Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2018, 10:28 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 08:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 02:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 12:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am proud to be "one-sided" in my views about guns, if also somewhat realistic. Yes, whites can also be victims of unjust shootings, including minorities. I am against them, very much. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, said one well-known black man. Blacks today are victims much more often of unjust shootings. Cops seem to get away with these shootings, no matter who or what color the victim is. I think we could disarm cops when we disarm a lot more of the people. Meanwhile, when cops shoot people unfairly they should be punished, not let off the hook. We would have a lot fewer riots in that case; think about it.

Why aren't we seeing them ( the cop shootings of white people) on liberal news channels, liberal mass media outlets? Don't liberals care about white people who are shot by cops? You say they/you do but I'm not seeing it? Why didn't we see black people going crazy about the white woman that was shot dead by a cop? You're one sided on guns, race, ideology and so forth. You'll make a few concessions as a nice gesture at the times or as a means to regain/preserve some integrity that you lost or stand to lose if you don't concede some and as a means to show some honesty. Hint: We ain't getting ugly yet. I'm ahead of the pack. By chance, was doing this kind of stuff, posting liberal information like you do here, part of job during the non profit years? I'm asking because most people aren't so one sided. You remind me of the political robots (scripted sales people)/ no minds that I see on news channels.

I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

The CBS channel where I live is owned by Sinclair (or as I call it, "Stinking Liar") Broadcasting. Its editorial positions have come to approach fascism as dictated by ownership. I avoid its news broadcasts, some of which have ownership-mandated agitprop such as Full Measure  (a clearly right-wing program as an answer to ABC, CBS, and NBC public-affairs programs that Sinclair ownership deems 'too liberal'. Sinclair/Stinking Liar Broadcasting offers a nightly "Terrorism Alert Desk" with Boris Epshteyn, basically a Two Minutes Hate session often against Islam. (Right-wing terrorism involving the KKK and neo-Nazis has killed more Americans since September 11, but don't let thatget in the way of propaganda against 'foreigners').

I am tempted to put up an antenna so that I could get such CBS programming as I get off the air instead of through that TV station.

I'd say people associated with Islamic terrorist groups have claimed more American lives within the US since 9/11 than people associated with white supremacy groups.

What stats can you quote on that?

[pbrower2a]

Islam is no more terrorist than Christianity. Of course Nazism and Ku Kluxism are terrorist practically by self-description.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-16-2018, 01:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Islam is no more terrorist than Christianity. Of course Nazism and Ku Kluxism are terrorist practically by self-description.

That doesn't mean that people that call themselves Muslim or Christian can't be terrorists.  Ireland and Syria prove that.  It is easy to hate a group of terrorists or make policy against them, but it is hardly productive to place yourself against all people that pass themselves as Muslim or Christian.

It is rather hard to make Christ prejudiced, but Muhammad was trying to unite the Arab people.  It is not impossible to interpret some of his 'holy' words in what might be considered unholy ways.  It is not considered nice by many to speak to unite us against them and denigrate them.  That is not to say it hasn't been done by many a westerner.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 01:12 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Islam is no more terrorist than Christianity. Of course Nazism and Ku Kluxism are terrorist practically by self-description.

That doesn't mean that people that call themselves Muslim or Christian can't be terrorists.  Ireland and Syria prove that.  It is easy to hate a group of terrorists or make policy against them, but it is hardly productive to place yourself against all people that pass themselves as Muslim or Christian.

It is rather hard to make Christ prejudiced, but Muhammad was trying to unite the Arab people.  It is not impossible to interpret some of his 'holy' words in what might be considered unholy ways.  It is not considered nice by many to speak to unite us against them and denigrate them.  That is not to say it hasn't been done by many a westerner.

The "terrorists" in Syria being the Assad regime and its supporters. ISIS and even Al Qaeda/al nusra in Syria came from Iraq or beyond, mostly. And al nusra has not been assuming a terrorist role. That does not stop the terrorist Assad from calling them that, and calling the free syrians that too, of course. But Assad is the biggest liar in the world.

