australia followed the incident. The case is regarded to be among the most notable massacres in Australia's history.

__________

Following the spree, the Prime Minister of Australia , John Howard , led the development of strict gun control laws within Australia and formulated the National Firearms Agreement , restricting the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles , semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns as well as introducing uniform firearms licensing. It was implemented with bipartisan support by the Commonwealth, states and territories.

__________

Under federal government co-ordination, all states and territories of Australia restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns, and tightened controls on their legal use by recreational shooters. The government initiated a mandatory "buy-back" scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)



Result of the Australian gun "buy-back".

512

Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1996.  Murders and suicides have plummeted.

Maybe fewer guns is a better solution for mass shootings.

If you can think of a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings, please post it in the comments section below.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

It's another sad day!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @1    5 years ago

Yes, yes it most certainly is.

I own guns. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy knowing when i'm in certain areas, knowing how accessible my firearms are, though i should carry, and should have for quite some time, as i worked in some Nasty areas, and i'm not talking Danish Diplomat or Queen of Denmark nasty, i'm talking there IS NO FCKN WAY YOU WOULD VOLUNTARILY BRING YOUR CHILD into these "war" zones 'Nasty', i don't.

Economic strife makes areas ripe for scenarios as witnessed in North Philadelphia, were many Police Officers were SHOT, yet thankfully all survived serious injury. That zip code was one of two i could not consult in, unless i had an armed wing man, as tools and or truck disappear quickly around theses areas.

.Every time another of these FCKN Twisted individuals goes on a rampage, they again bring US ALL steps closer to more restrictions, as in our ENTIRE FCKN COUNTRY, and that IS the ONLY LOGICAL Next step, and as much as i wish it were not, i could not look a parent, or relative in the eye, and say we truly did all we could to stop the next/last shooting, and we are oh so sorry you lost a loved one, but you must have heard, it's a slipper slope, and we can NEVER even consider walking that way....

Well actually, IT's NOT a FCKN slippery slope.

There are such BASIC COMMON SENSE minor restrictions that NEED to be implemented, while RHETORIC, and PUBLICITY for these FUX needs to be toned down, IMMENSELY.

Not BACK AND FORTH GIBBERISH FROM AN EMBARRASSMENT of a "leader" , who floats back and forth like sewage atop the frothy surf, and dependent on wind direction, velocity, and the direction of his ear in need of aid, the current flow of the National packets drifting like snow flaking into scalps too Dense to have dent s pulled out of doors, even though through these accesses, we observe window observation, via observation windows, illuminating an obvious malleable group in society today, who , through non condemnation and basically general acceptance, of White Male Mass Shootings, by our leaders, and a general denial that guns are even a partial part of the calamities we witness almost weekly any more, becomes a combination acceptance/denial of a correlation too few will admit to. THis is TRULY a SAD Reflection, when not even common sense can stand above some fckn BULLSHIT "slippery Slope" arguement.

I in NO way wish to lose my gun rights, and WE WON'T, but some damn condemnation and common sense logic could go a long way at addressing a problem, we've never faced to this degree before.

,

I believe the solution starts at the top, and would gain some serious respect for someone that i non hesitantly admit, feel is incapable of leading, as iv'e NEVER WITNESSED A LIAR, BE A TRUE LEADER .

.

Owned by some French tickler who goes on "Pretty Woman" shopping sprees in Beverly Hills and was shopping a 6.5 million dollar spread with NRA cash, should concern ALL GUN OWNERS.

Corral these radicals, or we ALL LOSE, but i could accept it, not like it atball, but accept it.

As 

I would never want to have to explain to the NEXT SET OF GRIEVING PARENTS< WHY THEIR CHILD HAD TO DIE, cause of some

alleged fricken slippery slope.

Talk to those who you suspect may be misguided, it sure as hell can't hurt, at the pace we are on and be headed.

.

Our country is lost, and divided.

.

The cause is obvious.

We all suffer as the Nation as a whole, suffers whence we are divided.

We are ALL on the SAME TEAM, perhaps, we could act like it on occasion, 

CAUSE IT DOES MATTER.

Don't N E of U gun Yahoos' attack this as some liberal trying to take away your 2nd amendment, cause if this continues, more severe restrictions are going to be implemented, and YOU argue with the parents holding a 5 year old lifeless body in their arms, cause that little girl wasn't aware of some gun show loophole, and 

U WERE !

N this is irregardless of legal ownership or not, NO FLY LIST, NO FCKN GUN, how can that even be a contention POINT ????

Have at it, but i've processed this within my feeble little mind, and i'm, on occasion, like EVERY one, a tad opinionated.

I want legal use of firearms, i don't want Mass SHootings

Suggestions Welcome ....

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    5 years ago
Suggestions Welcome ....

Universal comprehensive background checks, no fly no buy, smart guns and an intelligent approach toward gun accessibility by those with "mental health issues and mental deficiencies" might be a good starting point.

I also advocate "smart guns", gun locks and the elimination of assault weapons and extended magazines*.

*Banning extended magazines should exclude Playboy fold-outs. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.4  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
How can person to person sales or trades be monitored or enforced?

Many crimes are difficult to monitoring enforce butt we don't 86 the laws.

Person to person sales (and trades) should also require comprehensive background checks.  There needs to be a government website to facilitate the background checks (kinda like E-Verify).

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.5    5 years ago
The "no fly" list is so riddled with errors

I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors".  We should instead permit known terrorists to purchase unlimited amounts of guns&ammo.

That sounds legit!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.1    5 years ago
*Banning extended magazines should exclude Playboy fold-outs. 

have NO Problems with your suggestions, but do they still make these ?

I'm sure smart triggers could be a little costly, but if you want the gun, earn it. They're on phones already.

Remember what happened at airports after 911....that should piss us all off, but we sucked it up, and no one confiscated our jets, just our water bottles , lotions, pen knives, paper clips , extra buttons , etc.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.5    5 years ago
and an intelligent approach toward gun accessibility by those with "mental health issues and mental deficiencies" might be a good starting point.
We already have that.

Really?  

Even Donald Trump has advocated enhanced mental health background checks.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.11  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.5    5 years ago
When you can guarantee me that that "technology" will work with a 100% guarantee of operation when I need my carry handgun(s).

How many smart gun failures have there been recently?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.12  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.10    5 years ago
Are you admitting that there are KNOWN TERRORISTS walking around that have not been apprehended?

Nice straw man argument.

I never admitted that.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.13  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.12    5 years ago
Nice straw man argument

I swear to all within me, someone should invent an intellectual intercourse viagra pill. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.5    5 years ago
Make the NICS system available to me as a private citizen and I'll make use of it if I ever choose to sell a firearm to another individual.

Okay, let's get it done.

Oh wait.... Moscow Mitch would block that too.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.5    5 years ago

Boy X, you're just an energizer bunny of positivity on gun issues , as usual.

How about some leniency to men and women who have served, LEO's, and those whose occupation requires as much, as long as vetted.

,

The NOTHING argument is going to fail as this keeps up.

Nothing constructive...as i know you know your guns, and your gun laws inside out. i was just shopping the other day, as i have a friend who owns Surplus City, and sells guns, i know not you, but others, classify as assault weapons, and i freely admit, i enjoy shooting such. Just tired of innocent people getting murdered, as i'm sure you are as well. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.17  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.14    5 years ago
Now your fight isn't with the NRA, it's with the AMA and the entire medical establishment.

Yeah!

Let's fight the AMA on this issue!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cobaltblue @1.1.13    5 years ago

sounds hard

to do

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Dean Moriarty  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.11    5 years ago

They’ve all been failures. Here is a good example of smart gun failure. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.21  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.9    5 years ago
Even Donald Trump has advocated enhanced mental health background checks.

Uhhhh ... I know you're not going to believe this, but Trump ... well ... Trump Trumped.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.7    5 years ago
I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors". We should instead permit known terrorists to purchase unlimited amounts of guns&ammo.

No, we should ARREST KNOWN TERRORISTS.

Why should KNOWN TERRORISTS be walking around free anyways?

That sounds legit!

No, that sounds fucking STUPID.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.25  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.19    5 years ago
The words "permit known terrorists" were typed by you were they not?

So are you saying there are no known terrorists on the no-fly list?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.26  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.24    5 years ago
Why should KNOWN TERRORISTS be walking around free anyways?

Wow.

That bogus straw man argument is even more ridiculous.

Has anyone advocated permitting known terrorists to "walk around free"?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.25    5 years ago
So are you saying there are no known terrorists on the no-fly list?

If THAT is what you read, please quote it.

Post number will work.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.26    5 years ago

Weren't you the one who brought up the whole "known terrorists" crap?

No need to backpeddle NOW.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.29  igknorantzrulz  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.9    5 years ago
Even Donald Trump has advocated enhanced mental health background checks.

do you think he realizes he won't qualify to own any guns ?

Sorry, not trying to deflect, but when Trump says one thing, then another the following day, then reverses his mourning tweets, with evening bleats, it's difficult to not have him mentioned on this debate.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.31  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.1.20    5 years ago
They’ve all been failures.

Bullshit.  There has been one failure due to idiotic technology.

The "smart gun" specified in that article required a wrist transmitter to unlock it.  That's stupid.

Superior smart guns unlock when the police officers fingerprint is verified by the weapon.

I use my fingerprint to unlock my iPhone.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.31    5 years ago
I use my fingerprint to unlock my iPhone.

And anyone with the fingerprint lock on their phones will HONESTLY tell you that it simply doesn't work on the first try every time.

I am not willing to risk policemen's lives because some yahoo wants a fingerprint lock on police weapons.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.33  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.28    5 years ago
No need to backpeddle NOW.

No need to troll either.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.33    5 years ago

It simply isn't trolling when I respond directly to what you printed.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.36  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.27    5 years ago
If THAT is what you read, please quote it.

That was a question, not a fucking statement or an accusation.

256  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.37  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.32    5 years ago
I am not willing to risk policemen's lives because some yahoo wants a fingerprint lock on police weapons.

About 35 police officers are killed every year because some yahoo manages to get his gun.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.38  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.33    5 years ago

Is this backpedaling?

In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that "Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law," and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns . According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded 1,321 times (more than 90% of cases).

I wonder how many of those sketchy assholes have bought guns since that 2010 GAO report?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.37    5 years ago
About 35 police officers are killed every year because some yahoo manages to get his gun.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/officers-killed-with-own-gun-vs-officers-feloniously...

Dec 26, 2015 · Gun grabs account for 4.4 percent of officers feloniously killed in the last 10 years with their own weapons. The number of sworn police officers in the United States in that period has averaged about 523 thousand a year. So the rate of police open carriers who are killed with their own guns is about .42 per 100,000. It’s not zero, but it is low.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/27/...

I believe your stats are off.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.40  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.35    5 years ago
Oh, that fingerprint unlock never failed?

My iPhone is extremely reliable.  I have given it the finger thousands of times.  It recognizes my fingerprint every fucking time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.36    5 years ago

Well, if you didn't read it, why would anyone ask if that is what he stated?

That is illogical.

That is like me saying "Grass is green sometimes" and you asking me if I meant the sky is blue sometimes.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.44  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.41    5 years ago
hat is illogical. That is like me saying "Grass is green sometimes" and you asking me if I meant the sky is blue sometimes

thats y i don't wear hats, i might be part Vulcan i guess.

I've smoked Green Grass, from all sides of the fence, in Kentucky drinking bourbon while rolling in Kentucky Blue staring directly into the sun, so i don't recall the color of the sky...yellowish i'd have to go with

and

on occasion i back peddle my unicycle while pedaling spacely sprockets via chain letters

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.45  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.34    5 years ago
It simply isn't trolling when I respond directly to what you printed.

I asked for people to propose solutions to the epidemic of mass shootings.

Have you proposed a solution or are you just trolling this thread?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.46  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.4    5 years ago
Person to person sales (and trades) should also require comprehensive background checks.  There needs to be a government website to facilitate the background checks (kinda like E-Verify).

But once outside the gun show or gun shop in the parking lot, who's going to bother to do a back ground check. Law abiding gun owners and purchasers probably will, but it's doubtful that criminals or people intent on a mass shooting will get ahold of a gun that way.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.47  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.45    5 years ago
Have you proposed a solution or are you just trolling this thread?

I was so happy to see that you seeded this article because the one seeded by Mr. Frost was crapped all over.  How disappointing to see them so it again.  

In any event, forgive the derail.  I looked forward to commenting without abuse, however... 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.48  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.47    5 years ago
orgive the derail.  I looked forward to commenting without abuse, however... 

Wht FUN is that

i'm only here for the damn abuse, but am left un- nurtured yet again.

Hey, i tried the polite way, it never seems to work for me, but i've got irresponsibility to blame upon others presently, but i look forward to this problem child being moved out and living on his own in Montanna, harvesting dental floss, whence upon my return.

.

XD did at least go lightly on me, and Tex, well Tex is just Tex

.

For you 2nd Amendment or GIVE ME DEATH types, there are really NO other acceptable solutions than those that have already been covered...

Put it this way, If it were YOU, who had to notify the parents of a dead Elementary School child, killed in another senseless school shooting, would you put forth the same arguments you've laid out here, or would you dig a little deeper FOR A REAL SOLUTION ?

I'm guessin the latter, but if you can't climb that high....

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.49  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.47    5 years ago
I was so happy to see that you seeded this

This isn't a "seed".

This is and original "article" that contains quotations from a NYT article about mass shootings and quotations from the Wikipedia article about the Port Authur massacre in Australia.

Butt you are welcome to derail here as much as you want.

I must warn you, however, that the knuckle draggers are pooping all over this thread too.

Maybe you'll enjoy flinging some of that poop back at them.  

It can be semi-entertaining. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.51  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.7    5 years ago
I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors". We should instead permit known terrorists to purchase unlimited amounts of guns&ammo.

How about we fix the errors BEFORE we strip people of their Constitutional rights?

That sounds legit!

Maybe in a place like Nazi Germany or North Korea, but not here in America.

I would just love to hear you explain to Congressman John Lewis why you don't want him to have the right to buy a gun.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
1.1.52  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.7    5 years ago
I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors".

Fix the errors.  Insure that due process is followed, including running it through a public court before someone gets on the list and providing a government paid for method of getting off the list if put on by mistake.  Do those things, prove that they've been done, and THEN and ONLY THEN will we talk about extending the no fly list to gun possession.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.53  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.51    5 years ago
I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors". We should instead permit known terrorists to purchase unlimited amounts of guns&ammo.

Obvious sarcasm.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.55  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  TTGA @1.1.52    5 years ago
I guess we shouldn't fix those "errors".

Once again, that was obviously sarcasm.

Only the oblivious wouldn't have understood that.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.56  Tacos!  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    5 years ago
some gun show loophole

What gun show loophole are you talking about and how many of these mass shooters have acquired their weapons via this loophole you refer to?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.58  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.34    5 years ago

You are correct.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.59  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.35    5 years ago

I don’t even use mine.  I rely on the six digit code but that would take too long on a gun in a life and death situation for its owner or the owners friends or family.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.60  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.49    5 years ago

So all that disagree with progressive gun grabber or severe restrictions on law abiding citizens 2A gun rights are knuckle draggers or trolls?   

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.61  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.22    5 years ago
DEFINE it. Is it that scary black AR-15 that LOOKS LIKE an M-16? 

The daytona shooter was dead on the ground 30 seconds after his first shot, he still managed to kill nine people and get off 42 rounds. Explain to me why anyone in the general public needs that weapon? Hunting? No. Killing wabbits? No. Target shooting? No. Defense? No. It is designed for one reason and one reason only, killing humans as fast as possible. "Joe A. Citizen" has literally no need for that weapon. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.53    5 years ago
Obvious sarcasm.

A rather dubious claim at best.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
1.1.64  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @1.1.61    5 years ago

256

This is a pretty close stock picture of what I built for use at the range as well as coyote hunting , also can be used for antelope in this state if the round is right. it is kind of fun reaching out past 7-800 meters to hit the gongs at the range .

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.65  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.47    5 years ago
I looked forward to commenting without abuse, however... 

It is truly sad that few on both sides are here to engage in civil discourse and anything other than flinging their hate and party line bigotry at each other in the vilest manner permissible by the CoC . 

I enjoy your comments and often learn something new from you and a few others here that have something other than stomping the face of everyone who does not agree with them.

Also sorry for the derail.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
1.1.66  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.45    5 years ago
or are you just trolling this thread?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
1.1.67  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.49    5 years ago
This is an original "article"

Mea culpa, darling boy. I knew you were much more than just another pretty face. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.68  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.56    5 years ago
What gun show loophole are you talking about

Thatvsounds as if you feel there is NOT a GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE ? 

Ive never been to a gunshow,,, 

So, if i went to a gun show, i would HAVE to fill out all of the same PROPER PAPERWORK as if i were at an authorized GUN DEALER, correct ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.69  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.50    5 years ago
So, what is a "real solution"?

I believe a posed that question to you.

If a sobbing mother approached you carrying her dead child and asked you HOW CAN WE STOP THIS ABSURDITY, you are claiming you would give her the same arguments you've laid out here...I think Not

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.71  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.70    5 years ago
But, as it's a person to person sale, how will you regulate it anyway?  Are there enough BATFE agents to have one watching every citizen 24x7?

Well, would you not consider that a loophole ?

I'm asking you guys, as i stated, i've never been to a gun show.

Seems to me, private person to person sales should be frowned upon, but again, i'm not informed enough to make that decision.

I don't have a real problem with how you stated gifting to family, but , we all have some crazies in our families, but, more likely you would know if it wasn't appropriate, just my opine.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.73  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.72    5 years ago
would honestly say "I don't know.  There are cruel deranged people in the world that will not hesitate to harm others for no reason what so ever." But, that does not negate the fact that I would not surrender my firearms as they are essentially my only defense against those deranged peopl

  i can appreciate that first paragraph, but as i stated on the 2nd post of this seed, i don't want to surrender firearms either, i want these damn shootings to stop, cause you and i are going to lose some rights if they don't.

N as ive stated, i believe the problem starts at the TOP, with the potUS

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.76  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.75    5 years ago
But simply because you believe he's a racist, does not in fact make him one.

Oh Yes, oh yes it does.

If he is not a Racist, he is worse.

He is using race, to divide the American people, and it has worked.

I have a unique perch with which i can take this all in from, and Trump IS A RACIST.

I've known many, still hang with Many, and i'm not gonna be changing them, but please, don't tell me what i don't and do know about Trump, as he has proven himself to be the LYING RACIST POS i always knew him to be, going back to the damn 80's.

You, nor no other poster here, could convince me, that what i've learned through out my life experiences is some how now null, void, and mute, due to posters on an anonymous web site,telling me so

what my life experience has exposed me to, is vastly different than most, and that's all iv'e got to say about that.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.1.77  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.1.4    5 years ago
Person to person sales (and trades) should also require comprehensive background checks.  There needs to be a government website to facilitate the background checks (kinda like E-Verify).

Trump had said that he might be open to supporting sensible background checks.

But that was before he got "THE CALL".

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.78  cobaltblue  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.47    5 years ago
I looked forward to commenting without abuse, however... 

however...remember the old adage. Spank me once, shame on you. Spank me twice ... well, now we're getting somewhere. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
1.1.79  cobaltblue  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.75    5 years ago
But simply because you believe he's a racist, does not in fact make him one.

Racists think he's racist. That's all that matters. And he plays to his ignorant and racist base. Which is why he hones in on that wall he lied to his supporters about. He said Mexico would pay for it. He stopped government paychecks for 63 days (saying government workers would "adjust") because of it. Walls can be tunneled. He could use technology and drones to much better use. But he promised his racist base a wall. And he counted on his base's low intellect to fool them over and over again. 

The Brookings Cafeteria podcast last week discussed the role President Trump’s racist rhetoric has played in encouraging violence in America. Predictably, some podcast listeners responded skeptically on Twitter, doubting the association between Trump and hateful behavior. It would be naïve to think that data will change many individuals’ minds on this topic, but nonetheless, there is substantial evidence that Trump has encouraged racism and benefitted politically from it.

First, Donald Trump’s support in the 2016 campaign was clearly driven by racism, sexism, and xenophobia. While some observers have explained Trump’s success as a result of economic anxiety, the data demonstrate that anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and sexism are much more strongly related to support for Trump. Trump’s much-discussed vote advantage with non-college-educated whites is misleading; when accounting for racism and sexism, the education gap among whites in the 2016 election returns to the typical levels of previous elections since 2000. Trump did not do especially well with non-college-educated whites, compared to other Republicans. He did especially well with white people who express sexist views about women and who deny racism exists.

Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence. FBI data show that since Trump’s election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017.

The association between Trump and hate crimes is not limited to the election itself. Another study, based on data collected by the Anti-Defamation League, shows that counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw hate crime rates more than double compared to similar counties that did not host a rally.

* * * However, there is also causal evidence to point to. In experiments, being exposed to Trump’s rhetoric actually increases expressions of prejudice. In a 2017 survey, researchers randomly exposed some respondents to racist comments by the president, such as: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect this research to have much impact on public attitudes; increasingly, partisanship skews what Americans think qualifies as racist. But there is no excuse for avoiding clear, accurate descriptions of American political dynamics. When the data show that President Trump’s support stems from racist and sexist beliefs, and that his election emboldened Americans to engage in racist behavior, it is the responsibility of social scientists and other political observers to say so [emphasis mine.]

Cite .

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.80  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.14    5 years ago
Now your fight isn't with the NRA, it's with the AMA and the entire medical establishment.

The entire medical establishment hates HIPAA.  It's a huge pain in the ass.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.81  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.63    5 years ago
Show me where "need" is noted in the 2nd.  

Does need outweigh want? No. Show me in the 2nd where it says all weapons must be sold?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.82  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.80    5 years ago

The entire medical establishment hates HIPAA.  It's a huge pain in the ass.

No. I worked in healthcare, and no one hates HIPPA. It's PRIVACY... You will never get rid of it. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
1.1.83  TTGA  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.82    5 years ago
You will never get rid of it. 

Then you will never have background checks that mean anything.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.84  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.82    5 years ago
No. I worked in healthcare, and no one hates HIPPA.

All of our healthcare clients disagree.  That would include the nurses who have more paperwork and the adminstrators who spent billions securing data nobody tries to steal anyway.

It's PRIVACY... 

It's the illusion of privacy, don't kid yourself.  Actual privacy was killed off decades ago.

