(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

(07-12-2016, 11:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 10:54 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 08:42 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...I wonder how the Right thinks of "gun rights" when some terrorist exploits a peaceful protest as a pretext for killing the police.

Well, we sure know how the AR ban in California came about -

How Ronald Reagan learned to love gun control

Quote:In California, Reagan threw his support behind the Mulford Act after a heavily armed group of Black Panthers gathered at the state capitol while the new governor was supposed to be hosting a group of eighth-graders for fried chicken, Winkler recounts at The Atlantic. That same afternoon, Reagan told reporters that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Mulford quickly added a provision to his bill barring loaded firearms from the capitol, except for when carried by law enforcement.

[img][/img]

Now if we can just get these guys to walk around the state capital offices in Austin and every other open carry state, I'm sure we see some immediate bans offered by some of the most NRA-friendly governors and state legislatures in the country.  

One of them took out five of our police officers in Dallas. Curious, what would you do if a large group of them invaded your blue neighborhood?

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

(07-12-2016, 06:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

The Dallas incident did break a few normal patterns.  The shooter's tactics were unusual.  I think the intent was to take a few shots and get away, but he took to many shots and was unable to break off contact.

But spree shooters normally prefer gun free zones...  schools, military bases, hospitals, etc...  anywhere where prohibiting guns has made folk helpless.  This guy deliberately went somewhere with a heavy police presence, police representing a target as well as a threat.  This was not the usual spree shooter who wanders around picking off unarmed people at short range until the opposition arrives, then committing suicide.

Some of the protestors were carrying rifles.  Dallas is about as right to carry a place as you'll find in the US.  From all I've heard none of the armed protestors joined the exchange of fire... on either side.  Black Lives Matters protestors aren't the best friends the police have.  They didn't come to the cop's aid.  Still, how much of that is prudence?  A black guy shooting when cops are going down, even if he is shooting towards the active shooter?  They just staid out of it, and likely just as well for both them and the police.  That was enough of a mess.

***

I'm used to saying the spiral of violence isn't really escalating.  An awful lot of incidents lately, though.  A long hot summer, to revive a phrase from the awakening?  Still, with the possible exception of Dallas, kids out of school having nothing better to do than protest haven't been much of a factor.  

Is it thus possibly something longer term?  Or is it the two incidents of police using excessive / lethal forces happening so close together.

(07-12-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

If you are a good guy you most likely do not have a gun unless you

(1) are a sport hunter -- although the deer or game birds might disagree with that assessment of you
(2) are a target shooter
(3) are in the police or the military
(4) collect antique guns
(5) need a gun for protection from cougars or bears

...Most people run from gunfire. It's instinctive.

(07-12-2016, 08:57 PM)playwrite Wrote:

Quote:Or an ammosexual trying to show off his big gun for the ladies.

(07-12-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

If you are a good guy you most likely do not have a gun unless you

(1) are a sport hunter -- although the deer or game birds might disagree with that assessment of you
(2) are a target shooter
(3) are in the police or the military
(4) collect antique guns
(5) need a gun for protection from cougars or bears

...Most people run from gunfire. It's instinctive.

(07-12-2016, 08:57 PM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

If you are a good guy you most likely do not have a gun unless you

(1) are a sport hunter -- although the deer or game birds might disagree with that assessment of you
(2) are a target shooter
(3) are in the police or the military
(4) collect antique guns
(5) need a gun for protection from cougars or bears

...Most people run from gunfire. It's instinctive.

Or an ammosexual trying to show off his big gun for the ladies.

(07-12-2016, 06:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

He was most like the other members of our well-regulated militia which our Republican Congress has assembled.




He was disturbed and deranged by his experience in Afghanistan. That is well-known. He had no affiliation with black lives matter or any militant group. He's just another mass shooter enabled by the Republican gun lobby.

(07-13-2016, 12:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Restricting me wouldn't have stopped him. IMO, he was enabled by a reckless group of white haters.

(07-13-2016, 12:06 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 04:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(07-12-2016, 03:01 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: One of them? One of whom? A deranged former soldier?

Deranged people don't need to have military weapons to kill police with. Not allowing deranged former soldiers to have military weapons to kill police, does not violate your constitutional rights.

He was a young black militant like the ones pictured. I keep listening to liberals saying the good guys with guns didn't stop the bad guys with the guns in Dallas. I'd would like to ask the smug liberal congressman or white pansycrat which group prevailed in the end. I know it wasn't the group running away or the liberal white boy with long whiskers clutching his cross and praying for Jesus to save him.

If you are a good guy you most likely do not have a gun unless you

(1) are a sport hunter -- although the deer or game birds might disagree with that assessment of you
(2) are a target shooter
(3) are in the police or the military
(4) collect antique guns
(5) need a gun for protection from cougars or bears

...Most people run from gunfire. It's instinctive.

You have the right to choose to not have a gun. If you ever could use one and don't have one then that's your problem not mine.

(07-12-2016, 08:42 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...I wonder how the Right thinks of "gun rights" when some terrorist exploits a peaceful protest as a pretext for killing the police.

Eric the Green Wrote:There were armed guards at the Orlando nightclub, and FL is the most permissive open carry state in the USA. So, what does Trump and the other gun nuts have to complain about?

The gun advocates claim that gun control is prohibition. Even the Scalia Supreme Court disagreed with them.

The National Guard is never sent abroad. It is used to quell domestic disturbances and meet emergencies here at home. Where does Bob get this stuff?

Insane, and apt to continue. A great description of America with no gun control and its mass shootings and under the thumb of the evil NRA.

(07-13-2016, 04:00 PM)Skabungus Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:There were armed guards at the Orlando nightclub, and FL is the most permissive open carry state in the USA. So, what does Trump and the other gun nuts have to complain about?

The gun advocates claim that gun control is prohibition. Even the Scalia Supreme Court disagreed with them.

The National Guard is never sent abroad. It is used to quell domestic disturbances and meet emergencies here at home. Where does Bob get this stuff?

Insane, and apt to continue. A great description of America with no gun control and its mass shootings and under the thumb of the evil NRA.

Correction:  The national guard is most often sent abroad.  See Iraq and Afgan wars for more information.

(07-13-2016, 03:53 PM)Odin Wrote: When I hear somebody call ordinary gun-owners "ammosexuals" I know the person is an prejudiced urbanite who thinks rural and small town people are all dumb hicks.

Because let's get this straight, the polarization over gun control is not actually about gun control at all, gun control is a proxy for all the simmering resentments and prejudices urban and rural people have towards each other. There will not be meaningful national gun control until rural and small town Americans no longer feel they are being condescended to by "sophisticated" people in the major cities.