[Eric the Green]

(03-15-2018, 06:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 02:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 12:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am proud to be "one-sided" in my views about guns, if also somewhat realistic. Yes, whites can also be victims of unjust shootings, including minorities. I am against them, very much. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, said one well-known black man. Blacks today are victims much more often of unjust shootings. Cops seem to get away with these shootings, no matter who or what color the victim is. I think we could disarm cops when we disarm a lot more of the people. Meanwhile, when cops shoot people unfairly they should be punished, not let off the hook. We would have a lot fewer riots in that case; think about it.

Why aren't we seeing them ( the cop shootings of white people) on liberal news channels, liberal mass media outlets? Don't liberals care about white people who are shot by cops? You say they/you do but I'm not seeing it? Why didn't we see black people going crazy about the white woman that was shot dead by a cop? You're one sided on guns, race, ideology and so forth. You'll make a few concessions as a nice gesture at the times or as a means to regain/preserve some integrity that you lost or stand to lose if you don't concede some and as a means to show some honesty. Hint: We ain't getting ugly yet. I'm ahead of the pack. By chance, was doing this kind of stuff, posting liberal information like you do here, part of job during the non profit years? I'm asking because most people aren't so one sided. You remind me of the political robots (scripted sales people)/ no minds that I see on news channels.

I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

Are you an American liberal? I don't think so. I think you're using a popular term for self interests. You see, you have an issue, you are being judged by an American liberal, your views are being countered by the views of an American live, your positions are being challenged by an American liberal and so forth.

Am I, or have I ever been, a librul?

Yes, always.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-16-2018, 10:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 06:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 02:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 12:50 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Yes, I am proud to be "one-sided" in my views about guns, if also somewhat realistic. Yes, whites can also be victims of unjust shootings, including minorities. I am against them, very much. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, said one well-known black man. Blacks today are victims much more often of unjust shootings. Cops seem to get away with these shootings, no matter who or what color the victim is. I think we could disarm cops when we disarm a lot more of the people. Meanwhile, when cops shoot people unfairly they should be punished, not let off the hook. We would have a lot fewer riots in that case; think about it.

Why aren't we seeing them ( the cop shootings of white people) on liberal news channels, liberal mass media outlets? Don't liberals care about white people who are shot by cops? You say they/you do but I'm not seeing it? Why didn't we see black people going crazy about the white woman that was shot dead by a cop? You're one sided on guns, race, ideology and so forth. You'll make a few concessions as a nice gesture at the times or as a means to regain/preserve some integrity that you lost or stand to lose if you don't concede some and as a means to show some honesty. Hint: We ain't getting ugly yet. I'm ahead of the pack. By chance, was doing this kind of stuff, posting liberal information like you do here, part of job during the non profit years? I'm asking because most people aren't so one sided. You remind me of the political robots (scripted sales people)/ no minds that I see on news channels.

I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

Are you an American liberal? I don't think so. I think you're using a popular term for self interests. You see, you have an issue, you are being judged by an American liberal, your views are being countered by the views of an American live, your positions are being challenged by an American liberal and so forth.

Am I, or have I ever been, a librul?

Yes, always.

Hmm. I disagree. A liberal shouldn't be so one sided or narrow minded in their views like yours are now and like they always have been in the past. You're a blue/green and you're only a liberal in that way. You're basically liberal by political/cultural color and that's it. The American liberals are figuring this out and are beginning to understand how much of a threat you guys are to them and their freedoms.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-16-2018, 12:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What stats can you quote on that?

Off the top of my head, 50 killed in a Florida nightclub shooting and three killed in the Boston Marathon bombing by Islamic terrorists (just two of several others) vs 9 killed in a Virginia church by a white supremacist and possibly one killed (depending on the race of the person killed) by a person driving a car who could possibly be a white supremacist (depending on whether not he was a racist who targeting a black person or a group of black people or an angry person who hated so-called liberal protesters and didn't really care about skin color). I don't know where to place you yet, dumb lower urban black or dumb upper end urban white or dumb lower end urban white who feels the same way and may views things the same as a dumb urban low end urban black or a smart middle to upper middle urban exploiting issues like race and so forth and making money for themselves and various groups associated with social justice. I'll need your assistance with placing you in the proper group.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2018, 11:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 12:19 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 10:28 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 08:00 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

The CBS channel where I live is owned by Sinclair (or as I call it, "Stinking Liar") Broadcasting. Its editorial positions have come to approach fascism as dictated by ownership. I avoid its news broadcasts, some of which have ownership-mandated agitprop such as Full Measure  (a clearly right-wing program as an answer to ABC, CBS, and NBC public-affairs programs that Sinclair ownership deems 'too liberal'. Sinclair/Stinking Liar Broadcasting offers a nightly "Terrorism Alert Desk" with Boris Epshteyn, basically a Two Minutes Hate session often against Islam. (Right-wing terrorism involving the KKK and neo-Nazis has killed more Americans since September 11, but don't let thatget in the way of propaganda against 'foreigners').