You will never get rid of it.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of it.  But the question remains, how do you intend to maintain that illusion of privacy and screen mental health patients out of firearm purchases?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
1.1.86  igknorantzrulz  replied to    5 years ago
trade

freedom got traded for security on 911

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.87  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.63    5 years ago

YOU do not get to tell me or anyone else what we "need".   I make that decision.

You are confusing need with want. Honest mistake. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.88  MrFrost  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.84    5 years ago

I'm not suggesting we get rid of it.  But the question remains, how do you intend to maintain that illusion of privacy and screen mental health patients out of firearm purchases?

That's my point, you can't. Far easier to ban assault weapons, been done before. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
1.1.90  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
trade freedom for security.

Oh, you mean like GW's Patriot Act?

He was all about trading freedom (and privacy) for security.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.91  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.23    5 years ago

They're the ones advocating for protecting mental health records.  So, yeah.  

You are as likely to get HIPPA laws removed as you are to repeal the 2nd amendment. Not going to happen. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.92  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @1.1.89    5 years ago
Really?  Then log off and turn off your computer, you after all don't "need" to be online.

My WANT to be online isn't killing wal-mart shoppers either. The WANT to have a weapon that is designed for hunting humans IS. People are dying in the streets because you WANT an AR-15. Let that sink in. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.93  MrFrost  replied to  TTGA @1.1.83    5 years ago

Then you will never have background checks that mean anything.

Fine, get the HIPPA laws removed and the first time trump gets his anal warts and gonorrhea posted online, they will be back in place the next fucking day. You want all of your medical history posted online? Doubt it, but that's what would happen.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.94  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.93    5 years ago

I agree.    

The HIPAA laws are one of the better legislations passed in my lifetime.    It’s hard to pick and choose what will get shared and what doesn’t.    

Damn slippery slope to be sure.    Especially with some knob bureaucrat deciding what gets released and what doesn’t.

no thanks!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago
"If you can think of a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings, please post it in the comments section below."

It's too late.  Because of your 2nd Amendment, and the obstinacy of the gun-lovers there is no solution.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    5 years ago

WTF Buzz ?

Eternal optimism ain't gonn a solve a damn thing !

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.1    5 years ago

LOL. I'm an optimist?  I don't know anything about testing people for glasses.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    5 years ago
testing people for glasses.

Some people have glasses that are half full (of shit) and others have half empty skulls.

Unfortunately, I think those people are in the majority, so stupidity rules (in the White House).

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.1.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    5 years ago
LOL. I'm an optimist?

Buzz, you failed to see rulz's sarcasm. Your "no solution" was met with rulz's version of "oh, aren't you the optimist." It was sarcasm. And pretty funny. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  cobaltblue @2.1.3    5 years ago

I caught his sarcasm, which is why I continued it on a light note with my "optimist-optometrist" comment.  And then al Jizzerror followed that with his drinking glasses twist.  It was all in fun.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.1.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.4    5 years ago
his drinking glasses twist. 

that too was funny. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.1    5 years ago

LOL. I'm an optimist?  I don't know anything about testing people for glasses.

That would be optometrist, not optimist. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.6    5 years ago

I know. See my comment just 2 comments above.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.7    5 years ago

Wasn't trying to be rude Buzz, just pointing out a fact. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.8    5 years ago

I didn't think you were being rude.  I just thought you had missed that I already indicated that I knew that. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.9    5 years ago

Fair enough, apologies. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.1.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.10    5 years ago

LOL.  No need to apologize - you've not said or done anything that requires one.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    5 years ago
Because of your 2nd Amendment, and the obstinacy of the gun-lovers there is no solution.

The second Amendment is outdated.  We don't need the non-existent "militias" to preserve and protect out nation since we have the most powerful military in the world.  

We can pass the 34th Amendment to change (or even repeal) the 2nd Amendment.

I doubt if that can happen though, because passing an Amendment is extremely difficult especially when a powerful special interest group (the fucking NRA) would fight to preserve the second Amendment.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
It will not happen all amendments are of equal value remove one you destroy the constitution.

That's fucking hilarious!

On January 29, 1919, Congress ratified the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the manufacturing, transportation and sale of alcohol within the United States; it would go into effect the following January The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide Prohibition on alcohol.

The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

Did repealing prohibition "destroy the Constitution"?

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.2.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.3    5 years ago

No the mistake was thinking stripping people of their freedom by banning alcohol would work. It was a disastrous mistake that resulted in unenforceable laws and created a huge black market. Many lives were needlessly lost as a result of that government overreach. Once they realized their mistake it was corrected and freedom was returned. There is no question more lives are lost to alcohol each year than mass shootings but freedom stripping laws were proven not to work. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.2.4    5 years ago
No the mistake was thinking stripping people of their freedom by banning alcohol would work.

It appears that you agree with me that repealing the 18th Amendment was a good idea and it did NOT "destroy the Constitution".

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.3    5 years ago
remove one you destroy the constitution.

You're right, al. Ridiculous premise. There's also this:

In 1790s America [the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788] , we were still just starting out – the population of the whole country was only 3.9 million, which is closer to the population of Los Angeles alone than it is to the entire nation nowadays. To top if off, there was still a very clear and present threat of danger after the Revolutionary War had ended.

Native American tribes were known to attack settlements (and vice versa), and since there was no police force or army, there were times when the law needed to be taken into the hands of the citizens. There were also no grocery stores – the colonists would have needed guns to hunt and feed themselves.Oh, and white people owned slaves, and they really didn't want to have an uprising they couldn't defeat. The right to bear arms covered protecting that, too.

The types of guns available at that time were very different from the AR-15s and other semi- and fully-automatic weapons we see on the news these days. In 1791, common guns included muskets and flintlock pistols.

According to the  Washington Post , a "Typical Revolutionary-era musket" had a one-round magazine capacity, and it could fire around three effective rounds per minute – in the hands of the most skilled wielder. Its maximum accuracy range had to be within 50 meters. Compare this to a "Typical modern-day AR-15," which has a magazine capacity of 30 rounds, has an effective fire of 45 rounds a minute, and an accuracy range of 550 meters.

These are vastly different weapons. Besides only holding one round at a time, the guns of the 1790s had a very low level of accuracy and incredibly short ranges. Not only that either – muskets of the period, including the Brown Bess and Charleville, had no sights at all, aside from an affixed bayonet that one could look down while preparing to shoot. 

Read more and see photos of the types of guns used .

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.2.8  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2    5 years ago
The second Amendment is outdated

If this is too long a read for some, the last three paragraphs are good enough. I happen to like the entire thing. 

As Americans grapple with the deadly shooting spree[s], the political dialogue in America — as it usually does after an all-too-common mass shooting — has turned toward the issue of gun control. The debate, as it’s been for decades, centers around the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and whether strict gun control is legal under it, with each side suggesting statistics and historical precedent are on their side. In 2014, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Paul Stevens wrote an editorial for the  Washington Post  on the amendment and its relationship to modern laws.

Stevens first described the roots of the second amendment and discussed how it was interpreted for the first 200-plus years of its existence. “For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes; and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a ‘well regulated Militia.'”

However, John Paul Stevens asserted that this interpretation came under increasing attack by the National Rifle Association and other lobbying groups over the latter half of the 20th century. He, in turn, quoted former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger, who said in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

John Paul Stevens did offer a remedy, however, suggesting that a five-word addition to the Second Amendment could make all the difference and clear up the legal ambiguity surrounding it. He wrote :

“… the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms   when serving in the Militia   shall not be infringed.’” While it’s unlikely that Stevens’ suggested change will ever come to pass, it’s an interesting one to ponder as the gun control debate continues to rage on.

Cite

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.9  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.6    5 years ago
It was written to protect the people and the Constitution from the government itself. 

Bullfuckingshit!

The militias were needed to protect the fledging U.S. Government from foreign powers (like the fucking Red Coats that they had just defeated.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.8    5 years ago

It is said there are 300 million guns in America. Even ending the second amendment wont de facto change that. 

There is no way to end this gun violence now. And when I say now I mean the forseeable future. 

A small place to start might be banning all manufacture and sale of ammunition. While there certainly is a lot of ammunition already out there, a ban would mean that no one could deplete their stock of ammunition in practice shooting and so forth without facing the prospect of seeing their firepower dwindle away. Still this would only be a partially effective measure. There could still be innumerable mass shootings. 

I would effect a law where no one is allowed to possess a gun outside their home. If you possess a gun outside your home you go to prison for 20 years. 

Another reprisal would be if you use a gun against a human being for any other purpose than defending your home or your family you will be thrown from the roof of the tallest building in the closest city to where the incident occurred, minimum 25 stories. 

Another option would be castration for anyone who uses a gun for any purpose (towards a human being) other than self defense within the home. Since mass shooters are almost always men this method would be specific to that gender. 

In America we have created the myth of the hero with a gun, going back to Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, Wyatt Earp, Elliot Ness, etc.   A romance towards guns and gunplay was invented in America moreso than in any other country in history. In retrospect we can see that creating such myths and fantasies that encourage "gun love" and gun lovers who fetishize personal firepower has been a disaster for America, but it actually is too late. With a widespread change in what is socially acceptable in terms of gun love the death rate can be brought down, but it will take some time. Many years. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.11    5 years ago
Which represented THE GOVERNMENT at the time.

The Bill of Rights (including the second amendment) was written by the U.S. government which was the government at the time.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.16  Greg Jones  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.8    5 years ago

The militia, at that time, was composed of ordinary citizens, there being no organized army, most of whom had personal guns for protection and hunting. There was no intention by the Framers of the 2nd Amendment that they turn in those weapons when the war ended.

The right of individual citizens to own and bear firearms has been affirmed by the High Court more than once.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.17  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.12    5 years ago

So in addition to black market drugs, we will have black market ammunition.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

The death sentence doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to violent crime and murder, neither will threats of other kinds of punishment. Criminals and deranged individuals usually don't care about laws or obeying them or of consequences.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.17    5 years ago
Criminals and deranged individuals usually don't care about laws or obeying them or of consequences.

I agree, but you know what i noticed with recent shootings and averted shootings, angry white males with easy access to guns and ammunition, seemingly egged on by the rising White Power Movements now apparently acceptable since some ones election. Who also surrounded himself with more White empowerment in his administration.

The Country has to tone it DOWN, as there are peoples of all religions and races being cut down, with a sharp cause to point to, as to why we have such a sudden more frequentive problem, that by my take, i've already spelled out.

Correlations are rarely just numerous coincidences, jmho.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.2.21  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.12    5 years ago
A small place to start might be banning all manufacture and sale of ammunition

the courts have already recognized ammo as part of "arms"

any attempt to ban or even overtax ammo is unconstitutional.  not going to happen.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.2.22  TTGA  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.16    5 years ago
most of whom had personal guns for protection and hunting. There was no intention by the Framers of the 2nd Amendment that they turn in those weapons when the war ended.

Don't forget this part Greg.  Those protection and hunting weapons were also the standard military weapons of that time.  The operative phrase there is "standard military weapons of that time".  If access to arms by the population of standard military weapons was protected when the Second Amendment was written, then it should also cover access by the population to the standard military weapons of our time.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.2.23  TTGA  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.2.20    5 years ago
The Country has to tone it DOWN,

Yes it does.  Why don't you set the tone by toning DOWN the insane yammer about White Supremacy?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.24  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.9    5 years ago
It was written to protect the people and the Constitution from the government itself. 
Bullfuckingshit!

No, that's true. Read the Federalist Papers. It was important to keep the citizenry armed as insurance against a corrupt and overreaching federal government. They were acutely aware that European powers denied this right to their citizens because they were afraid of them.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. - Federalist No. 46
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.25  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2    5 years ago

I thought we only have 27 amendments the last being added in 1992.  Good luck getting 38 states to ratify repeal of 2A.  Never going to happen.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.26  XXJefferson51  replied to    5 years ago

Count me in on that fight!  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2.27  MrFrost  replied to    5 years ago

It will not happen all amendments are of equal value remove one you destroy the constitution. 

Where in the 2nd amendment does it say, "right to bear guns"? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say, "right to bear semi-auto assault weapons"? Where in the 2nd amendment does it specify which calibers must be sold? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say that ammunition must be sold? 

.

The 2nd amendment doesn't need to be changed, just need to pass laws stating which guns are able to be sold. Do we have laws on the books that do that? Yes, but not at the federal level. Pass laws at the federal level, and I would bet that mass shootings would gradually go away. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.28  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.5    5 years ago

Repealing the 2nd amendment would lead directly to the end of the Republic.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.29  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.11    5 years ago

That last point with the Jefferson quote is non negotiable.  There will be no solution to the gun issue that also strips citizens as a whole of the ability to resist with force a future tyranny here.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.30  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.15    5 years ago

True.  Government here is empowered only to protect and preserve our God given rights.  We did not and do not consent to it being empowered to take those away.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.31  XXJefferson51  replied to  TTGA @2.2.23    5 years ago

amen to that!  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.2.32  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.18    5 years ago
In effect, we're all members of the "unorganized militia" unless enlisted in the active military, national guard or reserves.

And that is just on the FEDERAL level, what many do not know is that a good majority of states constitutions and laws also have provisions  for "militias" and their age ranges vary greatly,  In my case , the state of Wyoming , can involuntarily call me to service of the state at either the govenors or legislatures behest until I am 72 years of age , for any instance they deem appropriate, and they can do so by law and simply because I reside in the state.

Even at 57 , if that call was ever made , things are way past shit hit the fan and bottom of the barrel has already been scraped.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
2.2.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TTGA @2.2.23    5 years ago
Why don't you set the tone by toning DOWN the insane yammer about White Supremacy?

Because for the FACT it is NOT insane yammer, it is TRUMPP and KUMP at their finest, which is , for America, the WORST.

He is a prejudice racist piece of trash, playing US citizens against each other.

The PRESIDENTS job is to bring US together and mend fences, not set the FIRES, and this clown, and the abysmal fcks he appoints, are RACIST !

No damn doubt about it.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.2.38  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.35    5 years ago

And I'll be the first to say you would probably gladly heed that call and report as required.

You could be very wrong about that , Like I said if my STATE called me to arms ( feds would be told to go fornicate with a beehive during grizzly mating season) the shit has likely already hit the fan and the bottom of the barrel was being scraped , I would have to think on it long and hard dependant on what they wanted done , If they think they would use me to disarm others after shit hits the fan , they would be mistaken , if they thought I would lay siege to whom they deemed enemies of the state to starve them out  or herd them into concentrated areas, they would be mistaken . If they thought to ship me to another state to put down an insurrection , they would be mistaken .

Now if some are sent to do those things I stated I wont do , to me and the residents of my state , they yeah, ild answer that call, I wont have done to me what I wont do to others .

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.2.40  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.3    5 years ago
Did repealing prohibition "destroy the Constitution"?

Yes it did.

That's why, sadly, we no longer have a Constitution-- it was destroyed!

(Don't believe me? Just ask Muva-- he's an expert on Constitutional law! jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif )

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.2.41  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2    5 years ago
passing an Amendment is extremely difficult especially when a powerful special interest group (the fucking NRA) would fight to preserve the second Amendment.

You are correct.  It is very difficult, as it should be.  Doesn't need the NRA getting into it though.  Any 13 States can kill any Amendment.  Can you think of 13 States that would vote to kill such an Amendment, with or without the blessing of the NRA?  I can easily think of 13 States that prefer liberty over totalitarian rule.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.2.42  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.17    5 years ago
The death sentence doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to violent crime and murder, neither will threats of other kinds of punishment.

It would deter repeat offenders.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.2.43  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.5    5 years ago
repealing the 18th Amendment was a good idea and it did NOT "destroy the Constitution".

  It was passing the 18th Amendment that almost destroyed the Constitution.  Repealing it with the 21st just fixed the situation, so that the Constitution was not destroyed.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.45  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  TTGA @2.2.43    5 years ago
Repealing it with the 21st just fixed the situation, so that the Constitution was not destroyed.

Please take a look at comment #2.2.1, comment #2.2.3 and the comment #2.2.5 that you quoted.

Do you work for the Department of Redundancy Department? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2.46  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.10    5 years ago

WE are the militia.  You, me, everyone.

390+ million guns... Not enough? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2.47  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.37    5 years ago

Damn, you should have told that to Obama.  If you want racism, just look at him, no further.

Care to list all the racist things he said and did? Or is he a racist just because he is black? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.2.48  cobaltblue  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.37    5 years ago
If you want racism, just look at him, no further.

I Googled 'racist statements uttered by Obama.' Found nothing. Can you find anything other than people commenting that he was friendly with Reverend Wright, and if you find racists comments from Obama, would you be kind enough to link them? From Obama: 

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in  affirmative action ; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.
As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.49  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.48    5 years ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.2.50  cjcold  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.10    5 years ago

I own a firearm or two for every occasion and am far from being regulated.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.2.51  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.2.49    5 years ago
About 797,000 results

Well, actually, a lot more pop up, but none of them contain racist comments. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.52  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @2.2.51    5 years ago

My bad.  I fucked up.

I googled "racist statements uttered by Tump " not Obama.

The 797,000 results were about Trump.

Sorry for that stupid mistake.

I was TUI (typing under the influence).

800

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.2.54  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.53    5 years ago

You need to understand the meaning of the term when the 2nd Amendment was written.  It did not mean controlled or directed as we use it today.

When it was written, the max fire rate was 2 rounds a minute, (with practice, MAYBE 3 rounds a minute). Now? Dayton shooter...9 dead, 42 rounds fired, 30 seconds. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.2.55  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.54    5 years ago
When it was written, the max fire rate was 2 rounds a minute, (with practice, MAYBE 3 rounds a minute).

That sorta makes mass shootings difficult.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
2.3  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    5 years ago

And maybe if they had guns in Hong Kong those protesters could actually get rid of the evil communists they are now struggling to escape from. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.3    5 years ago
if they had guns in Hong Kong those protesters could actually get rid of the evil communists

Really?

Do you actually believe that if the Hong Kong protesters had guns they could defeat the Chinese military?

That's fucking hilarious! 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to    5 years ago

They are not going to succeed anyway.  In 2047 Hong Kong becomes under total control of the Beijing government.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.3    5 years ago

Interesting, isn't it, that there are no gun murders in Hong Kong.  What is the purpose of trying to establish a democracy when in 2047 Hong Kong comes under the total control of the Beijing government, becomes a part of the mainland like any other mainland city?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.3.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
They may not be able to defeat them but they could go down with a fight.

Seriously?

They would all die with big smiles on their faces.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.3.6  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.4    5 years ago
Interesting, isn't it, that there are no gun murders in Hong Kong.  What is the purpose of trying to establish a democracy when in 2047 Hong Kong comes under the total control of the Beijing government, becomes a part of the mainland like any other mainland city?

Plenty of other private murders though, in spite of the Chinese being "domesticated"; and, of course, in China, including Hong Kong, the mass murders are committed by the government.  The government doesn't need rifles, they use tanks. 

Actually, from what seems to be happening in Hong Kong, I don't think that the Chinese government will succeed in enslaving Hong Kong in 2047.  From the reaction of the people in Hong Kong and the challenge to the government, I think that the Chinese Army will try to move in to take over immediately....and Mr. Xi will die from a sniper's bullet.  If they continue, his successor will die from a sniper's bullet.  That will continue, with or without US assistance, until they get a ruler who refuses to step into the crosshairs.  That is how you take out a dictatorship; don't fight the army and police, take out the dictator.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3.7  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.1    5 years ago
Do you actually believe that if the Hong Kong protesters had guns they could defeat the Chinese military?

If they were armed and determined? Absolutely. There are a little over 2 million active personnel in the Chinese military. That's impressive, but the adult population of the country is about 980 million. The military is outnumbered almost 500 to 1. Superior weapons and training will take you far, but you aren't going to hold off 500 armed people forever.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.3.8  MrFrost  replied to    5 years ago

They may not be able to defeat them but they could go down with a fight.

They would just end up having a mass shooting a day like we have here. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.9  XXJefferson51  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.3    5 years ago

We hope that the communist red Chinese government actually honors that date.  In the interim the people of Hong Kong should be able to live as they desire to live.  The regime in Beijing fears that other Chinese will want want the people of Hong Kong have. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.10  XXJefferson51  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.1    5 years ago

Well they can resist to that point knowing that if the brutal communist regime did use military force even if there was no real armed resistance it would cause severe capital flight and personal flight as long as possible by those holding other passports who live there.  Such an intervention would Steel the resolve of The Republic of China to never voluntarily become a part of that and may provoke Taipei to officially declare independence and create/deploy a nuclear deterrent.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @2.3.7    5 years ago
"If they were armed and determined? Absolutely. There are a little over 2 million active personnel in the Chinese military. That's impressive, but the adult population of the country is about 980 million. The military is outnumbered almost 500 to 1. Superior weapons and training will take you far, but you aren't going to hold off 500 armed people forever."

You cannot compare the mainland Chinese people with the Hong Kong ones who have lived with democracy.  The mainland Chinese are generally happy with their way of life.  It has become a capitalistic form of Communism and the middle class, which is massive and growing by leaps and bounds, are quite happy.  Considerable effort is being made to improve the life of those who are not so privileged.  An example of that, and it is only an example because much is being done, is when the government subsidized half or even more of the cost of major appliances for those who could not afford them.  There is a lot more optimism than there was during the days of "Tank Man".

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.3.12  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.1    5 years ago
Do you actually believe that if the Hong Kong protesters had guns they could defeat the Chinese military?

Strange as it may seem, there are some people that are actually stupid enough to believe that!

Yes--- ordinary citizens in the street with handguns can overpower the power of the Chinese military! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

DUH! 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.3.13  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @2.3.12    5 years ago
Yes--- ordinary citizens in the street with handguns can overpower the power of the Chinese military! DUH!

Please don't imply those wonderful NTers are "stupid".

Their comments are hilarious!  

I am amused by lots of the posts on this thread.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.3.14  TTGA  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.11    5 years ago
The mainland Chinese are generally happy with their way of life.  It has become a capitalistic form of Communism and the middle class, which is massive and growing by leaps and bounds, are quite happy. 

I actually doubt that happy is the word Buzz.  Resigned is much closer.  What can one expect.  The people in China have been brainwashed for almost 5,000 years to believe that their ruler is absolute and that nothing can be done to change that system.  First, the Emperor, then the Kuomintang, then the Japanese, then the Kuomintang again, and now the Communists; one ruler will take over from another ruler and nothing else will change.  We will always be exploited, just keep your mouth shut and live with it.

