Debate about Gun Control

[Eric the Green]

(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.

[pbrower2a]

(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.

[playwrite]

(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?

I'd be pretty pissed at any armed ammosexuals in my neighborhood, and unlike in Dallas I'd be thrilled to watch them get arrested if not shot.

[playwrite]

(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 trained police eventually took him down, not any ammosexuals.

No one is talking about disarming the police, dufus.

[playwrite]

(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.

What it shows is it makes no difference whether there are armed ammosexuals or not; if the shooter has an AR, a lot of people are going to die.  It completely eliminates the good guys with guns horseshxt.

[playwrite]

(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.

[Ragnarök_62]

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

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

Wow, another bathroom category.



Before ya know it, we'll have yet another for those hermaphrodites.

http://extension.illinois.edu/worms/facts/

[Classic-Xer]

(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.

[Classic-Xer]

(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.

I don't have to show off my big gun for the ladies. The ladies are always more attracted to real men.

[Classic-Xer]

(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.

Restricting me wouldn't have stopped him. IMO, he was enabled by a reckless group of white haters.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

It seems you have made another one of your amazing leaps in logic. You ought to go out for the Olympics.

The shooter was black and said he wanted to kill some cops; therefore he was a Black Panther Party member or current equivalent?

Yes, restricting you from having a military weapon would have stopped him, because this would also have restricted him.

(actually, to clarify, I don't actually think Black Panther Party members were a "reckless group of white haters," that's just Classic Xer's idea. You get the point; Micah Johnson was not enabled by any group of white haters, because he didn't belong to such a group. Apparently he gave a "like" to such a group on his facebook page, but that doesn't mean that group "enabled" or otherwise caused Johnson to do what he did.)

[pbrower2a]

(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.

I do not participate in a gun-using sport; I am not in the police or the military; I do not collect guns as some people collect stamps (if I collected flintlock muskets I would be collecting the weapons least useful in crime); I do not live in bear or cougar country.

I do not have a problem of having no right to bear arms. I have no need to bear arms, and I do not want it. I have better use of such assets as I have.

[Odin]

(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.

The Right was A-OK with gun control in the 60s when it was only targeting black people.

[Odin]

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.

[Skabungus]

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.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

Maybe so these days when recruits are short, but I remember when it was often called to meet domestic emergencies, riots, etc.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

Or maybe when they decide that saving lives is more important to them than whether they think they are being condescended to?

You know, proper priorities in life??

Which came first?
1. Did the majority of rural people (though not "all") vote Republican and oppose gun control, and then were resented for doing so by urban folks,
OR

2. Were a majority of rural white people resented, which then caused them to vote Republican and oppose gun control? (which is a poor excuse)?

Another irony, of course, is that urban gun control advocates are quite prepared to concede that guns are a way of life for rural and red-state folks, and will compromise on things like shotguns (as opposed to military weapons). But many of the rural folks in their gun obsession have imposed permissive federal gun laws on the cities and blue states, which they don't want, and which results in more gun deaths-- which can't be controlled as well because of the influence of these rural folks through the NRA.

Even so, stricter gun laws in most blue states have reduced gun violence and crime in general in those states, as opposed to red states with permissive gun laws.

[Eric the Green]

Micah Johnson was the well-regulated militia's newest recruit.



http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-us-...an-2232666
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/da...-1.2708860

[TnT]

Something I've begun to notice:

The argument that folks are daily saved by having guns, does work. However, it seems to work almost entirely in situations where the intended victim (who has a gun for self-protection) is pretty much one-on-one with the perp. It really appears to work in that case.

Here in my city, once every few months, someone at home kills an intruder. Occasionally, an attempted car-jack is thwarted.

For myself, as a gun owner, the last place in the world I'd want to be with a drawn gun in my hand is a large crowd where an active shooter starts up. And, as we have seen, in those cases, there have indeed been "good guys with guns" on scene and they did little. Probably because they realized it might be very, very dangerous to do so.

[Eric the Green]

I certainly don't want to go anywhere near places where people are allowed to carry guns. Many parts of this country are obviously insane. I don't share the "values" of these gun-carriers, I am sure. I'm sure I exaggerate the danger, but it sure makes me hesitant to venture into those places. Not that I would venture into many urban blue-state ghettos either. Even some places in the SF Bay Area are not safe. But can you imagine hanging out at the Republican convention in Ohio, with all those angry people outside, and all of them allowed to carry guns, openly?

Travel is also made difficult by the fact that we depend on huge trucks for deliveries, who monopolize our interstates and cause many accidents with the hapless cars who dare to use "their" highways. More insanity. Both ways, you take your life in your hands. I avoid I-5, for example, now. Once using it was plenty for me. Never again. I'll just stay on the west coast, and "fly over" to the east someday. Or visit Europe. But, if I want to see how the other half lives, I can always visit my friend who lives near Bakersfield.