I am tempted to put up an antenna so that I could get such CBS programming as I get off the air instead of through that TV station.

I'd say people associated with Islamic terrorist groups have claimed more American lives within the US since 9/11 than people associated with white supremacy groups.

What stats can you quote on that?

Off the top of my head, 50 killed in a Florida nightclub vs 5-6 killed in a Virginia church. Do I have to add up all the deaths associated with Islamic terrorism for you or are you smart enough to accept?

Certainly that Florida massacre was an example of why military weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. That guy Mateen was just a fool, he was not really part of any terrorist group. He should not have had access to that weapon. I don't know the stats for sure, but I've heard other accounts about who has killed more. It doesn't really make any difference; both terrorist groups are horrible and should be resisted, and should not be allowed to have any guns. Talk about threats to our rights, lives and liberty, these two factions certainly are both that.

[Eric the Green]

(03-16-2018, 11:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 10:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 06:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 02:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Why aren't we seeing them ( the cop shootings of white people) on liberal news channels, liberal mass media outlets? Don't liberals care about white people who are shot by cops? You say they/you do but I'm not seeing it? Why didn't we see black people going crazy about the white woman that was shot dead by a cop? You're one sided on guns, race, ideology and so forth. You'll make a few concessions as a nice gesture at the times or as a means to regain/preserve some integrity that you lost or stand to lose if you don't concede some and as a means to show some honesty. Hint: We ain't getting ugly yet. I'm ahead of the pack. By chance, was doing this kind of stuff, posting liberal information like you do here, part of job during the non profit years? I'm asking because most people aren't so one sided. You remind me of the political robots (scripted sales people)/ no minds that I see on news channels.

I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

Are you an American liberal? I don't think so. I think you're using a popular term for self interests. You see, you have an issue, you are being judged by an American liberal, your views are being countered by the views of an American live, your positions are being challenged by an American liberal and so forth.

Am I, or have I ever been, a librul?

Yes, always.

Hmm. I disagree. A liberal shouldn't be so one sided or narrow minded in their views like yours are now and like they always have been in the past. You're a blue/green and you're only a liberal in that way. You're basically liberal by political/cultural color and that's it. The American liberals are figuring this out and are beginning to understand how much of a threat you guys are to them and their freedoms.

That's librul enough for me. Blue/green is liberal. Red is reactionary.

My ancestors have been here for up to 10 generations. Republicans today are the threat to freedom. Having a gun is not a genuine right, and is not freedom. That "right" doesn't count at all. And we don't want taxes that are too high on you; just high enough to meet our needs as a society. So again, the notion that today's blues and greens are a threat to you guys or anyone is an illusion propagated by the powers that be for the sole purpose of protecting their wealth and power over you.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-17-2018, 12:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's librul enough for me. Blue/green is liberal. Red is reactionary.

My ancestors have been here for up to 10 generations. Republicans today are the threat to freedom. Having a gun is not a genuine right, and is not freedom. That "right" doesn't count at all. And we don't want taxes that are too high on you; just high enough to meet our needs as a society. So again, the notion that today's blues and greens are a threat to you guys or anyone is an illusion propagated by the powers that be for the sole purpose of protecting their wealth and power over you.

Ain't librul enough for me. Blue/green is reactionary too. You don't see it that way or view that way because it isn't in your interest to see it and view it as being that way. You ignore it and claim to be liberal like you do cuz that's all that's needed to be said, associated or used to attract naive/dumb people. Red is America today. Red represents the flag, the Constitution, the American rule of law, the protection of American rights and so forth. Blue is partially American today. The bulk of the Democratic voters have no idea of the battle that's going on in places like here, the courts and so forth.