What particular form of Communism it is doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.  Totalitarian rule is totalitarian rule, no matter what economic philosophy the rulers follow.  Do whatever the block captain says or you will get a visit from the Secret Police.  It doesn't matter at all whether it's the Communist Secret Police or the Emperor's Secret Police.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
2.3.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TTGA @2.3.14    5 years ago

Well then, maybe pretty well all the people I've encountered in the 13 years I've been here, including the students I've taught and their parents that I've met, the ones who are well off and the common working people, even farmers, and believe me I have met many, are the exception, because you appear to know the Chinese people here a lot better than I do.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.3.16  Jack_TX  replied to  TTGA @2.3.6    5 years ago
I don't think that the Chinese government will succeed in enslaving Hong Kong in 2047.

They will enslave Hong Kong in the same way the Trojans enslaved that horse....

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.17  devangelical  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.3    5 years ago
maybe if they had guns in Hong Kong those protesters could actually get rid of the evil communists

Jesus-gun.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.3.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jack_TX @2.3.16    5 years ago
They will enslave Hong Kong in the same way the Trojans enslaved that horse....

I'v seen that horse somewhere....

512

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.3.19  Jack_TX  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.18    5 years ago
I'v seen that horse somewhere....

Just when you think Occupy can't get any more batshit crazy.....

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.3.20  cobaltblue  replied to  devangelical @2.3.17    5 years ago

1dd.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
2.3.21  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.3.18    5 years ago

4rje5v1ggdj01.jpg

The Blessing of the Assault Rifles at the Sanctuary Church in Newfoundland, PA. [Done two weeks after a mass shooting.]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    5 years ago
It's too late.

Yes.

Because of your 2nd Amendment, and the obstinacy of the gun-lovers there is no solution.

The obstinacy of gun lovers is certainly matched by the tenacious devotion of others to "solutions" that are almost surely doomed to fail.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
2.4.1  TTGA  replied to  Jack_TX @2.4    5 years ago
The obstinacy of gun lovers is certainly matched by the tenacious devotion of others to "solutions" that are almost surely doomed to fail.

And which lead directly to the type of totalitarian rule that I described above.  The place to stop that kind of nonsense is right at the beginning, and, if a enduring a high number of innocent lives being lost is the price, so be it.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

Someone should inform the bone-spur-in-chief that we need gun control not video game control.

And he needs to stop fanning the flames of White supremacy.  His stupid rhetoric is responsible for the mass shooting in El Paso and some of the synagogue shootings.  Even the asshole in New Zealand praised Trump.

The government in New Zealand immediately tightened their gun laws in response to their mass shooting. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

I'm surprised that no ammosexuals (like Wayne LaPierre) have been posting their worn-out slippery slope  clichés and insisting that more guns is the solution to mass shootings.

The ammosexuals are probably lurking around the edges of this article right now and checking the NRA website so they can copy&pastie their talking points here.

256

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.2  Greg Jones  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    5 years ago

No one has ever said that "more" guns is the answer.

More guns in the right hands might be a more honest assessment.

Now you've given up reason and common sense.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.2.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Greg Jones @4.2    5 years ago
No one has ever said that "more" guns is the answer.

Wayne LaPierre said that.

WASHINGTON — The chief of the nation’s powerful gun lobby yesterday broke his weeklong silence since the Newtown school massacre in a bizarre rant that called for armed guards in every school and suggested that more guns in citizens’ hands is the solution to mass murder.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” a defiant National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre declared in a 30-minute press conference where he declined to take questions from the press.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.2    5 years ago

Actually, no he didn't.   If you read your own copy and paste from the NY Post, the 'author' of that article "SUGGESTED" that LaPierre's words indicated that.  Wayne never articulated that himself.

That has been said by the NRA for decades. "More guns means less crime." And guess what? It's complete bullshit. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.4  Raven Wing  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.3    5 years ago

And a bundle of Texas Gun laws were to be relaxed the day after the shooting occurred......

Texas' new bundle of relaxed gun laws took effect one day after 7 were killed in mass shooting

  • Several new laws will take effect in Texas that would ease several restrictions for gun owners to carry firearms and store ammunition in public places.
  • The nine laws kick into effect just one day after seven people were killed and 21 were by a suspect who opened fire on authorities during a traffic stop.
  • The tragedy came just under a month after a gunman killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas.
  • President Donald Trump suggested after the attack that violent video games were to blame for encouraging mass shooters, but scientific research has repeatedly found that's not the case.
  • Multiple studies have repeatedly shown that mental-health issues are not predictive of violence, and the number of gun deaths in the US is much higher than in other nations with similar rates of gun ownership, meaning certain policies that can help prevent deaths.
  • Days before the shooting, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott held meetings with state lawmakers about how to prevent more mass shootings in Texas, which could affect the future of these new laws.

and 

One Day After Mass Shooting, New Laws in Texas That Expand Gun Access Go Into Effect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas continues to revel deep in the pockets of the NRA, instead of "Deep in the Heat of Texas" for its residents. Seems it has not changed much since I moved from there in 1961. The almighty gun is far more important that human life.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.7  Raven Wing  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.6    5 years ago

No thanks offered. CORRECTED version not applicable. If Texas really reveled "Deep in the Heart of Texas" as you claim, they would not be relaxing their much needed gun laws. Your OPINION does not carry any water. 

There was nowhere near the gun related shootings and killings throughout the state during the years I lived there, and my Father was a Ft Worth police officer for 15 years, as well as a Texas ranger, so I am very much aware of what kind of violence took place throughout the state during that time. And it was not near as violent a state as it has become.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
4.2.8  Dean Moriarty  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.3    5 years ago

The homicide rate has decreased over the years as the number of guns has increased. We have approximately half as many homicides now as we did thirty five years ago when you look at percentages and population growth. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.10  Raven Wing  replied to  XDm9mm @4.2.9    5 years ago
a great deal has changed in that time.  

Indeed, and it has only gotten worse.

Further, I appreciate his service but I really don't care what your father did. 

I didn't ask you to, and it does not matter to me if you don't. 

There are a lot of good,decent people who live in Texas, and I have family members who still live in Texas. The blame for the decline of Texas over the years is the fault of the decayed and corrupt state and local governments. 

In the many areas where change is truly needed, and has for many, many years, they have been ignored.

And I have to wonder if the Texas legislators and their lap dogs would still be so blase toward maintaining meaningful gun laws if it was one of their own who would up in the morgue.

However, you are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. And we have both expressed them. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
4.2.11  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.10    5 years ago

Do you have any statistics that show things are worse there than in the sixties? We have data that shows the homicide rate in Texas is lower now than it was in the sixties.

384

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.2.11    5 years ago

Gee they must not have sold many guns in the 80's and 90's, huh?

There are far more guns now, with lower murder rates.

How is that even possible?

Haven't we been taught that more guns equals more murders?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.13  Raven Wing  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.2.11    5 years ago
We have data that shows the homicide rate in Texas is lower now than it was in the sixties.

Eh.....and each and every homicide is a result of gun violence? Apples and oranges. Not every homicide is the result of gun violence.

But, believe what you want, no matter who deceiving. You and Texan can pat each other on the back and play like you won. For me.....Meh.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.13    5 years ago

I would love to see any stats you may have to prove your claim.

it isn't a matter of believing, it is a matter of looking at actual numbers and statistics.

If you think the numbers presented to you are deceiving, please elaborate.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.15  Raven Wing  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.14    5 years ago
If you think the numbers presented to you are deceiving, please elaborate.

I know your MO here on NT very well Texan. No matter how much info I provided you would not believe it and say it was not true, as you are the only one who knows any facts at all and no way could anyone else be right.

I have said all I have to say to you at this point. I don't have the time nor the inclination to play your game, nor do I plan to continue to put up with your snark and "You're stupid" attitude.

So take your game and play it with someone else. And if you plan to reply to me in the future, lose the 'tude Dude or don't reply at all. Because I don't think you are as cool as you think you are.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.16  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.2.1    5 years ago
Wayne LaPierre said that.

wayne-5a8efc.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.17  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.15    5 years ago
nor do I plan to continue to put up with your snark and "You're stupid" attitude

That's the first sign of the truly ignorant. By calling or intimating someone else stupid, especially when people can see who genuinely is not exactly on Mensa's mailing list, it is woefully apparent who really is truly ignorant. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.18  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.17    5 years ago
By calling or intimating someone else stupid,

And of course, we all know that men are far superior to women when it come to intelligence. Especially, when women can't really understand anything at all about guns. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.19  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.18    5 years ago
Especially, when women can't really understand anything at all about guns

That's the really funny part. Especially when it comes to you. I can't tell you how hard I laugh at their "logic." I can't tell how many times I say out loud "nah ... too easy." Jeez louise. My favorite is their trumpish 'double down.' You know, "I said something soooo ridiculous, so uninformed, so obtuse and so inane, but I'm going to post something even MORE ridiculous so they know I'm serious, dammit!" 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.15    5 years ago
No matter how much info I provided you would not believe it and say it was not true

That is bullshit. You haven't provided any stats that I can see--you just called stats you were provided with as deceitful.

as you are the only one who knows any facts at all and no way could anyone else be right.

You may well be right, but without any facts to support yourself, why would any person take your word for it at face value?

I have said all I have to say to you at this point. I don't have the time nor the inclination to play your game,

Perhaps you should learn what a game is and what debate is.

nor do I plan to continue to put up with your snark and "You're stupid" attitude.

Suit yourself.

So take your game and play it with someone else. And if you plan to reply to me in the future, lose the 'tude Dude or don't reply at all. Because I don't think you are as cool as you think you are.

Way to make it personal. SMH.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.19    5 years ago

Since Raven has declined to show any stats at all to back up her claims, perhaps you could?

Please show ANY stats you may have that shows the murder rates now are higher than they were in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.22  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.21    5 years ago
Please show ANY stats you may have that shows the murder rates now are higher than they were in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

First, I never said they are higher now than they were back in 80's and 90's. But like Raven, I believe the type of murder has gotten worse. The media reports every mass shooting so we hear about it more than ever. Homicides were higher in the 80s and 90s and it was attributed to the uptick in cocaine and other drugs; people were murdering left and right. What's worse NOW is the number of innocents (children, people at nightclubs, churches) and the intent of the killer. Killing then was personal (cheating partners, warring drug dealers, thieves) and not politically motivated.

Two mass shootings in the span of 14 hours over the weekend have left at least 29 victims dead. The two shootings, first in El Paso, Texas, and then in Dayton, Ohio, are the latest instances of deadly mass shootings in 2019, bringing the total number of such incidents up to at least 17 — an average of one every 12.7 days this year.

It IS worse when they're killing innocent children, when people are getting run over while attending a peaceful rally, when killing people they never even seen before. Walking into churches and opening fire on innocent worshipers was unheard of in the 80's and 90's. So keep self-righteous and sanctimonious and self-serving comments out of it and showing a graph of how murders have declined since the end of the 20th century out of it. It is worse today. As disgusting as the following comment is, it remains true: Murder is not face-to-face personal anymore. Back in the day, if you fucked over your drug dealer, someone was gonna pop a cap in your ass. Now you can't send your kids to school without worry. People as clean as the driven snow are getting murdered. People who believe in god and gathering to worship him are murdered. People who go to a concert are murdered. Perhaps Raven didn't phrase it the way you'd have liked, but her comment is true. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.22    5 years ago

This is precisely what Raven claimed.

There was nowhere near the gun related shootings and killings throughout the state during the years I lived there, and my Father was a Ft Worth police officer for 15 years, as well as a Texas ranger, so I am very much aware of what kind of violence took place throughout the state during that time. And it was not near as violent a state as it has become.

And stats were shown which disproved her statement.

Her comment is simply not true. And it has absolutely nothing to do with what I like or dislike.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.24  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.22    5 years ago
Back in the day, if you fucked over your drug dealer, someone was gonna pop a cap in your ass.

Back in the day they didn't sell combat equivalent, high capacity weapons. And back in the day people did not walk around with an AR-15 with 100 round magazine, or a AK-47 with large rounds of ammo on their backs without question. Nor did a host of people walk around with open-carry or concealed weapons out of fear for their safety. 

We could go to school, church and department stores without worrying about being massacred by some deranged lunatic who easily bought a super high-capacity weapon wherever they wanted. 

No....it was not anywhere near as bad back then as it is today. But, some justify their own beliefs by trying to make everyone who does not agree with them as being stupid.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.25  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.23    5 years ago

Oh. So you just want to be right. Doesn't matter the object of the conversation, you just want to be right. I like that. A lot accuse women of being "right fighters" no matter how ridiculous the "I have to be right" argument. So now we can include you. 

There are some people who are "I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion." Got it. 

Get over it. Raven is righter than you. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.26  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.24    5 years ago
trying to make everyone who does not agree with them as being stupid

That's a low-intellect ploy. It's all they have to fall back on. Every time a man attempts that silly tactic, it reflects poorly on him and his credibility. It's a huge show of insecurity. It's like a guy stuffing his pants with a sock. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.27  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.19    5 years ago
My favorite is their trumpish 'double down.' You know, "I said something soooo ridiculous, so uninformed, so obtuse and so inane, but I'm going to post something even MORE ridiculous so they know I'm serious, dammit!" 

Totally agree. They think they are so astute, but, they can't see how out of pocket they are. Although I have to admit that some of them are good Trump apers. Others....Meh.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.25    5 years ago
Oh. So you just want to be right. Doesn't matter the object of the conversation, you just want to be right. I like that.

Guilty as charged, I DO like to be right--beats the HELL out of being wrong!

A lot accuse women of being "right fighters" no matter how ridiculous the "I have to be right" argument. So now we can include you.

Well, I am just me, so no need to try to include me in your club.

There are some people who are "I have a right to my opinion, and my opinion is that you have no right to your opinion." Got it.

There are people here who like to put words into others' mouths.

if you truly "got it", you would never post that nonsense.

Raven is righter than you.

In your dreams.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.29  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.26    5 years ago
It's like a guy stuffing his pants with a sock. 

LOL!!!!  OMD!! I remember my older Brother doing that when he was in high school. But, he was not the only one. One could only tell when their sock slipped, or even fell out on the floor as they pranced down the hallway. jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

But....yeah....the more they try to look superior in intelligence, the lower in IQ they make themselves appear. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.30  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.28    5 years ago
In your dreams.

Nope. You're wronger. You were wrong when you wanted me to prove via stats that it wasn't more violent in the 80's and  90's. Why you came at me with that, I have no clue. Seems you were wrong there too. 

It's okay to be insecure, but one shouldn't let everyone else know. Leaves a person a tad vulnerable, doesn't it? And ... it lets everyone know that person doesn't know everything. People like that always get the socks in their pants noticed. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.31  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.27    5 years ago
Meh.

Yep. There are definite 'meh' people. Not an ounce of credibility.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.30    5 years ago
You were wrong when you wanted me to prove via stats that it wasn't more violent in the 80's and 90's.

Asking for proof is never right or wrong, it just is.

Why you came at me with that, I have no clue.

I completely agree with you that you have no clue.

Seems you were wrong there too.

Once again (sigh), asking for proof is neither right nor wrong, it just IS.

It's okay to be insecure, but one shouldn't let everyone else know. Leaves a person a tad vulnerable, doesn't it? And ... it lets everyone know that person doesn't know everything. People like that always get the socks in their pants noticed.

Seems very personal with you. Why is that? Is that your go-to tactic when losing?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.34  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.33    5 years ago
I completely agree with you that you have no clue. Seems very personal with you.

Who's losing, Texan? Very trumpian ... saying shit doesn't make it true. You saying his inauguration crowd was the biggest in history is true too? Ha! 

Resorting to misconstruing a sentence to suit your needs is very trumpian too. And making your misconstrued sentence personal while saying I'm making things personal is ... well ... silly. Even Stevie Wonder could see you're trying, though. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
4.2.35  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.31    5 years ago
Not an ounce of credibility.

Like a catfish.....all mouth and no a$$. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.34    5 years ago

Who's losing, Texan?

Looks like you.

Very trumpian ... saying shit doesn't make it true. You saying his inauguration crowd was the biggest in history is true too? Ha!

Inauguration? WTF? Did you forget what we were talking about already? 

Are you attempting to troll me into a C of C violation?

Sorry, it isn't working.

Stop trying to make it personal.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.37  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.36    5 years ago
Looks like you.

Teehee. Who looks like me? 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.2.38  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.36    5 years ago
Stop trying to make it personal.

Who's making it personal? You know, that's kinda sweet. Women generally like sensitive men. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.40  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @4.2.38    5 years ago
You know, that's kinda sweet.

You still are unable to goad me into a C of C violation.

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
4.2.41  livefreeordie  replied to  Raven Wing @4.2.24    5 years ago

2.6% of a firearms murders were by some kind of rifle. There is no breakdown by type available. But even if half, it means that AR type firearms represent a little over 1% of firearm homicides.

This proves the anti gun left don’t care about facts. This is the left wanting to ensure citizens cannot defend against government tyranny  

With the exception of the Vegas shooting, every one of the other mass shooting in the recent years could have been equal in numbers using a handgun or shotgun.  That is the inconvenient fact the anti gun folks ignore

The FBI’s annual Crime in the United States report breaks down types of weapons used in murders (not all homicides are murders). The report showed a total of 13,455 murders in 2015, of which 9,616 involved firearms. Handguns were the firearm of choice, involved in 6,447 murders that year compared with 252 by rifles and 269 by shotguns. There were no further breakdowns by type of rifle or shotgun, and there were 2,477 gun murders where the type of firearm was undetermined.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.42  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.41    5 years ago

Actual statistics that don't feed into hysteria mean nothing to some.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
4.3  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @4    5 years ago
The ammosexuals

Sigmund Freud, the author of that phallic symbol crap has been totally discredited by real psychologists since the late 1950's.  Where have you been?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.3.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  TTGA @4.3    5 years ago

I never mentioned Sigmund Freud or phallic symbols, I simple used the term "ammosexuals".

I didn't mention "Oedipus complex" either.  Is that what you're fixation on  Sigmund Freud is about?

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
4.3.2  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.3.1    5 years ago
[delete]

I'm sure it was hilarious. And since when is rudeness not allowed in ButtHeads and Sinners? Are you kidding? Rude is de rigueur. On both sides. Some really rude shit has been said to me and I see it as a verbal version of the old note of "do you like me? Yes or no." I think it's cute. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
4.3.3  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @4.3.2    5 years ago

I guess that Mod doesn't appreciate Freudian humor.

I didn't say anything about "phallic symbol crap".

Butt since a prosecution whitless oops, I meant to say "prosecution witness" brought it up, here's some "phallic symbol crap" for the ammosexuals on this thread.

The NRA is now selling a whole new line of products for ammosexuals.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5  cobaltblue    5 years ago

I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe there should be guns for protection and hunting. AK15s and those like it are not for hunting anything except humans. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
5.1  TTGA  replied to  cobaltblue @5    5 years ago
AK15s and those like it are not for hunting anything except humans. 

But they are really good for protection.  It may be unpleasant to think about but sometimes humans must be killed and not just by active duty policemen.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
5.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  TTGA @5.1    5 years ago
But they are really good for protection.

Actually they aren't. Too big to use at an instant. A .45 or even a 9mm is much more maneuverable. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.1.4  cobaltblue  replied to  TTGA @5.1    5 years ago
humans must be killed

You don't need an M15 or AK47 to protect yourself. You can even use a 28 to protect yourself. It may not kill them, but it'll stop them. Or a 38 special.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
5.1.5  livefreeordie  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.4    5 years ago

The AR-15 is the most owned firearm in America.   It is the preferred defense weapon for women.   99.9% of AR-15 owners have never and will never use their weapon in a crime

We don’t have a firearms crisis.   We have a problem with morality and respect for life.

Facts about AR-15 Ownership

“Devotees say the AR-15 has been wrongly demonized, arguing that the vast majority of owners never use it in a crime, and that despite the rifle’s use in mass shootings, it is responsible for a very small proportion of the country’s gun violence.

Thanks to that ardent following, and shrewd marketing, the AR-15 remains a jewel of the gun industry, the country’s most popular rifle, irreversibly lodged into American culture.”

“Why Young Women Want AR-15s

As young women, we prefer an AR-15 “assault” rifle with a 30-round magazine for self-defense.

AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the U.S.; more than 3 million Americans own one. And its popularity isn’t with criminals — assault rifles account for only 0.6 percent of murders every year. Rather, the semi-automatic AR-15 is the gun of choice for many hunters, target shooters, and home defenders.

Accuracy? Check. Ease in handling? Check. Intimidation factor? Check. An AR-15 might be a woman’s best friend. We are rational women who, as law-abiding citizens, understand the need — and the right — to defend ourselves. We don’t want to be caught underprepared in the kind of desperate situation that happens too frequently to people across America.”

Women recommending women have an AR-15 as preferred weapon

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.4    5 years ago

I prefer a 12 gauge pump action myself. Just the sound of that thing being pumped should strike fear into the heart of any moron breaking into my house at 3 AM

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
5.1.9  TTGA  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.4    5 years ago
You can even use a 28 to protect yourself. It may not kill them, but it'll stop them. Or a 38 special.

What the hell is a 28???  I'll presume that you mean a .22 Long Rifle.  Your second and third sentences clearly show that you know nothing about firearms.  You got it exactly backwards.  A .22 or a 38 Special is very unlikely to stop an attacker unless you hit them in the head or spine.  They will, however, kill if you put them in the right place. 

In common with these others, I also hold the firm belief that neither you, nor especially the government, have any business whatsoever deciding what I need or what rights I should be allowed to exercise (by the way, it's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs).

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
5.1.10  TTGA  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.1.8    5 years ago
I prefer a 12 gauge pump action myself. Just the sound of that thing being pumped should strike fear into the heart of any moron breaking into my house at 3 AM

Yep, damn fine choice, and astute observation about the psychological effect of the slide.  Everybody, at least all burglars, know that sound and know what's coming next.  Cant really shoot them though; shot rounds simply won't penetrate through that much fecal material.

I recommend using #6 shot rounds rather than slugs or 00Buck, though.  It won't penetrate through two layers of sheet rock and kill someone in the next room, but it will blow a BIG hole in a burglar's chest at ten feet.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
5.1.11  KDMichigan  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.4    5 years ago
You can even use a 28 to protect yourself.

What?

So you think that no one needs a Scary AK47 but think a DP 28 is a more appropriate gun to protect yourself.

