Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

son of a gun

Female is the latest school shooter; 3 kids and 2 adults dead in elementary school in Tennessee.

Recommended Posts

On 3/31/2023 at 11:37 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Then you gotta shout down the people that do want to ban guns. They exist. You can’t compromise when the terms laid out are unconditional surrender.

You can when people are dying. Compromise is necessary in our country. There is no willingness to compromise. 

You can't in one breath say people need to be convinced and then lay down terms as to why it can't be discussed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:42 AM, SharkTanked said:

You can when people are dying. Compromise is necessary in our country. There is no willingness to compromise. 

You can't in one breath say people need to be convinced and then lay down terms as to why it can't be discussed. 

By all means discuss it. But when Born catches more flack than the actual murderer for pages on end, pay attention to why there is no willingness to compromise. In any given compromise you gotta answer why your side should be trusted.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:45 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

By all means discuss it. But when Born catches more flack than the actual murderer for pages on end, pay attention to why there is no willingness to compromise. In any given compromise you gotta answer why your side should be trusted.

Nobody here has the power to legislate. I am more speaking of the inability to do much at the legislative level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:46 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

People voted.

 

Did they vote on gun restrictions? Usually not. You can't say that regulations exist, then ignore when multiple states take those restrictions away, making access to deadly weapons easier for those who should not have them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:48 AM, GoDogs22 said:

 

Did they vote on gun restrictions? Usually not. You can't say that regulations exist, then ignore when multiple states take those restrictions away, making access to deadly weapons easier for those who should not have them.

They certainly voted on what representatives would bring up legislation. You’ve been here for awhile. How dense are you? Just so I know how much of my time to waste. Are we talking stay puffed marshmallow man or red dwarf status?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 2:35 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

I don’t even disagree with you. Societies with more tightly controlled gun ownership make it harder to commit murder and suicide. But the elemental fact remains that those in favor of stricter gun control measures are not trusted by those they need to convince.

And it’s pretty basic stuff as to why this is. China is running 21st century concentration camps and people just go along with it, especially the rich and powerful in our own country. The Russian government imprisons and kills its political enemies. At home, the political party most likely to move on the issue has a base that is extremely mistrustful, with plenty of good reasons, of the enforcement arm of the government needed to produce such a policy.

Those they need to convince will likely never be convinced. If a bunch of dead kids at Sandy Hook couldn't do it, nothing would. 

As for your other point: Our social and political culture is not really comparable to Russia or China. That kind of shit is unlikely to happen here given our current state. I think its an unfounded fear.

And besides, even if a whole group of people in America was on board with doing genocide, I don't take at face value that having small arms could prevent it if our government wanted to do it. Historically, effective resistance to an imperial power is totally dependent on the citizenry's willingness to act as terrorists and suffer for long periods of time in an insurgency, not how many AR-15s they take pictures of for Facebook and never use. Not sure most Americans are up for the Viet Cong lifestyle. 

As for your final sentence, I'm not sure what hypothetical policy you're referring to. No one is going door to door to confiscate guns.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:54 AM, thelawlorfaithful said:

They certainly voted on what representatives would bring up legislation.

 

Even when governors create executive orders outside of the normal legislative process?

I get that you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, but acting like the erosion of these restrictions on firearm availability isn't leading directly to more violence and deaths is just asinine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:55 AM, youngredbullfan said:

Those they need to convince will likely never be convinced. If a bunch of dead kids at Sandy Hook couldn't do it, nothing would. 

As for your other point: Our social and political culture is not really comparable to Russia or China. That kind of shit is unlikely to happen here given our current state. I think its an unfounded fear.

And besides, even if a whole group of people in America was on board with doing genocide, I don't take at face value that having small arms could prevent it if our government wanted to do it. Historically, effective resistance to an imperial power is totally dependent on the citizenry's willingness to act as terrorists and suffer for long periods of time in an insurgency, not how many AR-15s they take pictures of for Facebook and never use. Not sure most Americans are up for the Viet Cong lifestyle. 

As for your final sentence, I'm not sure what hypothetical policy you're referring to. No one is going door to door to confiscate guns.

Then how are you getting rid of the guns? If you can’t find an answer to that you aren’t even thinking about the problem,

People taking selfies and posting on Facebook is not the person murdering 9 year olds. Who are you really upset with in this situation? If you can’t see that then there’s no wonder why they won’t ever be convinced. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 11:58 AM, GoDogs22 said:

 

Even when governors create executive orders outside of the normal legislative process?

I get that you're trying to play Devil's Advocate, but acting like the erosion of these restrictions on firearm availability isn't leading directly to more violence and deaths is just asinine.

Executive orders are powers granted previously by the legislature and state constitutions. People voted. Did you grow into adulthood without any understanding of civics and government in this country? You probably ought to take the word asinine out of your vocabulary until you catch up.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any time you'd like to offer any solutions lawfor, that'd be fantastic. Since it appears that your stance is more to shoot down anyone else's thoughts and to try to play Devil's Advocate.

 

We can all see red states loosening gun restrictions. Coincidentally, those states are the ones with the highest rates of gun violence. Could there be some sort of connection between those two things? Or should they just keep handing guns out like Halloween candy until they reach some sort of critical mass where shootings stop? We clearly haven't hit it yet with 400+ million firearms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 3:07 PM, thelawlorfaithful said:

Then how are you getting rid of the guns? If you can’t find an answer to that you aren’t even thinking about the problem,

People taking selfies and posting on Facebook is not the person murdering 9 year olds. Who are you really upset with in this situation? If you can’t see that then there’s no wonder why they won’t ever be convinced. 

