Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (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...
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, ...
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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(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.
You are on the reactionary side, because that's what red voters are today. I have already described what reds support, and why it's reactionary. Not to say that I haven't done that here for 20 years already. It's all very clear, and only awaits your awakening to see that it is better for your interests to act and vote from the larger view than from the narrow reactionary view.
I have no objection to the flag; it's a perfectly fine flag to represent the USA. The important point is for the USA to live up to the ideals and principles it represents. Right now, red politics in interested only in tarnishing these principles and ideals as fully as they can. So, blues and greens may protest against these travesties, and suggest alternative policies that are constructive to our communities, our nation and our world. They may carry and raise the flag, or they may burn it, or they may carry other flags to make their points. That is using the principles to which this nation is dedicated.
Posts: 443
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Boomers, Stop trying to domesticate humans, we like having freedom and having the right to our full faculties.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
03-20-2018, 12:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 12:44 AM by Classic-Xer.)
(03-19-2018, 01:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are on the reactionary side, because that's what red voters are today. I have already described what reds support, and why it's reactionary. Not to say that I haven't done that here for 20 years already. It's all very clear, and only awaits your awakening to see that it is better for your interests to act and vote from the larger view than from the narrow reactionary view.
I have no objection to the flag; it's a perfectly fine flag to represent the USA. The important point is for the USA to live up to the ideals and principles it represents. Right now, red politics in interested only in tarnishing these principles and ideals as fully as they can. So, blues and greens may protest against these travesties, and suggest alternative policies that are constructive to our communities, our nation and our world. They may carry and raise the flag, or they may burn it, or they may carry other flags to make their points. That is using the principles to which this nation is dedicated.
Say's who? You, the Progressives/blues/greens who have been promoting it? You've been promoting that here and telling me that to my face for years. Who is defeating you? Ain't fascist, racist, skin heads clinging to Nazi flags and symbols. Americans ain't into them anymore than there into those who's views and beliefs are similar to those associated with a red (reactionary) flag with a yellow hammer and sickle or a red (reactionary) flag with yellow stars. Who switched the colors and gave us the color that's associated with reactionary? Who are you fucking with? You are fucking with an older Nomad who isn't easily intimidated and feels insecure. You're fucking with a more confident individual than you are/were used to fucking with during past years. Do you think it matters to me if a Democrat votes to secure the southern border and supports deporting illegals instead of a Republican? It doesn't matter to me as much as it should matter to you.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-20-2018, 12:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 12:57 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-20-2018, 12:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 01:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are on the reactionary side, because that's what red voters are today. I have already described what reds support, and why it's reactionary. Not to say that I haven't done that here for 20 years already. It's all very clear, and only awaits your awakening to see that it is better for your interests to act and vote from the larger view than from the narrow reactionary view.
I have no objection to the flag; it's a perfectly fine flag to represent the USA. The important point is for the USA to live up to the ideals and principles it represents. Right now, red politics in interested only in tarnishing these principles and ideals as fully as they can. So, blues and greens may protest against these travesties, and suggest alternative policies that are constructive to our communities, our nation and our world. They may carry and raise the flag, or they may burn it, or they may carry other flags to make their points. That is using the principles to which this nation is dedicated.
Say's who? You, the Progressives/blues/greens who have been promoting it? You've been promoting that here and telling me that to my face for years. Who is defeating you? Ain't fascist, racist, skin heads clinging to Nazi flags and symbols. Americans ain't into them anymore than there into those who's views and beliefs are similar to those associated with a red (reactionary) flag with a yellow hammer and sickle or a red (reactionary) flag with yellow stars. Who switched the colors and gave us the color that's associated with reactionary? Who are you fucking with? You are fucking with an older Nomad who isn't easily intimidated or feels insecure. You're fucking with a more confident individual than you are/were used to fucking with during past years. Do you think it matters to me if a Democrat votes to secure the southern border and supports deporting illegals instead of a Republican? It doesn't matter to me as much as it's going to matter to you.
No, you missed the mark again. The party labels and colors don't really mean shit. Symbolism of colors and flags don't count. Just the best policies. The border was already secure enough in our opinion. That's what counts; moving beyond xenophobia, which you display in your expressed opinion that what matters is securing the "southern" border and deporting illegals. No, that's not what counts. What counts is greater opportunity for all people to make it in this society without drudgery and slavery, and what counts is an environment that supports life and is not snuffed out and destroyed by greedy corporatists and wealth families who only care about their wealth.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-20-2018, 12:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-20-2018, 12:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 01:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are on the reactionary side, because that's what red voters are today. I have already described what reds support, and why it's reactionary. Not to say that I haven't done that here for 20 years already. It's all very clear, and only awaits your awakening to see that it is better for your interests to act and vote from the larger view than from the narrow reactionary view.