I'll go with the assumption that you have no clue what you are talking about rather than you think everyone needs a Machine Gun. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
5.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @5.1.3    5 years ago

Only if you don't know how to use them.  But, I'll grant using a 9mm handgun is much easier for those that can handle a handgun, but not everyone can or is comfortable with them.

Not a picture of mine, but I have the same gun... I don't pack it much because it's bloody heavy, usually just take my 9mm. Yes it's a Glock, don't hate. 

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.14  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.13    5 years ago

Nice.

A good ole Colt revolver.  I like heavy metal too.

Most people prefer semi-auto 9s like your Glock.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  KDMichigan @5.1.11    5 years ago
So you think that no one needs a Scary AK47 but think a DP 28 is a more appropriate gun to protect yourself.

I think that "28" is a typo.  Probably a fat finger when trying to type "38".  She goes on to mention "38 special" which is better 38 ammo.  My dad had a "Police Positive" which shot both .38 and .38 special rounds.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
5.1.16  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1.14    5 years ago
A good ole Colt revolver.

When my Father was serving with the Texas Rangers he had a matching pair of Colt Thumb Busters with consecutive serial numbers. He bought them direct from the Mfg. He was a fast cross-draw expert, and had a special cross-draw holster made for them. He had been a sharp shooter in the Army, as well as a sniper.

My Father taught me how to shoot the Thumb Busters when I was 8 y/o. The first time I fired one it knocked me on my fanny. I laughed my head off and kept on shooting. I also learned to shoot a rifle and 12 gauge. And I could out shoot my older Brother. 

Besides learning to have a healthy respect for the weapons, and how to use them, I also came to understand their individual beauty. 

My Mother also had a double barrel Cobra Derringer 22, and S&W snub nose .38 special. She was not one to mess with either. (grin)

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.17  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.16    5 years ago
When my Father was serving with the Texas Rangers he had a matching pair of Colt Thumb Busters with consecutive serial numbers. He bought them direct from the Mfg. He was a fast cross-draw expert, and had a special cross-draw holster made for them. 

Incredible collectors items. I think few fully appreciate this.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.18  dave-2693993  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1.15    5 years ago
So you think that no one needs a Scary AK47 but think a DP 28 is a more appropriate gun to protect yourself.
I think that "28" is a typo.  Probably a fat finger when trying to type "38".  She goes on to mention "38 special" which is better 38 ammo.  My dad had a "Police Positive" which shot both .38 and .38 special rounds.

Not much of a fan of the pea shooter rifles. Always liked the single shots. Something I was taught and raised with in practice. Even with a bolt action rifle with a magazine. Just one in the chamber. Empty magazine.

True I had a trio of M14s tuned for different ranges and dedicated ammo for each range. Hey met the ex that way as she was a Tel Aviv U student who often had to venture to close to the Syrian border for class. BTW we are not hateful enemies these days. I was the " archangel" in the distance.

These days there is a new single shot desert plinker on the block. A little .416.

800

Relaxing plinking.

Side arms? Nothing beats a big bore revolver...well except for a Ruger Speed Six .22...sold years ago.

All that remains of my revolvers are my Uberti .44 Mag. This is pretty much identical to mine. Great for boar close in.

9410959_02_uberti_cattleman_44_mag__640.jpg

and .45 ROA, again pretty much like mine.

a7_lot79_1-max.jpg

Both bought in the 70s and both been in good shape whenever I came back home.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
5.1.19  Raven Wing  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.1.17    5 years ago
Incredible collectors items. I think few fully appreciate this.

My Father was 6'6" tall, and most regular saddles were too short for his legs. So he had the Osage owner of the only saddlery in Pawhuska OK we lived during the 3.5 years we lived in OK make him a custom saddle, along with the custom holster, with his name carved in it. There were no others like them in the world. The stirrups were so long on the saddle that the stirrup covers nearly dragged the ground on his horse, a short legged Mustang cutting horse named Brick for his brick red color, that my Father bought from the owner of the Cross Bell Ranch, one of the biggest cattle ranches in OK at the time.

It was one of the times in my life I loved most. 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.20  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.19    5 years ago

Wonderful story Raven Wing.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
5.1.21  TTGA  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.1.18    5 years ago
These days there is a new single shot desert plinker on the block. A little .416.

Little is right Dave.  It still can't beat a Barrett firing the .50 BMG round.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
5.1.22  Raven Wing  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.1.18    5 years ago
Both bought in the 70s and both been in good shape whenever I came back home.

Those are really great looking pistols. The bottom one looks like it has good balance, with an easy to grip handle.  Cool!!

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.23  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.16    5 years ago
When my Father was serving with the Texas Rangers he had a matching pair of Colt Thumb Busters with consecutive serial numbers.

Speaking of "Thumb Busters" what's wrong with this picture?  (and no, it's NOT a Colt Thumb Buster)

512

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.24  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  TTGA @5.1.21    5 years ago
It still can't beat a Barrett firing the .50 BMG round.

Fuck yeah.  Next time try shooting two of 'em (without using those sissy tripods).

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.1.25  cobaltblue  replied to  TTGA @5.1.9    5 years ago
A .22 or a 38 Special is very unlikely to stop an attacker unless you hit them in the head or spine.  They will, however, kill if you put them in the right place. 

You're right. A .22. As I also said, it would probably not kill them but it would stop them for a minute. And like MUVA, you don't like anyone telling you what kind of firearm you can possess. I call that the height of selfishness. If you had a family member (and I hope that nothing horrible ever befalls you or your family) that was killed by a stranger while your loved was in a crowd or in a church, would you feel the same way? And regarding my lack of knowledge about guns, I have no problem with that. My past relationship with a lovely man was a concealed weapon guy. I didn't want to know where he kept his gun; I didn't want to know where he kept his ammo; I never opened his glove compartment or console when we traveled. I know he carried his gun in his car. I don't care to know. 

I hope that all your loved ones remain safe. I'm sure one or more of the Sandy Hook parents were avid gun enthusiasts. I'm sure several people who had innocent loved ones killed by a stranger were/are M15 or an AK47 were/are enthusiasts and think/thought exactly like you. Out of curiosity, I would love to know if they feel the same way today now that their children or loved ones are dead.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
5.1.26  cobaltblue  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.25    5 years ago
By Michael E. Diamond, U.S. veteran

Once again, lone gunmen armed with (legally purchased) military-style assault weapons were able to quickly kill unarmed civilians in two mass shootings this past weekend. The fact that the Dayton shooter was killed within 30 seconds of firing his first shot — and yet was still able to kill nine people within that short period of time, injuring dozens more — makes plainly visible what military veterans like myself have long understood: Assault rifles are uniquely lethal because they’re designed to kill as many humans as possible, as quickly as possible.

The gun industry and their NRA poodles made a revenue-enhancing pivot to their business model some years ago. Instead of just manufacturing and marketing traditional hunting rifles they moved to the tactical self-defense and “black rifle” look — replete with military-like scopes and high-capacity magazines. As this podcast observed, the gun industry became “more about firefights than field and stream.” But if that marketing approach has been great for business, it has been terrible for the safety of everyday Americans.

The message for consumers is clear: If you want to be a badass, all you need to do is buy a semi-automatic assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. You can pretend that you’re a Navy SEAL or an Army Ranger without suffering the inconvenience of early morning wake-ups, tough training and demanding standards.

Of course, America’s unique gun violence problem is much broader than mass shootings. The vast majority of America’s nearly 40,000 annual gun deaths involve handguns, not assault rifles. But gun manufacturers know what they're doing when they tell aggrieved loners and people looking to use violence to further their message that they, too, can feel the power of being a soldier without having to be a soldier. You can think of yourself as heroic without having to be heroic. You can act like you’re powerful without having any real power. All you need to do is pay us a few hundred bucks, plus an extra $189 for a 100-round magazine.

Those of us who have actually served in the military earned our right to handle the military version of these weapons (the biggest difference between the civilian and military versions is full automatic firing). We understand that assault rifles differ from traditional hunting rifles because their high-muzzle velocity, smaller rounds, modest recoil and high capacity magazines make assault rifles a tremendously lethal tool in a firefight. That lethality   has been emphasized   by the trauma doctors who treat mass shooting victims.

Most of our national discussion about these weapons has been about whether they should be legal, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that they should, we certainly shouldn’t stand for the way they are being sold.

Not surprisingly, the gun industry has tried to capitalize on as many loopholes as possible to allow consumers to get around various gun laws. A legal “bump stock” device was used by the Las Vegas shooter to circumvent a federal law regarding fully automatic weapons (after Las Vegas   those devices were eventually banned).   According to the Dayton police, the shooter there used a brace so his pistol was "modified in essence to function like a rifle… to avoid any legal prohibitions."

You might think that the companies marketing these weapons would want to downplay how often their products put the “mass” in “mass killings.” But you’d be wrong.

The gun industry also likes to play with terms to create a smokescreen. For example, gun retailers like to market devices that muffle gunshots as silencers, except when they’re used in a mass shooting — as one was in Virginia Beach — at which point they want to refer to them as “noise suppressors” or “gun suppressors.”

Their duplicity is similarly clear in their obfuscation over the definition of “assault rifle.” In response to calls that the U.S. ban assault rifles specifically, manufacturers claim “assault” is just a term foisted on the rifle by those who aren’t in the know. They say that such guns behave just like any other semi-automatic rifle used by hunters, ignoring the uniquely lethal impact on the human body these particular weapons create due to their tumbling high-velocity rounds. (This kind of round, according to one trauma doctor, "doesn’t create a hole, it creates a cavity in the body.”)

In other words, gun manufacturers are trying to have it both ways. They know they have a dangerous product, and they know their marketing is likely targeting exactly the kinds of people who want to look and feel powerful — a fraction of whom then go on to kill. But instead of owning up to this problem, they are doubling down, arguing that the danger is being blown out of proportion by activists who are trying to curtail law-abiding citizens of their rights.  [Emphasis mine.]

Cite.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
5.1.27  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @5.1.26    5 years ago
Their duplicity is similarly clear in their obfuscation over the definition of “assault rifle.” In response to calls that the U.S. ban assault rifles specifically, manufacturers claim “assault” is just a term foisted on the rifle by those who aren’t in the know. They say that such guns behave just like any other semi-automatic rifle used by hunters, ignoring the uniquely lethal impact on the human body these particular weapons create due to their tumbling high-velocity rounds. (This kind of round, according to one trauma doctor, "doesn’t create a hole, it creates a cavity in the body.”)

The ammosexuals on this thread claim that since "assault weapons" can't be defined, they can't be banned.

They also claim the military personnel and vets "never call them assault weapons".

Bullshit and bullfuckingshit!

512  

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.28  dave-2693993  replied to  TTGA @5.1.21    5 years ago
These days there is a new single shot desert plinker on the block. A little .416.
Little is right Dave.  It still can't beat a Barrett firing the .50 BMG round.

Here is some interesting ballistic data comparing several long rang cartridges.

Let me see if I can get it to post legibly first. then I will add come thoughts...fingers crossed:

_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0     400     800    1200    1600    2000 | YARDS
408               1.150 2750 >    0.00    3.77   15.80   37.33   69.84  115.14 | wind (inches)
416               0.943 3250 >    0.00    3.66   15.42   36.74   69.34  115.42 | wind (inches)
416 Light         0.943 3050 >    0.00    3.99   16.89   40.31   76.25  127.21 | wind (inches)
50BMG             1.050 2700 >    0.00    4.26   17.93   42.61   80.22  133.02 | wind (inches)
338LM LH          0.869 3000 >    0.00    4.46   18.99   45.58   86.79  145.78 | wind (inches)
338LM 300SMK      0.77* 2725 >    0.00    5.85   25.21   61.49  119.01  201.29 | wind (inches)
338LM 250SCNR     0.675 2950 >    0.00    6.00   26.03   63.90  124.63  212.63 | wind (inches)
7RM 180           0.684 2900 >    0.00    6.06   26.28   64.47  125.58  213.79 | wind (inches)
308 155           0.508 2900 >    0.00    8.39   37.54   95.45  189.56  317.52 | wind (inches)

408               1.150 2750 >   -0.00    1.66    4.70    8.24   12.34   17.12 | drop (mil)
416               0.943 3250 >   -0.00    1.09    3.31    5.96    9.12   12.90 | drop (mil)
416 Light         0.943 3050 >   -0.00    1.29    3.84    6.89   10.53   14.92 | drop (mil)
50BMG             1.050 2700 >   -0.00    1.76    4.98    8.79   13.28   18.62 | drop (mil)
338LM LH          0.869 3000 >   -0.00    1.37    4.06    7.35   11.34   16.25 | drop (mil)
338LM 300SMK      0.77* 2725 >   -0.00    1.79    5.23    9.58   15.10   22.19 | drop (mil)
338LM 250SCNR     0.675 2950 >   -0.00    1.49    4.51    8.44   13.56   20.34 | drop (mil)
7RM 180           0.684 2900 >   -0.00    1.55    4.68    8.72   13.99   20.93 | drop (mil)
308 155           0.508 2900 >   -0.00    1.65    5.20   10.29   17.65   28.01 | drop (mil)

408               1.150 2750 >    2750    2499    2262    2040    1831    1637 | velocity (fps)
416               0.943 3250 >    3250    2914    2599    2305    2033    1781 | velocity (fps)
416 Light         0.943 3050 >    3050    2727    2424    2143    1883    1642 | velocity (fps)
50BMG             1.050 2700 >    2700    2429    2175    1938    1717    1518 | velocity (fps)
338LM LH          0.869 3000 >    3000    2653    2332    2035    1762    1518 | velocity (fps)
338LM 300SMK      0.77* 2725 >    2725    2357    2018    1708    1439    1226 | velocity (fps)
338LM 250SCNR     0.675 2950 >    2950    2512    2116    1760    1454    1217 | velocity (fps)
7RM 180           0.684 2900 >    2900    2472    2085    1737    1438    1209 | velocity (fps)
308 155           0.508 2900 >    2900    2334    1840    1428    1141     988 | velocity (fps)

408               1.150 2750 >    0.04   -0.16   -0.41   -0.71   -1.08   -1.55 | drop per yard (inches)
416               0.943 3250 >    0.04   -0.11   -0.29   -0.53   -0.82   -1.21 | drop per yard (inches)
416 Light         0.943 3050 >    0.04   -0.13   -0.34   -0.61   -0.95   -1.40 | drop per yard (inches)
50BMG             1.050 2700 >    0.04   -0.17   -0.43   -0.76   -1.18   -1.72 | drop per yard (inches)
338LM LH          0.869 3000 >    0.04   -0.14   -0.36   -0.65   -1.04   -1.57 | drop per yard (inches)
338LM 300SMK      0.77* 2725 >    0.04   -0.17   -0.47   -0.87   -1.44   -2.24 | drop per yard (inches)
338LM 250SCNR     0.675 2950 >    0.04   -0.15   -0.41   -0.79   -1.33   -2.13 | drop per yard (inches)
7RM 180           0.684 2900 >    0.04   -0.15   -0.42   -0.81   -1.37   -2.18 | drop per yard (inches)
308 155           0.508 2900 >    0.04   -0.17   -0.49   -1.03   -1.90   -3.16 | drop per yard (inches)
 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.29  dave-2693993  replied to  dave-2693993 @5.1.28    5 years ago

First note, that data is courtesy of a fella named Zak Smith, here:

A little help with the first row: Bullet = Bullet, BC = Ballistic Coefficient (bigger the number, the better), MV = Muzzle Velocity.

The numbers to the right of " _BC_ _MV_" are distances in yards from the muzzle.

The partial/missing column to the right:

  • First group is wind deflection in inches
  • Second group is drop in inches
  • Third group is is velocity in ft/sec
  • Fourth group is drop per yard in inches

The muzzle energy of the .416 is a little shy of mid way between a .460 Weatherby and a .50 BMG. 

BTW the .338 LM is the Lapua Magnum. no slouch either.

The only one on the chart to drop out of supersonic is the "308". I don't know if it is a true .308 or it's extremely close cousin the 7.62 NATO, but just past 1600yds it goes subsonic. This absolutely disrupts the flight path when trying to shoot like a laser beam. Some rounds handle it better than others.

For my purposes I would never have used an 155gr projectile. More like between 170 and 200 depending on distance.

The .50BMG is no doubt well established. The .416 knocking at the door.

Hope the 2 part posting makes sense.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
5.1.30  dave-2693993  replied to  Raven Wing @5.1.22    5 years ago
Those are really great looking pistols. The bottom one looks like it has good balance, with an easy to grip handle.  Cool!!

Thank you Raven Wing.

The bottom one is a really good handling revolver. The are both very good for point and shoot as well. My old Speed Six was the perfect point and shoot hand gun. You could almost blindfold yourself and hit the target with that one.

Anyhow, when hunting in to bear or boar country, I sleep with one of the big bore guns very close by.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6  Dismayed Patriot    5 years ago

“When the Heartland sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing guns. They’re bringing hate. They’re mass shooters. And some, I assume, are good people.”...

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    5 years ago

nicely slated and stated 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    5 years ago
When the Heartland sends its people, they’re not sending their best

You want to go after the heartland? I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that, but if you mean people who live away from the big city, you are pointing at the wrong people. Crime in metropolitan areas is higher than the national average , while crime in rural areas is much lower than the national average.

Violent crime in metropolitan areas occurs at the rate of 410 per 100,000 inhabitants. It's slightly lower in cities outside metro areas. By contrast, the violent crime rate in non metro areas is 186 per 100,000 inhabitants - less than half the rate you see in big cities.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
6.2.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @6.2    5 years ago

So you want to go with comparisons?

"All immigrants have a lower criminal incarceration rate and there are lower crime rates in the neighborhoods where they live , according to the near-unanimous findings of the peer-reviewed evidence."

" None of what I wrote above will console a victim of illegal immigrant crime – and it shouldn’t. To those victims and their loved ones, their pain is not diminished by knowing how unlikely it was to happen to them. There will be criminals in any  large group of people  and there are some infuriating and  shocking   anecdotes ."

My point was that by demonizing a minority, calling them rapists and criminals, which was cheered by many who harbor hate in their hearts, we are now seeing a rise in right wing domestic terrorism. If someone had told me a week ago I had to bet on who the next domestic terrorist mass shooter would be I would have put all my money on young to middle aged white guy, and sadly, I'd have won. In reality, we are simply all losers in this war of attrition. We are apparently at the mercy of angry embittered young to middle aged, often involuntarily celibate, white males with easy access to military style weapons and large capacity magazines so they can live out their Rambo fetish while gunning down those they blame for all their problems. They get their targets primarily from older white male peers like Donald Trump and other right wing media pundits who tell them to hate, immigrants, lgtbq, liberals, progressives and the rest of the "coastal elites" with their college degrees. All their angst, all their frustration is focused like a laser beam, then those who focused it feign ignorance when the hate seeking missile hits their target.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
6.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.1    5 years ago
So you want to go with comparisons?

No, that was you who made a post singling out a group of people. I just wanted to show you how misguided that was. 

The fact that you based it on Trump is immaterial to me. A lot of people in this country think they are better than others. Sometimes it slips out.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @6.2.2    5 years ago
A lot of people in this country think they are better than others. Sometimes it slips out.

A lot of people ,

PROVE,

they are better than others, and some don't give a FCK if it slips out, 

SHove it 

back in, and make sure points are shoved all the way home, cause , some, would NOT want to be misinterpreted.

All speculation, of course.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.4  cobaltblue  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.1    5 years ago
which was cheered by many who harbor hate in their hearts, we are now seeing a rise in right wing domestic terrorism

The WalMart shooter was aiming for hispanics. And then there's this nut:

The attorney for a Montana man accused of   slamming a 13-year-old boy to the ground  for not removing his hat during the national anthem before a rodeo said Wednesday his client believes he was acting on an order from President Donald Trump. The president's "rhetoric" contributed to Curt Brockway's disposition when he allegedly grabbed the boy by the throat and slammed him to the ground at the Mineral County fairgrounds Saturday, 
Jasper said Brockway is a U.S. Army veteran who believes he was acting on an order by the commander in chief. He added that Brockway's decision-making has been affected by a traumatic brain injury he suffered in a vehicle crash in 2000 while he was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington.

"His commander in chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired, or if they burn a flag, they should be punished," Jasper said. "He certainly didn't understand it was a crime."

* * * *

Conduct during the playing of the national anthem has been an issue in recent years, with some NFL players kneeling to protest police brutality. Trump once called for NFL owners to fire players who kneel or engage in other acts of protest during the anthem.

"Trump never necessarily says go hurt somebody, but the message is absolutely clear," Jasper said. "I am certain of the fact that (Brockway) was doing what he believed he was told to do, essentially, by the president. ... Everyone should learn to dial it down a little bit, from the president to Mineral County."

Cite

What Trumplethinskin fails to recognize is that the brave men and women who serve served this country to KEEP this country's citizens free to peacefully protest. They didn't risk their lives, having to leave their families behind, to have their country run by a tyrannical autocrat. The American way is freedom to voice protestations and objections. Trump wants to be a fascist dictator. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @6.2.4    5 years ago
Trump wants to be a fascist dictator. 

That's why Trump so admires Kim and Putin. They run their country with an iron fist, and no one can speak differently or they will be pushing daisies. 

Trump knows he can only have two terms, if he gets re-elected to a second term. And that truly bugs him. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.5    5 years ago

That, and I'm sure that his lawyers have told him that as soon as he leaves the White House, SDNY is waiting.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.7  cobaltblue  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.6    5 years ago
SDNY is waiting.

Lock him up, lock him up, lock him up!

Heyyyy ... what happened to the special prosecutor trumplethinskin was going to appoint to lock up Hillary. You don't think he LIED, do you??

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  cobaltblue @6.2.7    5 years ago

He would never!  He's the most honest president the US has ever had.  Bigly honest.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2.9  Raven Wing  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.6    5 years ago
That, and I'm sure that his lawyers have told him that as soon as he leaves the White House, SDNY is waiting.

Very true. And I would not be at all surprised if Trump did not try to use his Executive Powers to declare himself the Dictator of America when his time in the WH is over so that he won't have to worry about being prosecuted.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2.10  Raven Wing  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.8    5 years ago
He's the most honest president the US has ever had.  Bigly honest.