My ancestors on my mothers side have been here since the beginning and took part in the Revolutionary War. My ancestors on my fathers side have been here for going on six generations with the seventh generation being born and in the process of being raised right now. You are a threat to me. You're not viewed as being much of a threat but you're viewed as a threat.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-17-2018, 12:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Certainly that Florida massacre was an example of why military weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. That guy Mateen was just a fool, he was not really part of any terrorist group. He should not have had access to that weapon. I don't know the stats for sure, but I've heard other accounts about who has killed more. It doesn't really make any difference; both terrorist groups are horrible and should be resisted, and should not be allowed to have any guns. Talk about threats to our rights, lives and liberty, these two factions certainly are both that.

My AR-15, deer rifle, semi-automatic pistol or shut gun could have killed or severely wounded him and saved lives.

[pbrower2a]

Keeping him from getting a firearm after he made a terrorist threat would have solved the problem. A court order to leave Florida would have stopped this massacre.

[pbrower2a]

(03-17-2018, 12:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 11:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-16-2018, 10:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 06:30 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-15-2018, 04:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't know how many news channels are liberal; most are owned by giant corporations and care only about commerce. They have that in common with Republican politicians. I can't speak for what they are covering or why, but I have seen a few stories, yes. Remember that the fact remains that it's young blacks that are unfairly getting shot down most often. It's up to you to recognize that this is a threat to your rights. Remember again what a certain black man said: injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. That's why that man championed many causes that white and asian people were interested in too.

I am a liberal and always have been, so it should be no surprise that I post liberal views, and that's all there is to it. I am informed and concerned, and that's all it takes to be a liberal.

Are you an American liberal? I don't think so. I think you're using a popular term for self interests. You see, you have an issue, you are being judged by an American liberal, your views are being countered by the views of an American live, your positions are being challenged by an American liberal and so forth.

Am I, or have I ever been, a librul?

Yes, always.

Hmm. I disagree. A liberal shouldn't be so one sided or narrow minded in their views like yours are now and like they always have been in the past. You're a blue/green and you're only a liberal in that way. You're basically liberal by political/cultural color and that's it. The American liberals are figuring this out and are beginning to understand how much of a threat you guys are to them and their freedoms.

That's librul enough for me. Blue/green is liberal. Red is reactionary.

My ancestors have been here for up to 10 generations. Republicans today are the threat to freedom. Having a gun is not a genuine right, and is not freedom. That "right" doesn't count at all. And we don't want taxes that are too high on you; just high enough to meet our needs as a society. So again, the notion that today's blues and greens are a threat to you guys or anyone is an illusion propagated by the powers that be for the sole purpose of protecting their wealth and power over you.

My ancestors include people who came to America on the second immigrant boat to Massachusetts and on one of the first Dutch immigrant ships to New Amsterdam, some German and Swiss Mennonites who settled in Pennsylvania and the Shenandoah Valley. They would all show contempt for this President.

My father, who had never voted for any but Republican nominees for President in his 84 years told me before he went senile that he was absolutely not going to vote for Donald Trump. He died in October 2016, which protected his  record.

Donald Trump makes me wish that Michigan were a province of Canada instead of a state of the Union.

[Bob Butler 54]

(03-17-2018, 03:38 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Keeping him from getting a firearm after he made a terrorist threat would have solved the problem. A court order to leave Florida would have stopped this massacre.

A court order to leave Florida would be unusual, and I expect unconstitutional.  Your weird opinions are rather perverse.

[Eric the Green]

(03-17-2018, 01:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 12:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Certainly that Florida massacre was an example of why military weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. That guy Mateen was just a fool, he was not really part of any terrorist group. He should not have had access to that weapon. I don't know the stats for sure, but I've heard other accounts about who has killed more. It doesn't really make any difference; both terrorist groups are horrible and should be resisted, and should not be allowed to have any guns. Talk about threats to our rights, lives and liberty, these two factions certainly are both that.

My AR-15, deer rifle, semi-automatic pistol or shut gun could have killed or severely wounded him and saved lives.

Or your semi-automatics could have taken a lot more. Not used by you I assume, but someone else who had bought it. And if you were there shooting at Mateen, it could have cost you your life, without saving many, and with many more collateral deaths. You probably would have had to be employed there as a guard to use it there. The rifle might not have worked; not fast enough against Mateen's AR-15 shooting you.