Well, we can do what every other developed nation has done. Make the importation and purchase of certain classes of weapon a felony, enforce it, and institute a generous buy-back program. 
 

I agree that gun enthusiasts aren’t killing 9 year olds (unless their kid breaks into their gun collection). But their demand for firearms has created an overflow of them on the market. Their political advocacy for the legalization of assault rifles has led to wide opportunities for people interesting in killing 9 year olds to purchase them. But I brought them up not to talk about that, but to illustrate that they could not stop a genocide. 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 1:33 PM, youngredbullfan said:

Well, we can do what every other developed nation has done. Make the importation and purchase of certain classes of weapon a felony, enforce it, and institute a generous buy-back program. 
 

I agree that gun enthusiasts aren’t killing 9 year olds (unless their kid breaks into their gun collection). But their demand for firearms has created an overflow of them on the market. Their political advocacy for the legalization of assault rifles has led to wide opportunities for people interesting in killing 9 year olds to purchase them. But I brought them up not to talk about that, but to illustrate that they could not stop a genocide. 

Genocide?  

Ok, I'll go back to staying out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 3:35 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Genocide?  

Ok, I'll go back to staying out

Lawlor brought up the Uyghur camps and Russian crackdowns as a reason why people wanted guns 

I said that Meal Team Six could not, and would not prevent such a thing with their small arms 

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 12:35 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Genocide?  

Ok, I'll go back to staying out

I had to go back to one of his earlier posts see what that meant.  Contextually, it isn't as wild a statement

Quote

As for your other point: Our social and political culture is not really comparable to Russia or China. That kind of shit is unlikely to happen here given our current state. I think its an unfounded fear.

And besides, even if a whole group of people in America was on board with doing genocide, I don't take at face value that having small arms could prevent it if our government wanted to do it. Historically, effective resistance to an imperial power is totally dependent on the citizenry's willingness to act as terrorists and suffer for long periods of time in an insurgency, not how many AR-15s they take pictures of for Facebook and never use. Not sure most Americans are up for the Viet Cong lifestyle. 

It's not a stretch to think the folks with the Gadsden flag and blue line flag stickers will say "should have complied" when government treads on folks.  Much of the bravada tough guy shit will fold very quick, because it was really never about standing up to government.  At least, not when it isn't happening to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 3:48 PM, East Coast Aztec said:

I had to go back to one of his earlier posts see what that meant.  Contextually, it isn't as wild a statement

It's not a stretch to think the folks with the Gadsden flag and blue line flag stickers will say "should have complied" when government treads on folks.  Much of the bravada tough guy shit will fold very quick, because it was really never about standing up to government.  At least, not when it isn't happening to them.  

Unless they really committed to the "Y'all Queda" bit, it would not happen. 

Hell, even when they were very interested in doing terrorism against black people and standing up to the government they had a difficult time in the Reconstruction South whenever the Union Army was around and willing to enforce the law. And those dudes were not only armed with more equal weaponry, but had shortly before been organized into military units in a long, brutal war.

If they struggled then when an actual imperial force was around and interested in stopping them, imagine now.

On 12/1/2016 at 12:26 PM, WyomingCoog said:

I own a vehicle likely worth more than everything you own combined and just flew first class (including a ticket for a 2 1/2 year old), round trip to Las Vegas and I'm not 35 yet. When you accomplish something outside of finishing a book, let me know. When's the last time you saw a 2 year old fly first class in their own seat? Don't tell me about elite.  

28 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

I’d happily compare IQ’s with you any day of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 12:53 PM, youngredbullfan said:

Unless they really committed to the Y'all Queda bit, it would not happen. 

Hell, even when they were very interested in doing terrorism against black people and standing up to the government they had a difficult time in the Reconstruction South whenever the Union Army was around and willing to enforce the law. And those dudes were not only armed with more equal weaponry, but had shortly before been organized into military units in a long, brutal war.

If they struggled then when an actual imperial force was around and interested in stopping them, imagine now.

A bunch of AR's against the government would be hilarious at this point.  And the government probably doesn't even need to send in the troops. They could just freeze bank accounts and cards and let us starve and we will just turn those weapons of government resistance against each other.  At this point, armed folks aren't scared of government, they are scared of their neighbor.  It's just lip service that they are for taking a stand in a true battle of resistance.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fun story:

We’re having a birthday party for my daughter tomorrow, and we’re renting furniture. The delivery guy shows up today wearing an NRA shirt with a picture of an AR on it. I wasn’t going to say anything but my wife read the company the riot act. 

Normally Im on the side of labor but showing up to deliver furniture for a children’s birthday party 4 days after 3 9-year-olds we’re murdered wearing an image of the very gun that took their lives while two parents sign away hundreds of dollars seemed pretty +++++ing tone deaf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 4:10 PM, TCU Robert said:

I thought they did for medicare and medicaid

it should be subsidized I agree

You think it should be subsidized for who, exactly? Everybody? Because you don’t have to be Medicaid-eligible for mental healthcare to be cost-prohibitive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2023 at 4:16 PM, TCU Robert said:

probably by the government

Yea so I asked subsidized FOR who, not BY who. As in who should be able to receive government subsidized mental healthcare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...