Yeah....and his reputation says so. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.11  cobaltblue  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.8    5 years ago

What the hell happened to all the infrastructure he promised us? That definitely would put a ton of people to work. He ran his campaign promising a ton of shit he hasn't delivered, but you'd think he'd put infrastructure first on his list. But he panders to his racist base and they don't care about infrastructure. They want a wall that Mexico isn't going to pay for, dammit! Shut down the government and don't hand out paycheck for SIX months instead of two! That'll work! 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
6.2.12  cobaltblue  replied to  Raven Wing @6.2.9    5 years ago
declare himself the Dictator of America

Omigawd, Putin and Kim (remember ... he and Donald "are in love") got so excited for a minute. They translated that to "Dicktaster of America" and since he's taken it in the ass from both of them already, they were sure they could get a another meeting with him for that. Remember ... he never lets the press in when he has these secret talks. Not even Fox.   

Damn language barrier.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  cobaltblue @6.2.11    5 years ago

Same thing that happened to great health care coverage for everybody, on the cheap.

And draining the swamp.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2.14  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @6.2.12    5 years ago
Remember ... he never lets the press in when he has these secret talks. Not even Fox.   

That is because he doesn't have to worry about 'hot mic' slip-ups during their orgies....er....meetings.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7  igknorantzrulz    5 years ago

got things to accomplish,

i'm sure the problem will be resolved when i return

good day posters

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
8  cobaltblue    5 years ago

This is a reminder that shit runs downhill. Shooting gestures will now get you a buttload of attorney's fees . All of us are in some kind of jail because of this mess. If I had kids or grandkids, I'd be scared shitless to send them to school, to let them go see movies, go to a nightclub, or go to church. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
9  cobaltblue    5 years ago

Kids are at risk. Gun violence is so ingrained, they don't realize the seriousness of an M15 threat on a chat line . This is our future. In the video, the mother cries "he's not one of those crazy people". 

A Seabreeze HS student was arrested after in a video game chat:

"I Dalton Barnhart vow to bring my fathers m15 to school and kill 7 people at a minimum"

The name was fake, and the young man responsible for the comment insisted it was a joke
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
10  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

Breaking News.......

The death toll is now up to seven.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11  Ed-NavDoc    5 years ago

While I sincerely feel for the victims and their loved ones, I'm thankful every day that I live in a small rural community of 13,000 on the AZ/Mexico/New Mexico border. Nut cases like the shooter(s) don't bother much with us as it is out of the way and they cannot get the instant media attention they seem to crave. In addition a sizable segment of the residents carry open or concealed, especially those that live outside of town in the surrounding area of Cochise County. I am not naïve enough to say that something could not happen here, but it is probably a lot less likely than is a metropolitan area.  I am a responsible gunowner who believes whole heartedly in strict background checks and no loopholes! Any legal sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm in this country should require a verifiable paper trail whether it be a gun dealer purchase or a sale between private parties.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
11.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11    5 years ago
I am a responsible gunowner who believes whole heartedly in strict background checks and no loopholes! Any legal sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm in this country should require a verifiable paper trail whether it be a gun dealer purchase or a sale between private parties.

You are a responsible gun owner and I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

Do you have any other ideas of how we can deal with mass shootings?  For instance, how can we prevent mentally deranged people from having easy access to AR-15s and AKs?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.2.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2    5 years ago
For instance, how can we prevent mentally deranged people from having easy access to AR-15s and AKs?

therein lies the rub...

most teabags and bible thumpers automatically qualify as being mentally challenged, ie; fucked in the head.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
11.2.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @11.2.1    5 years ago
most teabags and bible thumpers automatically qualify as being mentally challenged, ie; fucked in the head.

Oh....

That must be why the ammosexuals oppose universal comprehensive background checks.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @11.2    5 years ago

Sadly, that is another whole problem in itself. Preventing mentally deranged people form having firearms can only be accomplished when said individual displays some sort of mental aberration that would make them unfit to own one. By that time the damage is usually already done. I think the courts need to pay a lot more attention to those individuals that are convicted of violence of some sort and act if necessary from that part in the way of mandatory counselling or at least temporary confiscation of their firearms. If they have been convicted of any sort of violence, documentation from a licensed mental health provider should be entered into some sort of database. I know this is somewhat basic and simplistic but it might be a start.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.5  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.2.3    5 years ago

Recently, there was a woman in Florida whose estranged husband tried to run her over as they were leaving a court date relating to their divorce.  She knew he had guns in the house, and obviously knew that he had violent intentions toward her, so she entered the house and took his guns, turning them over to police.

And got arrested for it.

That shouldn't happen. 

While he was being booked, the police should have been making sure his guns were not in his possession.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  sandy-2021492 @11.2.5    5 years ago

Oh, and not accessible to him once he was released.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.2.3    5 years ago
I think the courts need to pay a lot more attention to those individuals that are convicted of violence of some sort and act if necessary from that part in the way of mandatory counselling or at least temporary confiscation of their firearms

I thought convicted felons were barred from having firearms?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to    5 years ago

That attitude is part of the problem.

"Don't wait for the police to protect you."

But also:

"We'll arrest you if you try to disarm the guy who just tried to kill you."

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
11.2.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.2.7    5 years ago

They are unless they petition the courts to set aside judgement.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
11.2.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @11.2.11    5 years ago

He was prevented by law from having his guns.  She did the cops' job.  I'll take her side over his any day.  And your point isn't any more valid in all caps.

Trying to run somebody over with a vehicle is much worse in the eyes of any reasonable, moral person than taking property that's illegally owned and handing it over to the police.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
11.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11    5 years ago
I am a responsible gunowner who believes whole heartedly in strict background checks and no loopholes! Any legal sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm in this country should require a verifiable paper trail whether it be a gun dealer purchase or a sale between private parties.

You're beautiful. And smart. We don't necessarily agree on everything, but I respect your ideology here. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
12  Tacos!    5 years ago

Once again in the wake of a tragedy, we see the rush to complain about the state of legislation and regulation. What we don't see is actual analysis of whether or not any of the factors mentioned had any bearing on the event itself. All we get is mindless panic and self-righteous outrage.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13  MrFrost    5 years ago

3rd picture down... How paranoid are these people that they feel the need to carry a gun to get a burger? Paranoid or there is so much crime in their corner of texass they have no choice. Sad. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
13.2  cobaltblue  replied to  MrFrost @13    5 years ago
Paranoid or there is so much crime in their corner of texass they have no choice. Sad. 

I work in Fort Worth [Foat Wuth, properly pronounced] and we had one day of open carry. Every single person carrying their weapons openly in Sundance Square was horrific. They were overwhelming overweight, toothless, with limited hygiene, and how they proudly marched around carrying their weapons around town was disgusting. They all had smirks on their faces, one guy walking down the street (we were behind him) kept leaning over to little kids and saying loudly "BOO!", and they were turned away by shops and restaurants. Children were afraid and crying, the exemplary Sundance Square security people (cops with guns) were obviously pissed off, and those disgusting people making such a willful gleeful display of the one time they could feel superior to anyone, made me feel they were cowardly and bullying at the same time. It was like we were unwilling participants to the Ignorance On Parade.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
13.3  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @13    5 years ago

256

Ladies in Israel exercising their right to be secure in their persons.  God bless these young ladies

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.1  devangelical  replied to  livefreeordie @13.3    5 years ago

jesus_gun_601039.jpg

 
 
 
livefreeordie
Junior Silent
13.3.2  livefreeordie  replied to  devangelical @13.3.1    5 years ago

You appear to have a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.  Jesus NEVER told believers we cannot defend ourselves

Luke 22:35,36

And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”

So they said, “Nothing.”

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.“

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.3  devangelical  replied to  livefreeordie @13.3.2    5 years ago
You appear to have a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible.

save it. jesus was a liberal and a socialist, not some fucking teabag gun nut.

I listen to am radio stations owned by unamerican thumper scum for comic relief. the religious justification for killing those that don't want to be led by the nose towards christo-fascism was a common meme last month. thumpers should keep a cross and nails handy, because when trump goes away, it's hammer time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @13.3.3    5 years ago
jesus was a liberal and a socialist

Prove it.

not some fucking teabag gun nut.

Well, guns weren't invented until the 1300's (A.D.), so there's that.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @13.3.4    5 years ago
Prove it.

I don't need to, I have faith. sound familiar? [deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @13.3.5    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.7  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @13.3.6    5 years ago
How could I pass (trolling) on it?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.3.8  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @13.3.6    5 years ago

[deleted]

Welcome to the world wide web ....

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @13.3.8    5 years ago

Ha Ha Ha!  What devangelical said!  In triplicate!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.10  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @13.3.8    5 years ago
removed for context

I guess flagging it didn't work. maybe a heartfelt follow up email to a conservative mod will get it deleted. sorry, I'm only allowed one FO per 24 hour period here. please be sure to come back tomorrow.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.3.11  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @13.3.10    5 years ago

You got the wrong guy.   I generally don't flag posts.  [Deleted]

I was simply pointing out the clear and present hypocrisy of the situation at hand but no worries.   You got the usual up votes ....

Hate on deva, hate on ......

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.12  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @13.3.5    5 years ago

wtf? I said please.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.13  devangelical  replied to  Sparty On @13.3.11    5 years ago
Hate on deva, hate on ......

it's devangelical to you, and most conservatives make it so easy to do.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.3.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @13.3.13    5 years ago

Especially when they continue to whine....and whine....and whine....

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
13.3.15  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @13.3.13    5 years ago

Touchy, touchy as many liberals these days seem to be ....

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
13.3.16  KDMichigan  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.3.14    5 years ago
Especially when they continue to whine....and whine....and whine...

Do you know the definition of Hypocrisy?

 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.3.17  Trout Giggles  replied to  KDMichigan @13.3.16    5 years ago

What's it gonna take for you to get the message that I don't want to talk to you? I keep putting you on IMPASSE and IGNORE and you still don't get it

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
13.3.18  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @13.3.2    5 years ago

He also said, "Thou shalt not kill". 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.19  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @13.3.18    5 years ago

it's more complicated than that. they think he only meant other xtians, for now. the pressure is building for them to kill muslims before armegeddon so they can take a break prior to jew conversion or extermination. after that thou shalt not kill (other christians) is null and void. then jesus's helpers will decide which other versions of xtianity get to hang out and which get to take dirt naps.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3.20  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.3.14    5 years ago

meh, you wear the boots here. when they show their ass, punt.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
13.3.21  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @13.3.19    5 years ago
then jesus's helpers will decide which other versions of xtianity get to hang out and which get to take dirt naps.

I don't think we're gonna get ruptured.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
14  lady in black    5 years ago

Breaking news:  Shooter was Seth Ator

seth-ator-2.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=780

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  lady in black @14    5 years ago

It figures that a liberal bias media would reveal the shooters identity when the conservative local, state, and federal government agencies and media such as Fox News were refusing to glorify the criminal by revealing his name and photo.  Way to go lamestream MBFC approved media.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
14.1.1  JBB  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.1    5 years ago

Just because Fox News did not want to confirm yet another heinous act of rightwing homegrown white nationalist domestic terrorism...

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
14.1.3  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.1    5 years ago

Why don't you Google his name, that's what I did...many other news sources have identified him, this one had a picture of him.  Boo hoo that they scooped Fox  

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
14.1.5  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.4    5 years ago

He's dead, he doesn't know about notoriety and fame.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
14.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.4    5 years ago
It was a conscious decision by FOX, and a few other outlets to NOT name the lowlife scumbag thug and provide the one thing they all crave....  notoriety and fame.   Remaining nameless is a means to defeat their desire.

Do you think if the shooter were an illegal immigrant, or a disgruntled Islamist, Fox would have held back on naming and picturing him....

FCK NO they wouldn't

TRUMPP would be tweetin like the little Bird he is all over the place

so lets come on back to reality, cause FOX IS NOT the Beacon of Hope and Good Will, just J bagz with an agenda, that's got Trumpp sayin they don't "work for us", or some bS to that extent. Since when did Fox work for Trump...

since when isn't that illegal, as in impropaganda meant to slander

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
14.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.8    5 years ago
Hell no.  And rightly so. An illegal alien invader has no right to be here in the first place.

So it's not really about avoiding notoriety for the shooter at all, then?  It's really about who the shooter is (or isn't).

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
14.1.10  igknorantzrulz  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.8    5 years ago
Try watching FOX and see the truth,

That IS A PARADOXICAL Statement if there ever was one.

I do watch FOX, as i like to see the talking oints i'll be countering with ease, and the disinformation flowing from its source.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
14.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.11    5 years ago

Terrorists are looking for notoriety, too.  In fact, some terrorist groups will claim responsibility for acts they didn't commit.  Why do you propose giving them the notoriety they crave?

Because it's not really about the notoriety.  It's about who they are, and aren't.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
14.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to    5 years ago

This was from the day of the shooting, updated on the following day, with a pic of the shooter contained within the video.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.1.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @14.1.1    5 years ago

What a ridiculous sweeping generalization that whole post was/is. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
14.1.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.6    5 years ago

Not to mention any future copy cats who may try to reproduce the crime for their own infamy and attention.  

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
14.1.17  cobaltblue  replied to  igknorantzrulz @14.1.10    5 years ago
That IS A PARADOXICAL Statement if there ever was one.

Okay. That was funny. And true. And, as noted recently, there's been a change in Fox News. Some have reported the truth and now Trump disavows them. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
14.1.18  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  XDm9mm @14.1.4    5 years ago
It was a conscious decision by FOX, and a few other outlets to NOT name the lowlife scumbag thug and provide the one thing they all crave....  notoriety and fame.

I agree with FOX (and CNN and other news outlets) that mass shooters should not be depicted on the air.

If the image of a perp of a mass shooting is spread all over the news, a possible copycat might be motivated to commit a mass shooting in order to receive the same kind of "publicity".  

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
14.1.19  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  igknorantzrulz @14.1.7    5 years ago
TRUMPP would be tweetin like the little Bird he is all over the place

I think Trump is more of a biggly bird.

512

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
14.1.20  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @14.1.19    5 years ago

Even in his sleep, Big Bird can tweet far more intelligently than Trump.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1.21  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @14.1    5 years ago

the cops that emptied their weapons into that texas teabag terrorist deserve medals. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
14.1.22  devangelical  replied to  Raven Wing @14.1.20    5 years ago

big turd falls well short of being on the same intellectual level of big bird

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
14.1.23  Raven Wing  replied to  devangelical @14.1.22    5 years ago
big turd falls well short of being on the same intellectual level of big bird

Agreed. He wishes he was only half that intelligent. At least that way he might make only 1/8 of the gross number of stupid comments and acts that he makes everyday.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
14.1.24  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @14.1.20    5 years ago
Big Bird can tweet far more intelligently than Trump.

512

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
14.1.25  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @14.1.24    5 years ago

LOL!!!  jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
15  XXJefferson51    5 years ago

Texas police stopped a theater massacre. The man had a criminal record and had that gun in his pickup when he was stopped.  Had he not been stopped, for whatever reason by the Texas police, he would have made it to that theater and then started his attack.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
15.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @15    5 years ago

President Trump also praised Sunday the “incredible job” of law enforcement and first responders.

The gunman opened fire on state troopers after being pulled over in Midland, Texas, for what appeared to be a routine traffic stop for failing to signal, shooting randomly at locals before abandoning his vehicle and hijacking a postal truck on his way to the Cinergy Cinemas.

“Please understand that on a Saturday in Odessa, Texas, that is one of the most crowded places to be,” said Chief Gerke. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/1/seth-aaron-ator-identified-odessa-shooter/

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
16  dave-2693993    5 years ago

Yes, it is another sad day.

If you can think of a solution to the epidemic of mass shootings, please post it in the comments section below.

JMO, we as a nation have a tool available and in place, which we are failing to use properly.

Is it a panacea? 

No. Other areas need addressing too.

But it is a step in the right direction.

I know there is doubt about the effectiveness of preventing mentally disturbed people or those with anger management issues.

Let's face it. To date we haven't been good at stopping those people until after the fact...way worse than a day late and a dollar short.

I am sure most have an understanding of the existence of the NICS database. 

Here is a link to the hhs.gov/hippa site.

It is useful information and reveals some minor improvements in the report of personal information to the NICS database, YET does a "good job" of hiding what is hidden from NICS.

The problem....

We as a nation and states have a conflict between privacy data, which I strongly advocate AND public safety...which I strongly advocate.

Dilemma.

Here it is. Although there are defined fields and values for medical record data in the transaction formats to and from the NICS database and within the database, I do not think there is a single state that allows any significant amounts of that data to transfer.

From a public safety standpoint this is a serious problem.

Then again, for those of us who hate the 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451 et al scenarios, it's a good thing.

Somewhere, here, is where a compromise is needed.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17  cobaltblue    5 years ago
Please stop trolling.

Back atcha' ... 

You realize you started the convo by telling me that I had to prove Raven's point, don't you? I generally don't believe in responding to ridiculousness. Had you not directed a comment to me asking that I link stuff to another member's comment, I wouldn't have spoken to you. If you say that isn't true, then you'd be wrong ... again. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.1  cobaltblue  replied to  cobaltblue @17    5 years ago

This didn't get linked to the proper comment. Oops. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17    5 years ago
You realize you started the convo by telling me that I had to prove Raven's point, don't you?

That statement is false.

Here is my first post to you:

Since Raven has declined to show any stats at all to back up her claims, perhaps you could?

I ASKED, I didn't tell you anything there. 

I generally don't believe in responding to ridiculousness.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Whether you respond to me is your personal choice--one I fully encourage you to make for yourself.

Trolling me won't yield the results you appear to desire.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.1  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2    5 years ago

You directed a comment to me regarding Raven's comment. Why that would be, I don't know. So I answered you. You didn't like the answer, although I was right, so you continued. I am not trolling you. As a matter of fact, I'm an admin in this nation. A nation you're not a member of. So who is trolling whom? You have every right to leave this thread if you're so inclined. If you're not inclined to do so, then that means if you direct comments to someone, and if you get a comment in response, that's responding to your comment. That could hardly be considered trolling. 

If you left this thread, I wouldn't go try to locate you on another thread. I've noted that you often follow people into other articles in order to insinuate yourself into their conversations. That's cool ... it's what you enjoy. But don't turn around, comment to people and call response comments you don't agree with trolling. 

Let's put that to the test. You leave this article, you go to another thread, and let's see if I show up! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.1    5 years ago
You directed a comment to me regarding Raven's comment. Why that would be, I don't know.

Maybe read post 4.2.17 and post 4.2.19 and see if you can figure it out.

read them twice if necessary, or however many times it takes.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.3  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.2    5 years ago
or however many times it takes.

You wrote this. 

Since Raven has declined to show any stats at all to back up her claims, perhaps you could? Please show ANY stats you may have that shows the murder rates now are higher than they were in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's.

Why did you pull me into that? And when I responded, you didn't like the answer. So you called it trolling. I just took the sentence you used as an example. What aren't you getting? You commented to me about another commenter.

And the numbered links you provided were comments I made in a convo with Raven. I wasn't speaking to you. Raven wasn't speaking to you. I don't even seen where I said "Texan." Did Carly Simon write a song about you? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.3    5 years ago
You wrote this.

Yes, I know.

Why did you pull me into that?

Already asked and answered. You could have simply not answered, but you CHOSE not to do that. Kind of late to complain NOW.

And the numbered links you provided were comments I made in a convo with Raven. I wasn't speaking to you. Raven wasn't speaking to you. I don't even seen where I said "Texan."

And you were just referring to some random, unnamed person. That is really, really believable.

Oh, that should be followed with /s.

Did Carly Simon write a song about you?

I don't think so, but next time I see her, I'll ask her if it helps you any!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.5  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.4    5 years ago
You could have simply not answered, but you CHOSE not to do that. Kind of late to complain NOW.

Why wouldn't I have answered? Of course I CHOSE [why the caps?] to answer you. I didn't mind answering you. And because I was righter than you and Raven was righter than you, you got all huffy and accused me of trolling. I had no problem answering you. I'm not complaining about answering you. I'm complaining because you call responding in a way that doesn't agree with you trolling. Jeez louise. 

When you see Carly, let her know she left a sweater at my place last January. I got into a swimming pool when I had my cell phone in the bra portion (accidentally, of course) and I lost most of my contacts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.5    5 years ago

@17.2.5

hey...…...hey...….psst…...HEY!

Wake up!

You're having that dream again where you were more right than me!

WAKE UP!

BTW, did I not say earlier to read those posts twice, or however many times necessary?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2    5 years ago
Trolling me won't yield the results you appear to desire.

Anyone who reads this thread know who the fucking troll is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.7    5 years ago

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.7    5 years ago

jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.10  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.7    5 years ago

Right on!! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.11  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.6    5 years ago
You're having that dream again where you were more right than me!

Oooh! Look behind you ... your insecurity is showing!! Raven and I are righter than you. Denying it doesn't make it untrue. I say we're righter, so we're righter. It's obvious to even the most casual observer. I can also admit when I'm wrong. Can you? 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.12  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.11    5 years ago
I can also admit when I'm wrong.

A case of continuing to argue just for the sake of arguing, and taunting, trying to make him look right. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.13  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.5    5 years ago
I got into a swimming pool when I had my cell phone in the bra portion (accidentally, of course) and I lost most of my contacts

Oh I hate when that happens. jrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.11    5 years ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.15  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.7    5 years ago
Anyone who reads this thread know who the fucking troll is.

512

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.14    5 years ago

Stop cryin, the young ladies made you look, yet again, foolish, U don't really need my opinion, and or enablement

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.17  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.14    5 years ago

Wow. An emoji?? That's it? Yikes ... that kinda response generally connotes weakness. Wow again. But it's nice to see men do that too. Woohoo! Emoji response equality!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.18  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.15    5 years ago

This is how some NT'ers Troll...

320

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Raven Wing @17.2.18    5 years ago

That is pretty funny. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.17    5 years ago
Wow. An emoji??

Oh, thank God you got it!!

I was so afraid that I was going to have to explain THAT, too!

Whew!

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.22  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.21    5 years ago
I was so afraid that I was going to have to explain THAT, too!

Uhhhh ... you've not explained anything to me yet. Is that your MO? Trying to make it appear as if you're smarter than the rest? That's fuckin' HILARIOUS!!! A truly high intellect individual never resorts to such lowbrow attempts. You're telling on yourself it seems. 

Have a nice day. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.22    5 years ago

That is his typical M.O.  Same ole same ole

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.24  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.22    5 years ago
Is that your MO?

Yup! You got it! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
17.2.25  Kavika   replied to    5 years ago

It was announced today that he purchased the weapon in a private sale.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.26  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Kavika @17.2.25    5 years ago
It was announced today that he purchased the weapon in a private sale.

Yep.