I have no objection to the flag; it's a perfectly fine flag to represent the USA. The important point is for the USA to live up to the ideals and principles it represents. Right now, red politics in interested only in tarnishing these principles and ideals as fully as they can. So, blues and greens may protest against these travesties, and suggest alternative policies that are constructive to our communities, our nation and our world. They may carry and raise the flag, or they may burn it, or they may carry other flags to make their points. That is using the principles to which this nation is dedicated.
Say's who? You, the Progressives/blues/greens who have been promoting it? You've been promoting that here and telling me that to my face for years. Who is defeating you? Ain't fascist, racist, skin heads clinging to Nazi flags and symbols. Americans ain't into them anymore than there into those who's views and beliefs are similar to those associated with a red (reactionary) flag with a yellow hammer and sickle or a red (reactionary) flag with yellow stars. Who switched the colors and gave us the color that's associated with reactionary? Who are you fucking with? You are fucking with an older Nomad who isn't easily intimidated or feels insecure. You're fucking with a more confident individual than you are/were used to fucking with during past years. Do you think it matters to me if a Democrat votes to secure the southern border and supports deporting illegals instead of a Republican? It doesn't matter to me as much as it's going to matter to you.
No, you missed the mark again. The party labels and colors don't really mean shit. Symbolism of colors and flags don't count. Just the best policies. The border was already secure enough in our opinion. That's what counts; moving beyond xenophobia, which you display in your expressed opinion that what matters is securing the border and deporting illegals. No, that's not what counts. What counts is greater opportunity for all people to make it in this society without drudgery and slavery, and what counts is an environment that supports life and is not snuffed out and destroyed by greedy corporatists and wealth families who only care about their wealth.
The border isn't secured enough in our opinion. The enforcement of American law is more important to me as an American than the skin color of the person or people who have clearly broken it by entering the USA illegally. I care about my wealth. I'm not ashamed to say that I care about my wealth. Other than the blues who don't have much or any wealth to care about and the blues who have so much wealth coming in that they can't spend it fast enough, what Americans don't care about there wealth?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-20-2018, 12:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 12:52 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-20-2018, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-20-2018, 12:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-20-2018, 12:39 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 01:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You are on the reactionary side, because that's what red voters are today. I have already described what reds support, and why it's reactionary. Not to say that I haven't done that here for 20 years already. It's all very clear, and only awaits your awakening to see that it is better for your interests to act and vote from the larger view than from the narrow reactionary view.
I have no objection to the flag; it's a perfectly fine flag to represent the USA. The important point is for the USA to live up to the ideals and principles it represents. Right now, red politics in interested only in tarnishing these principles and ideals as fully as they can. So, blues and greens may protest against these travesties, and suggest alternative policies that are constructive to our communities, our nation and our world. They may carry and raise the flag, or they may burn it, or they may carry other flags to make their points. That is using the principles to which this nation is dedicated.
Say's who? You, the Progressives/blues/greens who have been promoting it? You've been promoting that here and telling me that to my face for years. Who is defeating you? Ain't fascist, racist, skin heads clinging to Nazi flags and symbols. Americans ain't into them anymore than there into those who's views and beliefs are similar to those associated with a red (reactionary) flag with a yellow hammer and sickle or a red (reactionary) flag with yellow stars. Who switched the colors and gave us the color that's associated with reactionary? Who are you fucking with? You are fucking with an older Nomad who isn't easily intimidated or feels insecure. You're fucking with a more confident individual than you are/were used to fucking with during past years. Do you think it matters to me if a Democrat votes to secure the southern border and supports deporting illegals instead of a Republican? It doesn't matter to me as much as it's going to matter to you.
No, you missed the mark again. The party labels and colors don't really mean shit. Symbolism of colors and flags don't count. Just the best policies. The border was already secure enough in our opinion. That's what counts; moving beyond xenophobia, which you display in your expressed opinion that what matters is securing the border and deporting illegals. No, that's not what counts. What counts is greater opportunity for all people to make it in this society without drudgery and slavery, and what counts is an environment that supports life and is not snuffed out and destroyed by greedy corporatists and wealth families who only care about their wealth.