[Eric the Green]

(03-17-2018, 01:42 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 12:55 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's librul enough for me. Blue/green is liberal. Red is reactionary.

My ancestors have been here for up to 10 generations. Republicans today are the threat to freedom. Having a gun is not a genuine right, and is not freedom. That "right" doesn't count at all. And we don't want taxes that are too high on you; just high enough to meet our needs as a society. So again, the notion that today's blues and greens are a threat to you guys or anyone is an illusion propagated by the powers that be for the sole purpose of protecting their wealth and power over you.

Ain't librul enough for me. Blue/green is reactionary too. You don't see it that way or view that way because it isn't in your interest to see it and view it as being that way. You ignore it and claim to be liberal like you do cuz that's all that's needed to be said, associated or used to attract naive/dumb people. Red is America today. Red represents the flag, the Constitution, the American rule of law, the protection of American rights and so forth. Blue is partially American today. The bulk of the Democratic voters have no idea of the battle that's going on in places like here, the courts and so forth.

My ancestors on my mothers side have been here since the beginning and took part in the Revolutionary War. My ancestors on my fathers side have been here for going on six generations with the seventh generation being born and in the process of being raised right now. You are a threat to me. You're not viewed as being much of a threat but you're viewed as a threat.

No, blue/green is liberal. Everyone admits that. You are presenting a rather unconventional theory. Insulting me does not prove your point; sorry "Red America" today represents voter suppression, gerrymandering, collusion with foreign powers in elections, voting by race and appeals to xenophobia in a nation of immigrants, money-dominated politics and lobbying, banks being allowed to cheat customers, dirty and oppressive wars and detentions abroad that serve oil interests and kill thousands of innocent people, threats against newspapers and broadcasters, threats and laws against protesters, huge tax breaks to corporations and billionaires; you think this is "the flag, the Constitution, the American rule of law, the protection of American rights"? Or maybe you mean laws against burning the flag is "American"? Justice Scalia disagreed. No, it's constitutional. Your red "American" rights consist merely of symbolism, protection of the white and the rich, protection of moneyed interests, protection of the right to possess military weapons. NO thanks for that "America." The battle against it is well-known among Democrats.

[pbrower2a]

(03-18-2018, 04:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 03:38 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Keeping him from getting a firearm after he made a terrorist threat would have solved the problem. A court order to leave Florida would have stopped this massacre.

A court order to leave Florida would be unusual, and I expect unconstitutional.  Your weird opinions are rather perverse.

OK -- stay at least twenty miles away from the school where he had been a problem.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-18-2018, 10:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 01:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-17-2018, 12:49 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Certainly that Florida massacre was an example of why military weapons like the AR-15 should be banned. That guy Mateen was just a fool, he was not really part of any terrorist group. He should not have had access to that weapon. I don't know the stats for sure, but I've heard other accounts about who has killed more. It doesn't really make any difference; both terrorist groups are horrible and should be resisted, and should not be allowed to have any guns. Talk about threats to our rights, lives and liberty, these two factions certainly are both that.

My AR-15, deer rifle, semi-automatic pistol or shut gun could have killed or severely wounded him and saved lives.

Or your semi-automatics could have taken a lot more. Not used by you I assume, but someone else who had bought it. And if you were there shooting at Mateen, it could have cost you your life, without saving many, and with many more collateral deaths. You probably would have had to be employed there as a guard to use it there. The rifle might not have worked; not fast enough against Mateen's AR-15 shooting you.

It only takes one or two accurate shots to kill or severely injure a shooter like Mateen. Your view represents the view of a person who has never shot a gun, who has never hit a target with a round, who most likely has never handled a gun, who is not very familiar with them, who does not feel comfortable with them, who is most likely afraid of guns and afraid of people who have/own guns and so forth. You seem like you'd be more interested in saving yourself than saving others if you were placed in a similar situation based on the post.