See comment #22 (posted at about 4PM).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.22    5 years ago
Uhhhh ... you've not explained anything to me yet

Uhhhh...I did.

Might want to read my posts again.

Or not.

Who cares?

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.28  cobaltblue  replied to  Texan1211 @17.2.27    5 years ago
Who cares?

Obviously you do. You have to have the last word. You have to be right. You HAVE to. That makes me laugh and celebrate. Those are the traits that misogynists have used against women since forever. You've obviously never heard the southern saying "Never miss an opportunity to shut up." Celebrate your so-called "womanly" traits. I do. 

Sorry for the lateness of the response. No internet. Thank you, AT&T. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.29  cobaltblue  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.28    5 years ago

There is a difference between having the last word in an argument in order to clarify one's position or to point out transgressions of another's person's comment and a just-need-to-have-the-last-word-no-matter-how-ridiculous-it-is type of person. To be a different kind of "have to have the last word" person psychologically, however, is very telling. I have often thought the odd insistence of having the last word type of person, which is evident by the inanity of a comment ["I know you are but what am I" type of comments], is an indication of the ultimate insecurity. 

Why Egomaniacs Have To Have The Last Word
This feeling is short-lived as it is only a state of mind, and most people who have any sense of understanding of human psychology knows that people that do this are only doing it because they feel insecure, competitive, hardheaded and lack confidence often in their own intellect or are in need of covering tracks. [Emphasis mine.]
Greek Methodology explains this well. Echo, a mountain nymph, had to have the last word in everything, and it was her undoing. While Echo was beautiful with a musical voice, and people enjoyed hearing her talk, this eventually went to her head. Echo took so much pleasure in having the last word in both arguments and normal conversations, that eventually it became her undoing. As the story goes, she fell in love with Narcissus, and he rejected her. In return she begged him not to. Narcissus broke her heart and Echo wasted away and was doomed to a very sad life. 
A person who has to have the last word is fundamentally flawed. Their flaws are for the world to see. They may be charismatic and draw people in, but if you listen to their conversations and in the modern age, look at their posts on social media, you will see a common thread of egocentricity and a need for supremacy. [Emphasis mine.]
Those who have to have the last word feel uncomfortable when that power is taken away from them and they usually end up fighting or in an argument because this has been taken away from them. They lash out and look for ways to rectify this. 
People with this "disease" usually strive to be the only voice over the people around them. They often never rise to the top in career or business, so they adapt their personal profiles so that they can be seen as "winning" in some area that they feel no-one can compete. 
Their need for respect and to be liked, more so than those around them, usually is their undoing.
If you have to have the last say, think to yourself, "what am I afraid of?" Because ultimately, having the last say, means nothing. [Emphasis mine.]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.30  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.29    5 years ago

You crack me up.

It's always funny to watch a big old black kettle call a pot black.   That darn kettle is rarely self aware enough to see it for what it is but in your case it's different isn't it?   Because it's intentional.   It's clearly a finely honed, dogmatically styled, internet debate technique some of us have seen before.   One wonders what psychological malfunctions are behind all of that.   Likely some very deeply seeded insecurities that rarely see the light of day.   This much is self evident.

Regardless, it's nice to have you back blue.   It is fun to watch you weave your venom laced webs to and fro.   And now you got your backup in management so you are good to go .... just like the good old days ......

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.31  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.30    5 years ago
It is fun to watch you weave your venom laced webs to and fro. 

Oh. I see. Your, and others', don't weave venom laced webs. Puh-leeze! Give me a break, sparty. Jose Feliciano, Stevie Wonder AND Roy Orbison can see your attempting some weak-but-making-an-effort comment. And that, my dear friend, is self-evident. 

Btw, is Gay [not that there's anything wrong with that] Ron W. still your FB group bud? Give him my regards. He's probably out there doxxing some other folks on some other site. Perrie wouldn't let a doxxer see the light of day on NT. 

Good job on admitting Tex is a kettle. Great friend you are. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.32  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.31    5 years ago

Ah see ..... there you go .... zero to a hundred mile an hour attack mode in less than the snap of a finger.   Classic cb and fascinating!

That said you got the wrong guy, (not that there is anything wrong with that) but i've never been on Facebook.

Good job on admitting Tex is a kettle.

Poor thing, still in denial i see .....

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.33  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.32    5 years ago
Poor thing, still in denial i see .. It's always funny to watch a big old black kettle call a pot black

Denial, no. Wrong, yes. You called him the black pot. My bad. 

So you admit Tex has the faults I mentioned since the black pot means they suffer from transgression that the person who calls them on it [the kettle] possesses as well. Funny, that. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.34  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.33    5 years ago
You called him the black pot

Lol, nope but if it helps you sleep at night to think that .... by all means have at her.

Have a nice day cb .... weave on!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.35  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.34    5 years ago

Omigawd. You're not calling him the pot? 

watch a big old black kettle call a pot black

 Refer back to your 17.2.30. Btw, just so's you'll know, the adage correctly is "pot calling the kettle black."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.36  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.34    5 years ago

Chill dude.  Just because we all love Cobalt and you . . . jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif . . . not at all . . . no need to get your panties in a bunch.  

Cobalt doesn't have an iota of venom in her whole body.

You, it's not becoming at all to be so nasty and petty.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.37  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.36    5 years ago

Chill dude.  Just because we all love Cobalt and you . . . . . . not at all . . . no need to get your panties in a bunch

Yes, mafioso does tend to stick together.   This is true ..... but no worries.   I'm so chill i make dry ice look hot.

Cobalt doesn't have an iota of venom in her whole body.

Now that is funny.   Thx for the hardy belly laugh this morning.   You're the best.

You, it's not becoming at all to be so nasty and petty.

Awww you know all i have for my girls is hugs and kisses Tessylo .... why you gotta be that way?

  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.38  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.34    5 years ago

Have a nice day cb .... weave on!

i've bin shot

out of a grand ole cannon, cause i'm off

X

 asked where i'm headed with some of my occasionally ambiguous adventures in amateur acoustic hearings without vacumed glass ceilings , where it appears i have few piers, to support watt is un-herd by men N Woe many 2oo, as i N joy German Sheppard's Sicilian pie, and decide to take out orders

of liters to courts, wear i refuse ta Judge, asz eye C my self moored to the jury and executive executioner than won who loses buy laugh deter till they begin to snort.

2 liter Coke , baked till soda, ware i learned in a warehouse, that it's knot always what it's cracked up to be, sew i left, exit, staged due to bean right, and was asked where i beheaded?

i replied, i'm headed to Hell in a handbasket, i plan on weaving along the weigh, and i hope i don't get pulled over for weavin

as eye don't have time to wait for the waitress to bring my Bill she took out back and called John the Polite Police office her daddy, cause i scalp tickets, not except them

Weave on mutha fruckers            Weave on...

cause i'm going to HELL in a handbasket i'm gonna weave along the way, hope i don' get pulled over for playin Chicken, or a Russian Rushing to the clammy Casino Banna Royale,   Republic

our country has become,       too soon...

too play roulette go my Lego

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.39  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.38    5 years ago

I out ... gonna mombo jombo my dogface down to the banana patch .... mepps ..... rumpelstiltskin ...... aloe vera ....

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.40  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.37    5 years ago
mafioso does tend to stick together.

Oh jeez, sparty. Be real. I get flagged, in ButtHeads and Sinners, by right-leaners who not only are not members of the nation, but not even on the thread! They come out of nowhere, no comment from them in sight anywhere in the article/seed/thread, to flag me. Talk about mafioso sticking together. But, truth be told, I enjoy the fuck out of that. It makes me laugh hard every time. I love to laugh, sparty. But you know that well. You've made me laugh tons in the past, in a good way too. Something meant to be funny and not rancorous. You can be so good at that and I've appreciated that about you in the past. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.41  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.37    5 years ago
Removed for context

Thanks for the deleted "skirting" comment. The point always stays made. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.42  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.40    5 years ago
I get flagged, in ButtHeads and Sinners, by right-leaners

Not by me you didn't.  

You see, i realize that only thing i really have (or need to have) control over in here is me and prefer to leave things as they are most of the time, for all to see.  

More better to know the real poster my dear don't you think?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.43  author  al Jizzerror  replied to    5 years ago
So much for background checks. It appears where there's a will, a determined killer will find a way. From a story on MSN

Yeah, that why we nee UNIVERSAL compressive background checks.  The shooter exploited a loophole in existing background checks.  It was a person to person sale.  We need an easy to use  online background check (like e-verify) and require everyone to use it when selling a gun.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Participates
17.2.44  1stwarrior  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.40    5 years ago

Sorry Cobalt - we don't have "nations" on NT.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.45  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.43    5 years ago
We need an easy to use  online background check (like e-verify) and require everyone to use it when selling a gun.

That might work for most gun sales, but, those who are selling weapons of all makes and sizes out the trunk of their car or truck, with a stolen license plate, are not going to use such a thing use to the clandestine nature of their business operation. Those who can't make a legitimate purchase due to some circumstance are going to seek out such a 'business' to buy their weapons from. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.46  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.29    5 years ago
There is a difference between having the last word in an argument in order to clarify one's position or to point out transgressions of another's person's comment and a just-need-to-have-the-last-word-no-matter-how-ridiculous-it-is type of person.

Sometimes those who desire the fucking last word are just shooting blanks.

512

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.47  cobaltblue  replied to  1stwarrior @17.2.44    5 years ago
we don't have "nations" on NT.

Oh. Okay. Groups. They're not members of the Group. Sheesh. Not even sparty cared about the misnomer. 

My bad. Group. Not Nation. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.48  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.46    5 years ago
Sometimes those who desire the fucking last word are just shooting blanks.

You're right. It applies to some more than others. It often reflect that same nature in their personal lives. They feel totally impotent at home and in business so having the last word makes them feel something somewhere. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.49  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.47    5 years ago
we don't have "nations" on NT.

Just a Friendly reminder from our local site police. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.50  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.46    5 years ago
Sometimes those who desire the fucking last word are just shooting blanks

320

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.51  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Raven Wing @17.2.45    5 years ago
Those who can't make a legitimate purchase due to some circumstance are going to seek out such a 'business' to buy their weapons from.

That's the problem.  We should make every gun sale without a background check a felony.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.52  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  1stwarrior @17.2.44    5 years ago
Sorry Cobalt - we don't have "nations" on NT.

That's okay.

Cobalt is an internationally recognized beautiful gem.

800

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
17.2.53  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.43    5 years ago
Yeah, that why we nee UNIVERSAL compressive background checks.  The shooter exploited a loophole in existing background checks.  It was a person to person sale.  We need an easy to use  online background check (like e-verify) and require everyone to use it when selling a gun.

al,

The only reason we have background checks for gun dealers is because they are engaged in interstate commerce; therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution allows the Federal government to make such rules.....for dealers and only for dealers.  Individual sales within a State are not covered under that clause and, thus it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to regulate them.  Requiring individuals to run background checks themselves on intrastate purchases or to purchase guns only through dealers and setting up a national registry for all firearms to enforce it would be shot down by the Supreme Court very quickly.  The Federal government has no such jurisdiction.  Any such thing as you want to have done would have to be done on a State by State basis.  Good luck with that.  If you think it's hard getting the US Congress and the President to agree, just try to do it with State legislatures 50 different times.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.54  cobaltblue  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.42    5 years ago
More better to know the real poster my dear don't you think?

Absolutely! That was the definite premise on the other site. We totally believe that all comments should stay for all to see. It's our best weapon. I even voted that up, sparty. I have never flagged anyone on this site or complained to the mods on the other site. Never. Ever. I never will. To me, it's like tattling so someone else could fight for me because I couldn't. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.55  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.51    5 years ago
We should make every gun sale without a background check a felony.

You're right, but each state has a civil liability law. It would make the victims' families able to sue the private seller of the gun because of the seller's liability. In the Odessa case, the guy had a criminal record. The seller should have, and could have, done some research on the guy. Even if it meant just talking to the neighbors. He was a dangerous nut, and everyone who lived around him knew it. See, these nuts are totally ruining it for average gun owners and sellers. Now everyone has to be extra cautious or you'll be taking money out of the bank to pay for damages. 

But as one wise NTer here mentioned, mental illness is not the main cause of mass shootings. As he/she also mentioned, other countries have mentally ill citizens and they do not have mass shootings. 

Civil Liability.

Under the Law of Torts, the general rule is that you are not responsible for the criminal or negligent activities of another person unless you knew or should have known of their intent. That means that the default is you can assume that a buyer's intent is lawful. However, if a seller is sued by an injured person alleging that the seller knew or should have known that the buyer would likely use the firearm sold to cause the injury, then the question will likely come before a jury to decide. In addition to having to pay an attorney to defend him, the seller could also have a stiff award against him or her and in favor of the plaintiff.

Thus, a prudent seller will be cautious when selling firearms. There are ways to make the process safer.

Cite .

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.56  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.30    5 years ago
It's always funny to watch a big old black kettle call a pot black.

You called Cobalt "a big old black kettle".

Actually, Cobalt is rare precious gem.

512

The unique Cobalt Blue Spinel from the legendary Luc Yen mine in Vietnam. 

Why is the Cobalt Blue Spinel so desirable and hunted for by Gem Connoisseurs? It is all about its extremely limited production, size range and availability, and its otherworldly natural untreated color above all. 

The karst mountains of  An   Phú , near Luc Yen in Vietnam, is the world's only source of that very neon tone, the most coveted of all gem blues. The amount of this  intoxicating treasure is so tiny, that a decent clean gem of even half a carat is quite a rarity. Everything one carat up immediately becomes the target of the most seasoned gem collectors. 

Ever since its discovery in the early 2000’s, the cobalt blue spinel has been unrivaled. Indisputably, it is  the   cult   gem .
 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.57  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.51    5 years ago
We should make every gun sale without a background check a felony.

That would work only if those who run the 'business' that way can be caught. But, that is very unlikely with the limited law enforcement in most cities, their ability to constantly relocate, and the silence involved with such transactions.  And even if someone were to be caught with an illegally purchased weapon they are going to squeal on the seller(s). Just like the endless mobile drug dealers. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
17.2.58  TTGA  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.51    5 years ago
That's the problem.  We should make every gun sale without a background check a felony.

That would require that the Federal government actually have jurisdiction over intrastate sales of guns or anything else.  It doesn't. 

Besides which, what Raven described in 17.2.45 is already illegal.  Someone operating as a gun dealer out of the trunk of their car (or the equivalent out of their basement) is in violation of State business licensing laws and of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which defines when someone becomes a de facto gun dealer and must be licensed.  Unlike an individual who sells one or two guns intrastate without checking backgrounds, someone who does it on a large scale with anyone who comes along, or sells to someone they know to be ineligible to purchase one themselves is defined as a straw purchaser. That is already a Federal felony, and is very seldom enforced, mostly because ATF and FBI figure that they have bigger problems for their available manpower to deal with.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.59  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.52    5 years ago
Cobalt is an internationally recognized beautiful gem.

It's also the 27th element of the Periodic Table. Atomic number 27 has a nice ring to it. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.60  cobaltblue  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.54    5 years ago
I have never flagged anyone on this site or complained to the mods on the other site. Never. Ever.

I'm wrong. I went to the mods after Gay Ron W. and his hag NJPerson doxxed me (and others) and despite a nice email to NJHag to remove it, and of course she ignored it. The article wherein my personal information was divulged was finally collapsed. 

That was the one time I went to the mods. It was necessary because she and her friends doxxed my first name, maiden name and married name. Those people were sincerely pissed off because I (obviously) am smarter than they were. Because I'm smart enough not to be intimidated by anyone enough to publish anything personal about a person. That's the act of someone desperate. Really desperate. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.61  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.56    5 years ago
Actually, Cobalt is rare precious gem.

Awww. Our cyber marriage never grows cold. I love you. 

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
17.2.62  TTGA  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.55    5 years ago
each state has a civil liability law. It would make the victims' families able to sue the private seller of the gun because of the seller's liability.

Cobalt, if the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Rangers) and the FBI can't find a guy selling guns out of the back of his car, what makes you think that a victim's family can do so?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.63  Sparty On  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.54    5 years ago

I can't say "never" but it is pretty rare.   Place and time for everything my Grandpappy used to say ..... and that other site turned into more or less nothing but a shitshow.   I wouldn't bill it as a very righteous platform but YMMV.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.64  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.56    5 years ago

My gemstone is much harder ...... MUCH harder and allegedly a girls best friend as well.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
17.2.65  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.60    5 years ago

I would like to clarify something. CB sorry that that happened to you on NV. That would never happen to you here, I promise.

Doxing is a serious offense. It would be removed anywhere on this site, since we take privacy very seriously. 

The only time a reg mod gets involved in a group is when there is an outright CoC or skirt violation that is not being handled in a timely fashion. No one deserves to be insulted personally. Otherwise, we try to stay out of  group business. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.66  cobaltblue  replied to  TTGA @17.2.62    5 years ago
Cobalt, if the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Rangers) and the FBI can't find a guy selling guns out of the back of his car, what makes you think that a victim's family can do so?

Maybe not. But if one family takes measures, then we're one up. We can't give up so easily. You don't know if any freak of nature tells his friend where he got it. AND if you look up when it was first registered and to whom, they can trace ownership. Again, we probably cannot catch them all, but we certainly can catch some. Don't you agree? 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.67  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.61    5 years ago
Our cyber marriage never grows cold .

That's because you're smoking hot.  I love you too.

512

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.68  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.39    5 years ago

Just a note,

not is all as it appears in what you and others consider "mombo jombo".

Just because it slips through your "aloe vera" slickend hands, does not mean, on average, there wasn't far more to grasp.

.

You enjoy your day now, 

and i speak, to all of you fine posters, of course.

It's just, my writing is wrong for some, and that does not make anyone dumb.

Founded on and upon my own misunderstanding of myself uneducated education process, doesn't ness a Sarah Lee  mean i can't stand under or by my misunderstood correspondence stated and meant, via statements,

obviously not meant for all, as factors don't always add up for a some,  cause variables, irregardless of inconsistentseas, will always be my floating constant, and the proof is in the pudding,

filling within my cake, disguised as pie, eyed from afar too close a vantage point, that disses skys, till sunshines no more,

till people, decide there is more to know ,

than just variables that could be A and B, as sometimes

Know body doesn't like  or C,

Sarah Lee            or     Me !

.

too bad, i'm not here for ewes, i'm here for ME,

and the shear power of Will, till it's pulled over my 

knit picked hat tricked out eyes disgusted and disguised by disscussions eye couldn't C me initiating , for weavin with a hat knit from ewes, pulled over my eyes that no longer differentiate wool from slippery cotton pickin hands from overseas, 

till     A to ZZ's  comes to Top of my Mind

4

"Arrested for Driving While Blind"

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.69  cobaltblue  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.65    5 years ago
The only time a reg mod gets involved in a group is when there is an outright CoC or skirt violation that is not being handled in a timely fashion.

Thank you for the doxxing information. I know for a fact you wouldn't stand for that for a minute.

As far as Tessy's skirt violation [Removed - 17.2.36], it was deleted within an hour. Can you explain timely? And frankly, there have been worse "violations" than 'having panties in a bunch.' I wouldn't have deleted that even though I'm a moderator in this nation. But you know how I feel about people having the right to voice themselves. I wouldn't even care if someone called me the "c" word because I firmly believe it says more about the person throwing out the utterance than it does for its intended victim. 

I know sparty didn't flag it. He's not the sensitive sort and sometimes very reasonable. If someone doesn't flag it, can someone come up within the hour and delete it if the person to whom it's directed not complained or taken offense by it? I get so confused by that. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.70  cobaltblue  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.68    5 years ago
Sarah Lee            or     Me

I like Sarah Lee well enough, but I love you, rulz. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.71  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.64    5 years ago
My gemstone is much harder ...... MUCH harder

You might want to consider using a little less Viagra.

512

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.72  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.68    5 years ago

The banana patch is fine ....... brook trout ...... jet stream ...... ollie ollie oxen free ....

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.73  cobaltblue  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.65    5 years ago
Otherwise, we try to stay out of  group business.

Thank you, Perrie. I've thought you were awesome before I even knew who you were when I visited this site. And the more I get to know you, I more I love you. I'm grateful you're interested in letting the groups moderate themselves. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
17.2.74  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.69    5 years ago

Timely is dependent on time of day and level of activity. If an insult is up when the site is busy, then the longer is stays up the more people will see it, so damage done. When it's less busy, say late at night, timely gets longer, since there are fewer people on. 

We have two very busy groups, this one and Vics. Lots of stuff gets passed by our board from these groups and we try not to get involved. In fact, the whole purpose of designing the groups was for the reg mods to do less work. I wouldn't worry that this will become a regular thing, but we had too many flags on that one. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.75  Raven Wing  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.68    5 years ago

I don't see a problem with your posts. In fact, your posts often make more sense than some of those who think they are so very wordy astute. And I am not even a texter. Maybe being a person who is used to dealing with people of various languages and their sometimes not so astute English, I am not as limited to trying to converse in perfect 'Inquish".  jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.76  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.71    5 years ago

No need ... yet ....

I have tried Nugenix though but only because the Big Hurt said it would help with my work outs .... jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
17.2.77  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.74    5 years ago

I've assigned moderator duty to a few members of S & B because I can't be here 24/7.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.78  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Raven Wing @17.2.75    5 years ago
Inquish

very inquisitive on your part

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
17.2.79  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @17.2.75    5 years ago

Iggy is a poet

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.80  Raven Wing  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.66    5 years ago
AND if you look up when it was first registered and to whom

Most often those who sell weapons out of their cars or trucks either get them from out of the country, or wipe off the serial or other such identification, so that even if they are found they cannot be traced. Also, most of those who buy those types of weapons do not register them or get a permit. 

This makes it very hard for law enforcement to nail down these types of transactions and those who make them.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.81  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.76    5 years ago

I have tried Nugenix though but only because the Big Hurt said it would help my work outs ....

He said the ladies would like some "Big Hurt" too...

or didn't mind it. Great Commercial though,  i guess ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.82  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @17.2.79    5 years ago

Iggy is a poet

if only there were justice

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
17.2.83  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.73    5 years ago

jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.84  cobaltblue  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.65    5 years ago
It would be removed anywhere on this site, since we take privacy very seriously. 

See my 17.2.31:  "Perrie wouldn't let a doxxer see the light of day on NT."

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.85  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.76    5 years ago
I have tried Nugenix

No shit.  Did it work?