The border isn't secured enough in our opinion. The enforcement of American law is more important to me as an American than the skin color of the person or people who have clearly broken it by entering the USA illegally. I care about my wealth. I'm not ashamed to say that I care about my wealth. Other than the blues who don't have much or any wealth to care about and the blues who have so much wealth coming in that they can't spend it fast enough, what Americans don't care about there wealth?
I care about my wealth too. It's just not the only or the main thing, but I certainly do.
Crossing a border is only a misdemeanor. Basically, shouldn't people be able to live in the country that they WANT to live in? Why not? Yes, obeying the law is better. President Obama was known as the deporter in chief. He was enforcing the border as much as any sane person could want. Trump's demagoguery on this issue happened only because he took advantage of xenophobia and racism to get elected.
Rather than deporting everyone who crossed illegally, the sane and proper thing to do is what the bipartisan bill that was passed in the senate, supported by both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, proposed; offer a path to citizenship to those who pay a fine and obey the law. Red America xenophobic, demagogic politics rejected this, and just wants to keep America white by deporting everyone who crosses illegally, separate people from their families, pick them up while they are taking their children to school, and putting them away in detention centers and deporting them, regardless of anything they have done. This Trump approach is fascism. And Trump uses a case in San Francisco to dramatize his insane, fascist demagoguery, when in fact the man was not even guilty of a violent crime.
Immigrants, illegal or not, from Mexico, are only taking jobs that whites don't want, and which businesses need. It's the H B1 immigrants or whatever they're called, the ones Trump WANTS to allow in his "merit system" approach, who are taking jobs away; skilled and well-educated folks who are brought in by high tech employers like many here in Silicon Valley to take jobs that Americans could get if our education system were not being decimated by the likes of Betsy DeVos.
People are getting fed up with a politics that takes away health care, decimates unions, destroys public education, keeps wages low, and destroys Nature, all so that a few corporate big shots like the Koch Brothers can keep their billions. They use slogans of free enterprise, lower taxes, fears of immigrants, and of course "gun rights," to get folks like you to support their agenda of wealth and power for the few and wage-slavery and addiction for the many. And you should know better.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-20-2018, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I care about my wealth too. It's just not the only or the main thing, but I certainly do.
Crossing a border is only a misdemeanor. Basically, shouldn't people be able to live in the country that they WANT to live in? Why not? Yes, obeying the law is better. President Obama was known as the deporter in chief. He was enforcing the border as much as any sane person could want. Trump's demagoguery on this issue happened only because he took advantage of xenophobia and racism to get elected.
Rather than deporting everyone who crossed illegally, the sane and proper thing to do is what the bipartisan bill that was passed in the senate, supported by both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, proposed; offer a path to citizenship to those who pay a fine and obey the law. Red America xenophobic, demagogic politics rejected this, and just wants to keep America white by deporting everyone who crosses illegally, separate people from their families, pick them up while they are taking their children to school, and putting them away in detention centers and deporting them, regardless of anything they have done. This Trump approach is fascism. And Trump uses a case in San Francisco to dramatize his insane, fascist demagoguery, when in fact the man was not even guilty of a violent crime.
Immigrants, illegal or not, from Mexico, are only taking jobs that whites don't want, and which businesses need. It's the H B1 immigrants or whatever they're called, the ones Trump WANTS to allow in his "merit system" approach, who are taking jobs away; skilled and well-educated folks who are brought in by high tech employers like many here in Silicon Valley to take jobs that Americans could get if our education system were not being decimated by the likes of Betsy DeVos.
People are getting fed up with a politics that takes away health care, decimates unions, destroys public education, keeps wages low, and destroys Nature, all so that a few corporate big shots like the Koch Brothers can keep their billions. They use slogans of free enterprise, lower taxes, fears of immigrants, and of course "gun rights," to get folks like you to support their agenda of wealth and power for the few and wage-slavery and addiction for the many. And you should know better.
The illegal alien shot a US citizen (an innocent white woman) in the head and killed her. She's dead and he's still walking around as if he's innocent because some liberal/ group of liberals placed more value on him, his life and his illegal status than they placed on her, her life and her legal status as a US citizen. You keep blowing us off, we keep hurting that precious blue image that blues inherited from a group of dead Americans associated with the past.