[Classic-Xer]

(03-18-2018, 10:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, blue/green is liberal. Everyone admits that. You are presenting a rather unconventional theory. Insulting me does not prove your point; sorry  "Red America" today represents voter suppression, gerrymandering, collusion with foreign powers in elections, voting by race and appeals to xenophobia in a nation of immigrants, money-dominated politics and lobbying, banks being allowed to cheat customers, dirty and oppressive wars and detentions abroad that serve oil interests and kill thousands of innocent people, threats against newspapers and broadcasters, threats and laws against protesters, huge tax breaks to corporations and billionaires; you think this is "the flag, the Constitution, the American rule of law, the protection of American rights"? Or maybe you mean laws against burning the flag is "American"? Justice Scalia disagreed. No, it's constitutional. Your red "American" rights consist merely of symbolism, protection of the white and the rich, protection of moneyed interests, protection of the right to possess military weapons. NO thanks for that "America." The battle against it is well-known among Democrats.

Yes, blue/green is commonly associated with the term liberal. I'll agree with you and I'll add that's about the only thing that's liberal about you. You're a liberal green/blue and a left wing reactionary of some sort. Blues burn the flag because the flag has no meaning to blues and represents nothing of value to blues. The blues want their own flag because the American flag of old is viewed as tainted, as mean, as unjust or as whatever negative thought that some blues/greens have or use to turn people way from it. I'm not opposed to blues burning our flag or spouting out negatives or doing stupid shit either. I'm in favor of allowing AMERICA to see it and see all of it.

[pbrower2a]

(03-18-2018, 03:37 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(03-18-2018, 10:18 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: No, blue/green is liberal. Everyone admits that. You are presenting a rather unconventional theory. Insulting me does not prove your point; sorry  "Red America" today represents voter suppression, gerrymandering, collusion with foreign powers in elections, voting by race and appeals to xenophobia in a nation of immigrants, money-dominated politics and lobbying, banks being allowed to cheat customers, dirty and oppressive wars and detentions abroad that serve oil interests and kill thousands of innocent people, threats against newspapers and broadcasters, threats and laws against protesters, huge tax breaks to corporations and billionaires; you think this is "the flag, the Constitution, the American rule of law, the protection of American rights"? Or maybe you mean laws against burning the flag is "American"? Justice Scalia disagreed. No, it's constitutional. Your red "American" rights consist merely of symbolism, protection of the white and the rich, protection of moneyed interests, protection of the right to possess military weapons. NO thanks for that "America." The battle against it is well-known among Democrats.

Yes, blue/green is commonly associated with the term liberal. I'll agree with you and I'll add that's about the only thing that's liberal about you. You're a liberal green/blue and a left wing reactionary of some sort. Blues burn the flag because the flag has no meaning to blues and represents nothing of value to blues. The blues want their own flag because the American flag of old is viewed as tainted, as mean, as unjust or as whatever negative thought that some blues/greens have or use to turn people way from it. I'm not opposed to blues burning our flag or spouting out negatives or doing stupid shit either. I'm in favor of allowing AMERICA to see it and see all of it.

The last people that I saw burning an American flag in protest in America were neo-Nazis.

Here's my statement on burning the American flag as a form of protest:

Such a deed is an insult to two hundred hears of American political heritage. Forty-eight stars and thirteen stripes marched along with US troops into Dachau and Mauthausen, infamous Nazi concentration camps. The horrors that could stop did... of course many of the inmates were beyond any chance of survival. That is what the United States of America means at its absolute best. When MacArthur returned to Manila as he promised, Filipinos were glad to see that flag. With fifty stars, Old Glory meant freedom in southern Korea... and in Kuwait. Americans got to desecrate a statue of Saddam Hussein by rubbing the US flag upon its face... to much cheering at the time. (I may not like the measures that led to the second Gulf War, but I have no problem with the fate of Saddam Hussein and his fascist regime). Of course a flag with fewer stars implied that for those who had been slaves, slavery was over and emancipation was the law. 

The United States flag went along with the struggle for the liberty and dignity of Southern blacks. Typically that flag went alone. The KKK preferred the Confederate flag, symbol of the  military defense of slavery. You tell me who you think I consider the real patriots.

Burning our flag as a protest of current policies of the US government is a puerile, offensive act that does more to expose the sick expression of irrelevant sanctimony of the protester than the justice of one's cause. It's not the nation that is the problem; it is that the politicians (like Donald Trump) have fallen short of American ideals. If you despise President Trump, then by all means protest his policies, his behavior, and his incendiary rhetoric -- but leave the Flag alone. Indeed, fly the flag.