800

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
17.2.86  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @17.2.77    5 years ago

That's fantastic! That is exactly what we want! 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.87  cobaltblue  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.74    5 years ago
but we had too many flags on that one. 

Flags on 'panties in a bunch'? How many flags were on that? And I would hope they would be from others who never utter a single innocuous perceived insult. Within the hour?? I get more confused on this one as time goes by.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.88  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.74    5 years ago
If an insult is up

I find it amusing when someone insults me.

Please don't remove those insults because I enjoy responding to them, and if the insult is deleted, my reply has no context.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.89  Raven Wing  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.78    5 years ago
very inquisitive on your part

One of my precious clients was from Thailand and didn't speak much English. But, he tried his best to be a good newcomer to America and learn the language. And no matter how many times he came to my office we would always warn me that, "Im no speech goots Inquish". And I would also warn him that, "I don't speak very good English either." And then we laughed.

I figure it this way......if someone really wants to converse with someone they make a concerted effort to try to understand what they are saying. If there is something they don't fully understand, then there is no harm in asking them to explain. 

I speak English and sometimes I don't make myself well understood. Nothing new there. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.90  Raven Wing  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.82    5 years ago
Iggy is a poet

That he is!! 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.91  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.37    5 years ago

You flatter yourself.

I guess someone has to.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.2.92  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @17.2.74    5 years ago
I wouldn't worry that this will become a regular thing, but we had too many flags on that one. 

Does the mere number of flags determine if a comment gets removed?   I know what Tessy said, and it was not that bad. In fact there any number of comments on this very thread that are as bad or worse. We have a lot of people here who snark or troll regularly and never get deleted. I have had well over 200 comments deleted this year by you and the other moderators. Are you telling me that they get deleted based on how many people complain about it? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.93  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.91    5 years ago

No i won't get a room and fool around with you Tessylo ..... i'm already spoken for so stop it!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.94  Tessylo  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.87    5 years ago
'but we had too many flags on that one.'

'Flags on 'panties in a bunch'? How many flags were on that? And I would hope they would be from others who never utter a single innocuous perceived insult. Within the hour?? I get more confused on this one as time goes by.'

Of course!  I have a fan club here.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.95  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.85    5 years ago

I had a great work out and she liked it too.

Great advertising Frank Thomas ..... you're the best!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.96  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.93    5 years ago

Cold day in hell sparty, cold day in hell.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.97  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @17.2.92    5 years ago
'Does the mere number of flags determine if a comment gets removed?   I know what Tessy said, and it was not that bad. In fact there any number of comments on this very thread that are as bad or worse. We have a lot of people here who snark or troll regularly and never get deleted. I have had well over 200 comments deleted this year by you and the other moderators. Are you telling me that they get deleted based on how many people complain about it?'
I get trolled constantly and they are rarely removed.  But let someone get their panties in a bunch and mine is deleted practically immediately.
I don't know why I bother most of the time.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
17.2.98  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @17.2.77    5 years ago
I've assigned moderator duty to a few members of S & B because I can't be here 24/7.

I don't have a Group Moderator on my own group as it is not that busy most times. However, I am the Group Admin and Group Moderator on two groups here on NT, and that keeps me busy. Thankfully, my own group and the two I am Group Mod on do not get the kind of comments and posts that require flagging or comments that are CoC or ToS violations. But, I am there to help with the site and the Members when and where needed when the primary owners are unable to be online. 

For your group, indeed at least one Group Mod is really going to help, both the Members and you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.99  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.96    5 years ago

Please stop flirting with me .... really!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
17.2.100  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @17.2.98    5 years ago

I knew this place would get some action so I looked at my members and pointed the moderator wand at some of them and POOF!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.101  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.99    5 years ago

Big Hurt ?

or Tess

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.102  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.37    5 years ago
mafioso does tend to stick together.

Be careful or you might end up in the program.

512

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.103  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.101    5 years ago

Is Frank Thomas on this seed?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.104  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.103    5 years ago

This is an "article", not a "seed".

You brought up Frank Thomas on this thread when you endorsed Nugenix.

I have tried Nugenix though but only because the Big Hurt said it would help with my work outs ....

I'm glad Nugenix helped you out with your little problem.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.105  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.102    5 years ago

Don't worry, i'm full of Wits.   In fact, i grew up on a Wit farm and Wit farming was good in those days.   Right next to old man Browns Sticky Wicket farm and the Smith Widget factory.

It was like peas and carrots in our little neck of the woods.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.106  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.103    5 years ago

Is Frank Thomas on this seed?

23 and me    wood knot no wear his seed B

but, on a gun seed , Frank The Big Hurt Thomas, seems a tad 

Freudian, know ?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.107  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.104    5 years ago
This is an "article", not a "seed".

Much appreciated .... nice to have the NT "protocol police" around to keep things straight around this joint.

You brought up Frank Thomas on this thread when you endorsed Nugenix.

Is that what i did?   Endorse Nugenix?   Interesting interpretation.

I'm glad Nugenix helped you out with your little problem.

The Good humor man called .... he said you should try to get one.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.108  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.105    5 years ago
i'm full of Wits.

My bad.

I thought you were about half full.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.109  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.108    5 years ago

Then perhaps you aren't as full of them as you appear to think.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.2.110  Tessylo  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.104    5 years ago
'I'm glad Nugenix helped you out with your little problem.'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
17.2.111  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @17.2.105    5 years ago

Sparty, we rarely agree on politix and $hit,

but

at least you have a sense of humor, and i can appreciate that, cause far too many on the right,

don't

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.112  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @17.2.96    5 years ago

And please stop sending me private love letters.

I mean .... this is getting ridiculous.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
17.2.113  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @17.2.111    5 years ago

Right back at ya.

Too many on left are in the same boat as well.

I'm feeling the warm and fuzzies right now from my interactions here .....

Sadly some folks are just perpetually pissed off at the world no matter what.

I will never be one of those.   I made my mind up to that long long ago.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
17.2.114  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Trout Giggles @17.2.100    5 years ago
I knew this place would get some action

SiNNERS and ButtHeads always get lots of action.

Are you busy tonight?

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
17.2.115  Trout Giggles  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.114    5 years ago

Kinda. I'm in the middle of a Law and Order Marathon

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.116  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @17.2.114    5 years ago
I'm trying to learn how not to turn everything into a sexual innuendo.

Good luck on that. It's been proven that 69% of the population see something sexual in every sentence.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
17.2.117  MrFrost  replied to  cobaltblue @17.2.116    5 years ago
69

Giggity. 

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
17.2.118  cobaltblue  replied to  TTGA @17.2.62    5 years ago
Cobalt, if the Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas Rangers) and the FBI can't find a guy selling guns out of the back of his car, what makes you think that a victim's family can do so?

Well, in this case, it can happen:

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Participates
18  Paula Bartholomew    5 years ago

"Our thoughts and prayers go out

Yawn!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19  Citizen Kane-473667    5 years ago
643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million

Time for a little math lesson:

350000000/643000=$ 544.32 average price paid for each gun.  Not bad. Unfortunately that isn't nearly the current market value of most semi-automatics--not even handguns! But just for shits and giggles, let's go with that figure for the next part:

357,000,000 x544,32=$19,432,224,000

There ya go!  19 1/2 billion dollars for a gun buyback program at 1996 prices...

Okay, so that idea is for shit!

Let's go with Legislation instead!

  • Make mass murdering illegal.  Oh wait, MURDER is already illegal. Damn it!
  • Outlaw mentally ill people from buying guns!  DAMN !  That's already illegal too.
  • Require background checks for firearm purchases.  FUCK !  Most murders are committed by criminals and the mass murders are being committed mainly by people who would/have passed background checks.
  • Ban assault rifles. Sonovabitch ! Assault rifles are already banned without special licensing, and all these so called " assault " rifles being used are just scary looking semi-auto rifles you can buy with woodgrain finishes instead of black paint that will do exactly the same thing!
  • Require smart locks on guns. That's fine except that they don't always work. Not to mention that anyone determined to commit mass murder isn't going to let a bio-metric lock stop them...especially if they already bought it legally--like most mass shooters have. Dammit !

Alright, so all those ideas are for shit too.  What can we do???

You asked for suggestions on what might stop this trend; here goes:

  1. Stop reporting them!  These people are trying to "go out in a blaze of glory". Stop giving it to them
  2. Require a gun safety and marksmanship course before issuing a lifetime gun ownership license. This course and license must be free of charge so it doesn't run afoul of the Second Amendment.  Matter of fact, let's make it a mandatory course taught in all middle schools with a followup test before graduating high school.
  3. Do away with all concealed carry bans on non-felons. Let the "good guys" carry anywhere they want. More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.
  4. Ban anyone who is under the influence of any medication that is prescribed for severe depression from purchasing a gun until they can prove they no longer suffer from severe depressive episodes.
  5. Last, but not least, revise our laws so that it is no longer necessary for a person to actually be physically assaulted before they can defend themselves. No, I'm not advocating a "shoot first, ask questions later" atmosphere here. What I am saying is that if someone is threatening you or you feel threatened, it should NOT be illegal to show them you are armed and ready to defend your life or property. You should be well within your rights to point a gun at them and tell them to leave without going to jail for it!

A well armed Society, is a polite Society...

Just my two cents...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1  Tessylo  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19    5 years ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.1.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tessylo @19.1    5 years ago

How about instead of trolling you offer up something better?  I know this will require some actual thought and fact searching, but if I can do it, so can you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.1.2    5 years ago

I'll let you know when you've offered actual thought and fact searching.  

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.1.4  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.3    5 years ago
I'll let you know when you've offered actual thought and fact searching.

Please define what you call a "fact". Obviously statistics do not count so where should I look for "facts" for you?  I ask because you never accept actual facts being presented so I want to know your sources of information that you trust to deliver your facts to you. HuffPo? CNN? MSNBC? The Onion?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
19.1.5  KDMichigan  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.1.2    5 years ago
How about instead of trolling you offer up something better?

You must be new here.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.1.6  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  KDMichigan @19.1.5    5 years ago
You must be new here.

LoL! Hardly. Very familiar with Tessylo.  I have no fear of learning any new facts from her that could change my mind on anything remotely close to reality.

Well, maybe her sources for her "facts" and opinions might be informative...

I do love comedy!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
19.2  Snuffy  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19    5 years ago
You asked for suggestions on what might stop this trend; here goes:
  1. Stop reporting them!  These people are trying to "go out in a blaze of glory". Stop giving it to them
  2. Require a gun safety and marksmanship course before issuing a lifetime gun ownership license. This course and license must be free of charge so it doesn't run afoul of the Second Amendment.  Matter of fact, let's make it a mandatory course taught in all middle schools with a followup test before graduating high school.
  3. Do away with all concealed carry bans on non-felons. Let the "good guys" carry anywhere they want. More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.
  4. Ban anyone who is under the influence of any medication that is prescribed for severe depression from purchasing a gun until they can prove they no longer suffer from severe depressive episodes.
  5. Last, but not least, revise our laws so that it is no longer necessary for a person to actually be physically assaulted before they can defend themselves. No, I'm not advocating a "shoot first, ask questions later" atmosphere here. What I am saying is that if someone is threatening you or you feel threatened, it should NOT be illegal to show them you are armed and ready to defend your life or property. You should be well within your rights to point a gun at them and tell them to leave without going to jail for it!

All good ideas IMO. I've been an advocate of #2 for years. I believe that gun safety should be taught each year of primary and secondary schooling as part of a life lesson class as too many of our children are coming out not ready for real life. And I would expand on #3 to allow for consistent carry laws across all 50 states, or at least the 48 contiguous states.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
19.2.1  TTGA  replied to  Snuffy @19.2    5 years ago
Require a gun safety and marksmanship course before issuing a lifetime gun ownership license. This course and license must be free of charge so it doesn't run afoul of the Second Amendment.  Matter of fact, let's make it a mandatory course taught in all middle schools with a followup test before graduating high school.

Yep, I've been advocating the same for years too; not as a condition for owning a gun but as a condition for graduating from high school.  Some school districts already require passing a basic first aid class in order to graduate.  This could be added.  Usually, the Red Cross gives the schools a special rate for running the classes.  I would bet that the (oh so scaaary) NRA would do the same.

I'm not thrilled about the idea of licensing gun owners.  As with gun registration lists, owner lists are also too much like what a totalitarian dictatorship would do, and we certainly don't need any government "Masters" telling us slaves to sit quietly and sing spirituals.  As Ronald Reagan once said, "Government is not the solution to our problems; government IS the problem".

A couple of years back, I encountered a quotation that makes complete sense.  While it was attributed to Jefferson, the word choice makes me doubt that he actually said it.  It does reflect his attitude, though.

"The remedy for evil men is not the abrogation of the rights of law abiding citizens. The remedy for evil men is the gallows." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.2.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TTGA @19.2.1    5 years ago
I'm not thrilled about the idea of licensing gun owners

Think of it this way, instead of an actual license, what happens if you do not take and pass the courses, your name goes on a Restricted Access list until you do so. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they included the words"well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment. At that time, it wasn't about being militarily trained, but about being proficient in the handling and care of firearms. We would just be making sure that everyone would not only know how to use a gun if they need to, but also learn that this is not a video game. You don't re-spawn and continue to play on. A gun is a tool and as such, it means that people who wish to own this tool should know how to use it. Too many idiots out there are handling them improperly.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.2.5  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  XDm9mm @19.2.4    5 years ago
Unfortunately, that creates a national registry database.

Yes, it would. A list of people who have NOT taken and passed gun safety and marksmanship course. Once you have, your name comes off the list. You know what else this does? It means you are able to buy a gun--or not buy one--and no one knows whether or not you have...or what kind you bought. Now I don't agree with forced registration of firearms, but I do think every gun owner should keep a record of their firearms serial numbers in case one is ever stolen.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.2.7  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  XDm9mm @19.2.6    5 years ago

You mean a List like we have for Birth Certificates, drivers licenses, or Social Security #'s???  I wasn't planning on asking the Left's permission--or the Right's for that matter. Just like your Right to vote isn't activated until you actually register to vote, the same can be done by registering as a trained gun handler.

There may be a way for us to come to agreement on the gun owner registration database, but I don't trust having to depend on court orders (FISA anyone) to prevent abuse.

Maybe a viable alternative would be a "title" to the weapon, whether digital or paper copy, which must be transferred the way we do car titles???? A hard card like a drivers license that doesn't include the owners name. merely the weapons serial number. As long as you have the card, the weapon is yours. If it gets lost or stolen, you surrender the card and don't get it back unless the weapon is recovered and returned to you. This would be the one and only time your name wold be associated with the weapon in a government operated database.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
19.2.8  TTGA  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.2.2    5 years ago
Think of it this way, instead of an actual license, what happens if you do not take and pass the courses, your name goes on a Restricted Access list until you do so.

CK, you've forgotten what Mr. Reagan said, "Government IS the problem".  By giving the government the power to decide who should be allowed to own firearms, and what you've just described is simply another way of doing that, or even allowing the government to possess a list of who is armed and with what, you have placed the fox in charge of the hen house. 

That's why I used the words that I did.  I did not state that people should have to pass a safety and proficiency course to own a firearm.  That would simply create a nationwide list of firearm owners.  I stated that people should be required to pass such a course in order to graduate from high school.  That means that everyone who is at least partially educated would have taken that course, whether or not they ever choose to own a firearm.  Those ownership lists are just too damn convenient for a despot.

I think I see what the real problem is with your idea.  When setting it up, you have made the mistake of confusing government apparatchiks and professional politicians for actual human beings who should be trusted with power, or maybe for human beings at all.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.2.9  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  TTGA @19.2.8    5 years ago
By giving the government the power to decide who should be allowed to own firearms

We already have. Felons aren't allowed to own firearms even if their felony is a result of being something as vicious as a tax cheat. Mentally ill are banned from owning guns as well. Just a couple of chips at that Right.  Kind of like the whole Freedom of Speech started out being chipped at by yelling "Fire" in a theater, and now you can be jailed for "Hate Speech", or "Terroristic, Threats", or even saying the government is corrupt and needs to be overthrown.

should be required to pass such a course in order to graduate from high school

I agree, but you would never get it past the Conscientious Objectors, the Religious Objectors, or even The Libertarians for that matter. We could no more force a person to take firearm training than we could stop someone from learning how to handle one.

Those ownership lists

I agree which is why I suggested that the only list would be of those who HAVE NOT taken the courses, and doing away with registration requirements via the Gun Title document.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
19.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19    5 years ago
Do away with all concealed carry bans on non-felons. Let the "good guys" carry anywhere they want. More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.

Based on what?  The self described exploits of someone who wants credit for stopping a crime?  

The vast majority of reports of a gun owner preventing a crime are based entirely on the word and perceptions of the gun owner. I've seen cases where someone claims they stopped a crime in a parking lot just by being there with a gun, even though they never took it out of their pocket.  Please. 

What you want to do is put more guns, many more guns into the mix. We have 300 million guns out there now and we still have a high crime rate relative to much of the rest of the advanced nations. And you think more guns is the answer.  Most serious crimes are committed with no advance warning at all. Most of the time you wouldn't get a chance to pull your gun unless the criminal himself was unarmed. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.3.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  JohnRussell @19.3    5 years ago
Based on what?

FBI statistics.

We have 300 million guns out there now

In only 43% of the households in the U.S. and of these gun-owning households, only 26% carry all the time. That puts us around 11% of those gun owners actually carrying at any given time. I'll let you figure out what that translates to in actual numbers.

Most serious crimes are committed with no advance warning at all.

I would be interested in seeing your data on that. I find it hard to believe that most crime is being committed by people sneaking up behind people or there was no indication that something suspicious was about to happen before it occurred.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.3.1    5 years ago
FBI statistics.

Link? 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.3.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @19.3.2    5 years ago

Here is one for starters since Googling is not for everyone. Here is another just because I don't want to keep going back to this topic . Now just a reminder for the disbelievers ...I'm going to ask you how many times you HAVEN'T reported someone for something illegal that you resolved yourself??? I have prevented a crime with a handgun that I showed without firing on 3 occasions. I did not call the police to report the attempted crimes simply because I couldn't give them anything that would help catch the perpetrator, I had no evidence that a crime was about to happen, and in all honesty, the cops would have been more interested in me and the gun than in catching the thwarted criminal. I mean face it people, we have laws that say that a Rolling Roadblock is illegal , but how may people are actually going to admit that they were trying to speed and some asshole was stopping them by calling the police to report it???

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.3.3    5 years ago

Either you are intentionally wasting my time or you are having an issue with remembering what you are supposed to be supporting.

Here is the claim you made:

More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.

You insist that claim is based on FBI statisics. 

I asked you for a link to that data and you post a couple of irrelevant links, NONE of which cites FBI statistics on DGU. Not even in the fucking footnotes. 

So as much as you seem to abhor the idea of revisiting this subject, you're going to have to if you intend on supporting your claim. 

Please don't waste more of my time with bullshit links. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.3.5  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @19.3.4    5 years ago
you're going to have to if you intend on supporting your claim. 

I pointed you towards an in-depth study conducted by a University professor who, like you, was a non-believer that more crimes were prevented by guns. It is this person who used the FBI stats and came to that conclusion on the numbers involved, not I.  So if you have a problem with the claim, maybe you should take it up with the person that authored it in the first place; the anti-gun Left Wing University Professor that did the study in the first place.  Or maybe, just maybe, you might want to actually look up the report and READ IT! Of course you won't simply because it doesn't fit your agenda or bolster your argument, so why are you wasting MY time with your bullshit demands???

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.3.6  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.3.5    5 years ago
I pointed you towards an in-depth study conducted by a University professor who, like you, was a non-believer that more crimes were prevented by guns. It is this person who used the FBI stats and came to that conclusion on the numbers involved, not I. 

Actually, the professor conducted a SURVEY and NONE of his data is based on FBI statistics. 

So if you have a problem with the claim, maybe you should take it up with the person that authored it in the first place; the anti-gun Left Wing University Professor that did the study in the first place.

The person that authored the claim in the first place is YOU. Now you're just deflecting because you can't support it. 

Or maybe, just maybe, you might want to actually look up the report and READ IT! Of course you won't simply because it doesn't fit your agenda or bolster your argument, so why are you wasting MY time with your bullshit demands???

Actually CK, I DID READ the 24 year old article and because I did, it's glaringly obvious to me that either YOU didn't read it or you're just slinging bullshit to bolster YOUR agenda. It's quite hypocritical of you. 

Statistics from the FBI aren't cited in the article you linked nor did the professor rely on them for his conclusions. Stop claiming that they are. 

I haven't made any demands, I merely asked you support your claim. That's how this shit works. You've proven that you can't and instead of admitting it, you make unfounded assumptions. 

I'm not a sealioner CK. When I ask for links to support comments and links are provided, I research them before I respond. Perhaps you might want to keep that in mind in the future. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.3.7  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @19.3.6    5 years ago

CDC studies.

And the BJS who also used FBI stats on Justifiable Homicide rates like Kleck did. According to them:

Methodology

Estimates in this report are based primarily on data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Center for Disease Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Additional estimates come from the School-Associated Violent Deaths Surveillance Study (SAVD), the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program (NEISS-AIP) data, the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports (SHR), the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF), and the Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (SIFCF).

Now how can there be such a big difference between what the BJS and FBI report and the conclusions reached by the CDC and Kleck??? Simple really.

 Oh wait, I guess those Justifiable Homicides don't count as DGU... /S

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.3.8  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.3.7    5 years ago
Oh wait, I guess those Justifiable Homicides don't count as DGU... /S

Your claim: 

More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.

None of that blather you posted proves that claim CK. You need a link to FBI statistics [your other claim] that cite the numbers of times merely brandishing a gun stopped a crime. The number of justifiable homicides is irrelevant. 

You used to be better at this.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.3.9  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @19.3.8    5 years ago
None of that blather you posted proves that claim CK.

Provided of course you totally discount the years of surveys done by the CDC...

We know how Pro-Gun that agency is, don't we????

You need a link to FBI statistics [your other claim] that cite the numbers of times merely brandishing a gun stopped a crime.

I believe what I said originally was:

Do away with all concealed carry bans on non-felons. Let the "good guys" carry anywhere they want. More crimes are stopped a year by simply showing a gun than by using them.