Like I said, who do you think your fucking around with? I ain't no fool or idiot. I'm not a submissive/timid person. I told the blues what they've got coming to them years ago that you/blues are just beginning to feel now. This is just the beginning and you haven't seen anything yet. FUCK THE PROGRESSIVE BLUE/GREEN AND LETS SEE HOW STRONG THE PROGRESSIVES ARE AND SEE HOW STRONG THE PROGRESSIVE VALUES ARE WHEN SERIOUSLY PUT TO THE TEST. I've just been fucking with you. I haven't got serious with you yet.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (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...
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, ...
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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-18-2018, 10:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-17-2018, 01:58 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: 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, ...
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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
That's a good reason for gun control right there. People like you don't think twice about shooting "in defense." It may only turn out to be a burglar, or a neighbor knocking on your door. And the cops just shot another unarmed black man suspected of breaking windows, but they shot him in his own back yard just because he held up a cell phone. In defense, the cops said. And the cops will get away with this murder, because the guy is black and because they are cops.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-20-2018, 11:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2018, 11:39 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-20-2018, 03:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-20-2018, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I care about my wealth too. It's just not the only or the main thing, but I certainly do.
Crossing a border is only a misdemeanor. Basically, shouldn't people be able to live in the country that they WANT to live in? Why not? Yes, obeying the law is better. President Obama was known as the deporter in chief. He was enforcing the border as much as any sane person could want. Trump's demagoguery on this issue happened only because he took advantage of xenophobia and racism to get elected.
Rather than deporting everyone who crossed illegally, the sane and proper thing to do is what the bipartisan bill that was passed in the senate, supported by both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, proposed; offer a path to citizenship to those who pay a fine and obey the law. Red America xenophobic, demagogic politics rejected this, and just wants to keep America white by deporting everyone who crosses illegally, separate people from their families, pick them up while they are taking their children to school, and putting them away in detention centers and deporting them, regardless of anything they have done. This Trump approach is fascism. And Trump uses a case in San Francisco to dramatize his insane, fascist demagoguery, when in fact the man was not even guilty of a violent crime.
Immigrants, illegal or not, from Mexico, are only taking jobs that whites don't want, and which businesses need. It's the H B1 immigrants or whatever they're called, the ones Trump WANTS to allow in his "merit system" approach, who are taking jobs away; skilled and well-educated folks who are brought in by high tech employers like many here in Silicon Valley to take jobs that Americans could get if our education system were not being decimated by the likes of Betsy DeVos.
People are getting fed up with a politics that takes away health care, decimates unions, destroys public education, keeps wages low, and destroys Nature, all so that a few corporate big shots like the Koch Brothers can keep their billions. They use slogans of free enterprise, lower taxes, fears of immigrants, and of course "gun rights," to get folks like you to support their agenda of wealth and power for the few and wage-slavery and addiction for the many. And you should know better.
The illegal alien shot a US citizen (an innocent white woman) in the head and killed her. She's dead and he's still walking around as if he's innocent because some liberal/ group of liberals placed more value on him, his life and his illegal status than they placed on her, her life and her legal status as a US citizen. You keep blowing us off, we keep hurting that precious blue image that blues inherited from a group of dead Americans associated with the past.
Like I said, who do you think your fucking around with? I ain't no fool or idiot. I'm not a submissive/timid person. I told the blues what they've got coming to them years ago that you/blues are just beginning to feel now. This is just the beginning and you haven't seen anything yet. FUCK THE PROGRESSIVE BLUE/GREEN AND LETS SEE HOW STRONG THE PROGRESSIVES ARE AND SEE HOW STRONG THE PROGRESSIVE VALUES ARE WHEN SERIOUSLY PUT TO THE TEST. I've just been fucking with you. I haven't got serious with you yet.
Trump demagogued that San Francisco case, even though he knew nothing about it, and even though he didn't know that the man was innocent. Reasonable jurors, in a system that usually finds innocent people guilty, found him innocent according to the law. You and Trump are simply ignoring the law, just like you accuse the man of doing (which he did when he came here illegally, yes). But you are no better if you ignore the findings of the Court by just calling it liberal. There was good reason to find him innocent, and so the Court did so. You guys should not use such a doubtful case to justify hauling people away from their families just because they crossed a border.
Fanatic gun toters are going to be curtailed, and their guns taken away-- if they don't behave and submit to realistic, reasonable gun controls and bans of military semi-automatics with large magazines that will be passed in the next few years. The blue/greens are rising, NOT you guys, and we will have you reds permanently in the minority in the next few years. If you resist violently, you will pay the price, depending on what you do.