That part has been proven by numerous studies--including those done by the CDC of all people--and the FBI stats show that DGU is a major contributor to the number of Justifiable Homicides committed every year. Does the FBI report the number of times a gun is used when no shots are fired??? Hardly. It would undermine the governments push for Gun Control. It's much easier to pump up the ill-informed when you hide the actual facts from them, isn't it? Unfortunately, they fucked up ny letting the CDC ask those questions on their surveys. The CDC gave a 5 year window whereas the NCVS surveys only ask about the previous 6 months. Nice way to skew the responses to get the answers you want. Face it Dulay, if someone pulls a gun and scares off their attacker, it is highly unlikely they will call the cops to report it simply because of the long, drawn out investigation time it takes for the cops to decide not to do anything anyway...not to mention how long it will take them to show up in the first place! It would be like self-reporting yourself to your insurance company every time you bumped something with your car when there is no damage to report.  It won't get counted because there was " no harm; no foul ".

Does DGU happen fairly often? Hell YES! Does it get reported to authorities every time it does? Hell NO!  I can just see a Blood calling the cops to report he scared off a Crypt by pulling out an illegal gun he was illegally carrying...in my dreams!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
19.3.10  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.3.9    5 years ago
Provided of course you totally discount the years of surveys done by the CDC... We know how Pro-Gun that agency is, don't we????

You keep deflecting and wasting my time CK. The link that you posted for the CDC studies it to an article by the SAME professor that did the survey you posted. You really like that guy but the problem is that AGAIN, there are NO FBI statistics cited in that article. 

I believe what I said originally was:

I've block quoted the pertinent part multiple times. 

The rest of your post is just MORE blather posted in ANOTHER failed attempt to deflect from the FACT that you have not and cannot support your claims. 

I get it, you're not the kind of person that admits that they made a mistake. Saying, 'My bad' isn't something you're capable of. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
19.4  MrFrost  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19    5 years ago
A well armed Society, is a polite Society...

We literally have more guns than people, clearly your premise is faulty....big time. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.4.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  MrFrost @19.4    5 years ago
We literally have more guns than people

Maybe, but we do NOT have separate owners for each gun.  As noted here , less than half of the households in the U.S. have guns in them. As I reported above, less than 26% of those households actually carry their guns with them. The majority of guns stay at home...except when it comes to criminals that is.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
19.5  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19    5 years ago
A well armed Society, is a polite Society...

Yeah.  The people in Deadwood are extremely polite.

512

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.5.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  al Jizzerror @19.5    5 years ago

Well, besides the fact that you are using a fictional show created by Holly weird to bolster your statement, I'm well aware of the language used.  Like this one:

598f6f1ad7c48e12dc8f7cad416a05f4--paramedic-humor-the-lemons.jpg

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
19.5.2  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.5.1    5 years ago
Well, besides the fact that you are using a fictional show created by Holly weird to bolster your statement

The fucking statement that I fucking "bolstered" was about that fucking fictional weird fucking show.

Fucking "Deadwood".

I'm just fucking being fucking polite.

512

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.5.3  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  al Jizzerror @19.5.2    5 years ago
the fucking statement that I fucking "bolstered" was about that fucking fictional weird fucking show.

Fucking "Deadwood".

I'm just fucking being fucking polite.

Well fuck, what the fuck is up with all the "fucks"; (like I really give a fuck)...

But as long as we are fucking shocking fucking people with our "fucks ", just fucking what exactly are you fucking ranting fucking about now??? Fuck, I can drop the FUCK bomb with the best of the fucking fuckers, but fuck if I know what the FUCK you keep fucking going fucking off fucking about.

FUCK....

Fucking clarifuckingcation fucking please?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
19.5.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.5.3    5 years ago
FUCK....

You,

R entertaining after all, well at least to my lack of sense

of good humor

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.5.5  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  igknorantzrulz @19.5.4    5 years ago

R U Stalking me, lol!!!!

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
19.5.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.5.5    5 years ago

i actually give you a compliment cause your FUCK rant was found amusing by moi', 

Well, then HELL YEA, if that's how you wish to take it,

sorry, i don't do esses 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
19.5.7  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @19.5.3    5 years ago
Well fuck, what the fuck is up with all the "fucks"; (like I really give a fuck)...

Deadwood has more FPM (fucks per minute) than any other show.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.5.8  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  igknorantzrulz @19.5.6    5 years ago
Well, then HELL YEA, if that's how you wish to take it,

Actually I was just poking fun atcha, that's why I was laughing!jrSmiley_41_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
19.5.9  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  al Jizzerror @19.5.7    5 years ago

LoL! Love that fucking cocksucker scene...don't remember seeing it before though.

Deadwood was one of my favorite shows but like most, I get tired of the long waits between seasons and end uo missing a few seasons so I quit watching. Same happened with shows like The Walking Dead and Orange is the New Black--and many others.

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
20  It Is ME    5 years ago

"That statement does NOT solve the growing epidemic of mass shootings in the U.S"

Gee, I wonder if they shoulda "REALLY" Done something MORE, before the Act ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

Texas mass shooter Seth Ator made a pair of “rambling” phone calls to local cops and the FBI shortly before his rampage that left seven people dead — but gave no indication of the bloodshed he was about to unleash, authorities said Monday.

When Ator, 36, showed up for work Saturday as a trucker at Journey Oil Field Services, he was told that he’d been canned, officials confirmed in a press briefing.

“Right after that firing, he called 911 … and so did his employer,” said Odessa Police Chief Michael Gerke. “Basically they were complaining on each other.”

Ator, who made no threats in the call, split before cops arrived, then placed another call to the FBI’s national tip line.

“It was frankly rambling statements about some of the atrocities that he felt he had gone through,” said Bureau Special Agent in Charge Christopher Combs. “He did not make a threat during that phone call.”

But RAMBLING is an acceptable "Mentally Stable" Trait, not worthy of checking up on ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

I see a "Mental" Issue here ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

The New Texas Laws had Nothing to do with this "NUTZ" issues. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
20.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @20    5 years ago
I see a "Mental" Issue here !

Every time N E possible configuration of ideas are discussed, to do absolutely N E THING in regards to modifying Gun Laws,

i also see "Mental" ISSUES !

.

Saw were latest

gunman, got it without background check, which he had already failed, at a gunshow, where the 'gun show loophole' apparently ;played a role in enabling another with 'mental' issues,

to kill more efficiently.

So yes, i agree, MENTAL ISSUES R playing apart in these shootings of innocent peoples. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
20.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @20.1    5 years ago
Saw were latest gunman, got it without background check, which he had already failed, at a gunshow

He got it from a Gun Show ?

I do "Gun Shows". Walking out with a purchased gun without a "Carry PERMIT", issued by the government ..... Ain't happenin' there, for sure !

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  It Is ME @20.1.1    5 years ago

You have to understand that the Know-nothings think that inside the gunshow itself there are people selling firearms without doing background checks. Lo and behold, it is actually people IN THE PARKING LOTS that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual gunshow that are selling their personally owned firearms to another person WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A BACKGROUND CHECK UNDER FEDERAL LAW simply because the Feds make money every time a NCIS background check is submitted by a merchant, but they will not supply a FREE background check for private sales because they make too much money on commercial transactions! Joe Blow won't pay to check every potential buyer, and if there were  free system in place for Joe, businesses would do everything as a "private" sale to avoid the extra costs...

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.2    5 years ago
simply because the Feds make money every time a NCIS background check is submitted by a merchant, but they will not supply a FREE background check for private sales because they make too much money on commercial transactions!

False.

Neither the FBI nor the Feds charge for NCIS background checks. 

So your 'extra cost' scenario is bullshit. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.4  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.3    5 years ago
So your 'extra cost' scenario is bullshit.

Really?  Because the last time I checked, you have to have a FFL to use the NCIS. Are those licenses now free?  Now if you DON'T have an FFL, you have to go through someone who does, and the fee is $25.00 minimum.

Now if you have a link to somewhere we can do a BC for free, please share it. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.5  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.3    5 years ago
Neither the FBI nor the Feds charge for NCIS background checks.

That much is true, and I stand corrected.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.4    5 years ago
Really?  Because the last time I checked, you have to have a FFL to use the NCIS. Are those licenses now free?  Now if you DON'T have an FFL, you have to go through someone who does, and the fee is $25.00 minimum.

Yes REALLY. 

Now it looks like you're intentionally misrepresenting your own scenario. You said:

businesses would do everything as a "private" sale to avoid the extra costs...

Since you admit that there IS NO COST, it's impossible for there to be any 'extra cost' to avoid. 

Now if you have a link to somewhere we can do a BC for free, please share it. 

I'd like to know who are this 'we' you pretend to speak for.

BTFW, since it's already been agreed that there is NO cost for a BC, it's incumbent on you to explain why you assume that a cost was been or will be imposed on anyone. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.7  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.6    5 years ago
Since you admit that there IS NO COST, it's impossible for there to be any 'extra cost' to avoid.

You have to have a FFL License to access the NCIS database.  Are these licenses free???

Do I have your attention now? Good because you need to pay attention to the fact that without a FFL, you have to go through a dealer to do a fucking background check, or pay for one online. So please explain how someone (we) could do a background check FOR FREE before selling a gun to someone else??? BTFW, the ball is in your court and has been since I posted the last comment. Come on, show me your links.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.8  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.7    5 years ago

Oh and just for shits and giggles, some States do have a fee they impose for background checks and require businesses to use their systems to do them for firearm transfers.

So once again, show us how to avoid these fees. I'm sure business owners and individuals alike would LOVE to know how to do one without buying an FFL.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.7    5 years ago
You have to have a FFL License to access the NCIS database. 

You were the one that brought up putting a free system in place for Joe Blow, remember? BTFW, some FFL charge fees for running a background check so WTF is your issue? 

Are these licenses free???

At $200 for 3 years, that hardly breaks the bank. 

BTW, you were talking about 'EXTRA COST', not the regular cost of doing business. Your starting to run around the field with the goal post. Bad form

So please explain how someone (we) could do a background check FOR FREE before selling a gun to someone else??? 

We're going to but your free to Joe Blow system in place.

Now if you're a frequent flyer and make a certain amount of profit from selling at Gun Shows or from your 'collection', you can't claim to be Joe Blow anymore, can you? 

Do I have your attention now? Good because you need to pay attention to the fact that without a FFL, you have to go through a dealer to do a fucking background check, or pay for one online. So please explain how someone (we) could do a background check FOR FREE before selling a gun to someone else???

But we can put your free to Joe Blow system in CK. 

BTFW, the ball is in yourcourt and has been since I posted the last comment. Come on, show me your links.

Links to what? I haven't needed links to refute your comments thus far. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.8    5 years ago
Oh and just for shits and giggles, some States do have a fee they impose for background checks and require businesses to use their systems to do them for firearm transfers.

Isn't dragging those goal posts around getting old yet? Your claim was about the FEDS, not the states. Sheesh, FOCUS!

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.11  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.9    5 years ago
At $200 for 3 years, that hardly breaks the bank. 

We can agree on that if you plan to sell guns retail, but if you only have a single handgun that is worth less than the license fee, you will be giving away the weapo-- at a loss at that, not selling it.

But we can put your free to Joe Blow system in CK.

And if you do, I will gladly use it because I too don't want to sell guns to nutcases or criminals. 

Links to what?

You've already basically admitted there is no way for a private citizen to do a cost-free background check, so I guess we can agree there is nothing you can link to...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.12  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.10    5 years ago
Isn't dragging those goal posts around getting old yet?

I believe my assertion was that it costs money to do a background check, and that "goal post" hasn't moved. I was mistaken when I thought that the Feds were the ones charging the fees, but apparently it is the FFL holders AND SOME STATES that are charging fees. But I'm still waiting for your link to a site where I can do a cost-free NCIS background check....

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.11    5 years ago
We can agree on that if you plan to sell guns retail,

Gun Show sales are retail, even the ones in the parking lot. 

but if you only have a single handgun that is worth less than the license fee, you will be giving away the weapo-- at a loss at that, not selling it.

That's Joe Blow, like me. I have only sold one rifle and it was to a TSA agent who has security clearance.

And if you do, I will gladly use it because I too don't want to sell guns to nutcases or criminals. 

As would I. 

You've already basically admitted there is no way for a private citizen to do a cost-free background check, so I guess we can agree there is nothing you can link to...

Actually, if you find a FFL who doesn't charge a transfer fee it is possible. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.12    5 years ago
But I'm still waiting for your link to a site where I can do a cost-free NCIS background check....

Where did I make that claim CK? 

Strawman. 

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.15  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.14    5 years ago
Neither the FBI nor the Feds charge for NCIS background checks. 

So your 'extra cost' scenario is bullshit. 

Since you admit that there IS NO COST, it's impossible for there to be any 'extra cost' to avoid. 

Still waiting for that free access...

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
20.1.16  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  Dulay @20.1.13    5 years ago
Gun Show sales are retail, even the ones in the parking lot. 

When they take place between a registered FFL vendor and a private individual it is retail.  When a gun sale takes place between two private individual in the parking lot at a Gun Show or even in a booth rented by an individual to sell guns from their private collection, it isn't retail, and THAT is the gun show loophole everyone is up in arms about (like the pun?) .

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.15    5 years ago
Still waiting for that free access...

Get in line, I'm still waiting for you to post the FBI statistics link. 

BTFW, why are you doubling down on your 'free access' strawman? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Expert
20.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.16    5 years ago
When a gun sale takes place between two private individual in the parking lot at a Gun Show or even in a booth rented by an individual to sell guns from their private collection, it isn't retail,

According to whom? 

and THAT is the gun show loophole everyone is up in arms about (like the pun?) .

Actually, the loophole is that ONLY FFL licensed dealers are required to perform background checks. It has NOTHING to do with the definition of what is or isn't retail. 

The loophole can be plugged right quick. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
20.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @20.1.2    5 years ago
Lo and behold, it is actually people IN THE PARKING LOTS that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual gunshow that are selling their personally owned firearms to another person

And even that is "far and few between". No "Law" would stop something like that from happening anyway. "Laws" are always for "After the fact", if someone "WANTS" to do something !

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
21  Sparty On    5 years ago

Some of this is simply a consequence of the civil liberties afforded to Americans.   No way you'll ever stop everyone who might snap, from doing their crazy shit.   Not without infringing on a lot more sane citizens liberties who will never snap.

Liberties vs Security.   Simple when you don't have a dog in the hunt.   A lot tougher when you do.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
22  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

BREAKING NEWS...

The Odessa shooter used a loophole in the law to avoid a background check.

He bought the gun in a "private" transaction.  Person to person sales do not require a background check.  Only those with a FFL are required to background check the people they sell guns to.

Many of those selling guns at gun shows do not have a FFL so they do not perform background checks.  People selling guns in the parking lot at gun shows and turkey shoots do not perform background checks.  Many guns are sold online with no background checks.

These loopholes need to be closed.  HR8 is a good start.   HR8 was passed by the House last February and Moscow Mitch has still not brought it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Moscow Mitch is the reason why the Senate cannot pass gun control laws. Moscow Mitch blocks immigration reforms.  And Moscow Mitch refuses to allow the Senate to vote on laws to protect our elections from foreign interference.

512

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
22.1  Sparty On  replied to  al Jizzerror @22    5 years ago

BREAKING NEWS >>>>>>

Criminals, felons, adjudicated mental defectives, illegal aliens, substance abusers, fugitives from justices, folks convicted of domestic violence or with a PPO against them, etc, etc ..... will NEVER seek out guns that require background checks.   Never have,never will.    No matter what laws may be added in the future.    And yet they'll still get guns if they want them bad enough ...... news at eleven ...........

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
22.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @22.1    5 years ago
news

yea,

who needs any laws when laws can be broken...

can't ewait till eleven though.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
22.2  cobaltblue  replied to  al Jizzerror @22    5 years ago
Days after a West Texas mass shooting that killed at least seven people, the Kentucky Republican said on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" he expects to get an answer from the Trump administration within the next week on what, if anything, it is prepared to support.

"If the President is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it, it will become law, I'll put it on the floor," McConnell said on the radio show.

McConnell has for months blocked nearly every piece of legislation passed by the Democratic-led House, including gun measures popular with the public that enjoy bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. In the wake of a string of mass shootings that have rocked the nation, frustrated Democrats have been mounting a push against McConnell and Republican leadership to take up gun legislation.

In previous comments, Trump has not made clear what kind of measure he would support, which could help explain McConnell's hesitance to say he will put something on the floor unless Trump declares he would sign it. Trump said background checks would not have stopped the mass shootings that have roiled the US over the past few years, and declared the US's gun violence problem a mental health issue.

Washington (CNN)Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday he will not put a gun bill of any kind on the Senate floor unless President Donald Trump says he would sign it into law.

Cite .

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
22.3  Raven Wing  replied to  al Jizzerror @22    5 years ago
Moscow Mitch has still not brought it to the Senate floor for a vote.

That's likely because Turtle Man, like other big name Lawmakers, probably gets healthy campaign support from the NRA and thus he will go against anything that might in even the slightest way work against them. 

From the folks I know in the state of KY, mot people there hate him at would not vote for him if he was the last candidate, but, he gets re-elected every term thanks to his Wife's Chinese family clout backing and the big money dealers helping to buy his seat year after year. 

KY has many other good candidates running against him each election year, but, they don't have a chance since the Turtle Man is pretty much guaranteed re-election by all the big money clout behind him. He has almost as much clout in DC as the President, and he lets everyone in Congress on both sides know that. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
23  The Magic 8 Ball    5 years ago
That statement does NOT solve the growing epidemic of mass shootings in the U.S.

there is no growing epidemic of mass shootings.

however, there is a growing epidemic of drama queens.

  there has been and will always be people killing other people  = no law will ever stop it.  and that is but one reason why the 2nd is not going away nor will it be watered down.

want us to be rid of guns? produce a near zero crime rate. until then? go fish.

 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
23.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @23    5 years ago
there is no growing epidemic of mass shootings.

Really?

512

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
23.2  MrFrost  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @23    5 years ago
there is no growing epidemic of mass shootings.

Wait, what? Are you serious? LMFAO!!! We had two in ONE day...

Here this will help..

In the 1920's, there were three mass shootings. In 10 years....3 mass shootings. We had that many in the month of August, in ONE year.

 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
23.2.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  MrFrost @23.2    5 years ago
We had two in ONE day...

1, 2 or 5 in a day.  matters not.

yelling "nut jobs are shooting people with a gun" will not make people give up their guns.  that argument is counterproductive. the more people get shot the less likely people will trust any govt to protect them. meaning, in this country, the only change will be more guns sold.   

I say put an end to plea bargains on gun crimes... that would be a common sense gun law. but that would only target criminals and not every legal gun owner so I don't expect that to happen either.

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
Professor Participates
23.2.2  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @23.2.1    5 years ago

Did you notice the conveniently left out statistics on gang shootings and drug-related shootings in the stats?????? I did. Maybe we should look at the stats for mass shootings during Prohibition.... Oh wait, those won't be counted because they don't fit the agenda!

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
24  cobaltblue    5 years ago

This man is my hero:

A gun owner since the age of 10, Billy nevertheless decommissioned his weapon, the most popular assault rifle in the world, and brought it to a police station. A somewhat bemused officer suggested that selling it to a gun shop might be another option, one that Billy quickly rejected. “We need to get ’em off the streets. I need to get mine all the streets, I can only speak for myself and pray for everyone else,” he said, seemingly reticent, in classic Texas fashion, to appear as though he was telling his neighbors what to do with their property.

See entire article/video .

Billy was told by police to leave the firearm in his truck until an officer escorted him to take it from him. 

While it may only be one, it's one fewer gun Billy has to worry about finding its way into the wrong hands. 

“I’m trying to make a safer place for you and me and my grandbabies,” Billy said. 

He hopes he's the first of many to do so. 

“I would encourage anyone that is in my position to do the same. It's not easy. It takes a lot more thought and a lot more courage to do this than to buy it,” said Billy.  

Billy said every second he waits for Congress to act is one second closer to the next tragedy.  

“I don't need them to pass a law to let me know what's right, necessarily, in a case like this that's so plain. I mean, the time is now,” Billy said .

See local Fox article .

 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
25  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

STUPID QUESTION - GREAT ANSWER

For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an Australian.

General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.

Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to love this!

This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.

This is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:

But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:

Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

The broadcast went silent for 46 seconds and when it returned, the interview was over.

I would pay money to have seen her face…

I bet it would have made lemon juice look like honey.

Everyone has a right to be stupid. Some just abuse the privilege.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
25.1  author  al Jizzerror  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @25    5 years ago
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

Hilarious!

I was a Boy Scout and we had the opportunity to use the rifle range too.

I guess that's why I became a gigolo.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
25.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  al Jizzerror @25.1    5 years ago

I was my high school rifle marksman champion but it never gave me any desire to own a gun - the only guns I ever owned in my life were a water pistol and a cap pistol - lots of noise, a little smoke, but no projectile. 

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
26  author  al Jizzerror    5 years ago

If you're a good shot you should try paintball.

You get to shoot people without killing anyone.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
26.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  al Jizzerror @26    5 years ago

If you meant that reply for me, I was a good shot 65 years ago.  My vision is impaired and getting worse these days, so I might even miss a barn door at 20 feet. Besides, I really have no desire to shoot people, even if its just to colour them.

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
28  cobaltblue    5 years ago
If Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump were both drowning and Melania could only save one of them, where do you think Melania and Justin would go for lunch?

Author unknown

melania-kisses-trudeau-528x430.jpg

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
28.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  cobaltblue @28    5 years ago

The Louvre ?

i actually got flagged from the Louve many years ago

apparently, they didn't Louvre me and my buddies very much.

Come on Frencheese , where's all the Louvre ? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
28.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  igknorantzrulz @28.1    5 years ago

Yes the Louvre.

I tried out for the US Olympic Louvre team once but they kicked me out when i had to hock a Louvree on the track.

I tried to explain to them that swallowing a Louvree was not a good option but to no avail ......

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
28.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sparty On @28.1.1    5 years ago
tried out for the US Olympic Louvre team once but they kicked me out when i had to hock a Louvree on the track.

Swallow

your pride boy, 

cause no matter how cold,

u could always try out for the

US Hocker team.

Ever nottice when extremely cold, and you spit out a hocker, it freezes before it hits the frozen tundra, and bounces up like a cough drop, somebody else dropped

like

Acid,

cause i do.  it;s a Basic Instinct, i n joy Sharin with n while Stone d

 
 
 
cobaltblue
Junior Quiet
29  cobaltblue    5 years ago

Has anyone done a sharpie meme article yet??? I'm dying to post this one:

EDthUk5WsAo3RLI?format=jpg&name=small

 
 

Who is online

Ronin2
JohnRussell


90 visitors