You are like Trump in that you try to arouse and appeal to peoples' fears, and make veiled references to racist sentiments. I suggest you take a look at what you really believe, and if you are NOT a racist and a fear-monger, to not give the impression that you are either a racist, or a violent fanatic, by what you sometimes say.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(03-20-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fanatic gun toters are going to be curtailed, and their guns taken away-- if they don't behave and submit to realistic, reasonable gun controls and bans of military semi-automatics with large magazines that will be passed in the next few years. The blue/greens are rising, NOT you guys, and we will have you reds permanently in the minority in the next few years. If you resist violently, you will pay the price, depending on what you do.
Some seem to believe themselves more safe if they are helpless. Others take responsibility for their safety. Forcing the other guys to change survival based values is not going to happen in the short term. Democracy can be used to attempt to force one's values on another. It is not particularly wise to do so.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(03-21-2018, 05:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (03-20-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fanatic gun toters are going to be curtailed, and their guns taken away-- if they don't behave and submit to realistic, reasonable gun controls and bans of military semi-automatics with large magazines that will be passed in the next few years. The blue/greens are rising, NOT you guys, and we will have you reds permanently in the minority in the next few years. If you resist violently, you will pay the price, depending on what you do.
Some seem to believe themselves more safe if they are helpless. Others take responsibility for their safety. Forcing the other guys to change survival based values is not going to happen in the short term. Democracy can be used to attempt to force one's values on another. It is not particularly wise to do so.
But, to the extent that you mean passing a ban on military-style weapons with large magazines, it WILL happen, and it MUST happen. The youth will see to it. And thus, survival values WILL be served through democracy. Those who choose to take up arms to resist this constitutional exercize of democracy, WILL be defeated.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-21-2018, 11:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-21-2018, 05:34 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (03-20-2018, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Fanatic gun toters are going to be curtailed, and their guns taken away-- if they don't behave and submit to realistic, reasonable gun controls and bans of military semi-automatics with large magazines that will be passed in the next few years. The blue/greens are rising, NOT you guys, and we will have you reds permanently in the minority in the next few years. If you resist violently, you will pay the price, depending on what you do.
Some seem to believe themselves more safe if they are helpless. Others take responsibility for their safety. Forcing the other guys to change survival based values is not going to happen in the short term. Democracy can be used to attempt to force one's values on another. It is not particularly wise to do so.
But, to the extent that you mean passing a ban on military-style weapons with large magazines, it WILL happen, and it MUST happen. The youth will see to it. And thus, survival values WILL be served through democracy. Those who choose to take up arms to resist this constitutional exercize of democracy, WILL be defeated.
Defeated by who?
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
various armed forces of the United States.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-20-2018, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-18-2018, 10:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Or your semi-automatics could have taken a lot more. Not used by you I assume, ...
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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
That's a good reason for gun control right there. People like you don't think twice about shooting "in defense." It may only turn out to be a burglar, or a neighbor knocking on your door. And the cops just shot another unarmed black man suspected of breaking windows, but they shot him in his own back yard just because he held up a cell phone. In defense, the cops said. And the cops will get away with this murder, because the guy is black and because they are cops.
There's a difference (a different sound/a different feel) between a neighbor knocking on your door and a criminal breaking into to your home or a dangerous person forcing they're way into your home. Yes, a burglar/dangerous person could end up shot/wounded or end up dead from a gun shot. That's a risk that burglars/criminals/dangerous people take these days. Once again, the blues seem more concerned about the lives of burglars/criminals than the lives of lawful citizens. I've always had an issue with Progressive/blue/green values because of the positions they take on issues involving American values. What do we (the Americans) do with/do about the Progressive/blue/green? Do we wait for/trust the Democrats to take care (get rid of them) of them for us or do we (The Americans) begin the process of getting rid of them ourselves?
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: 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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-21-2018, 02:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: various armed forces of the United States.
How many members of the armed forces view themselves as citizens of the United States (American citizens) first? If we go to war, we will no longer be casual acquaintances on the internet, we will be wartime adversaries and whatever happens to you in blue territory ain't going to matter to me. As far as I'm concerned, the Bloods and Crypts, the Neo-Nazi's, MS-13, radical Islamic groups and other criminal/lawless groups can do whatever they want within blue cities and the Reds can do whatever they want to do within blue states to weaken the power of blue state while a war of attrition is being fought all over the map.
Posts: 2,936
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
(03-21-2018, 02:59 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-20-2018, 04:20 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-19-2018, 12:16 PM)David Horn Wrote: (03-18-2018, 02:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: 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.
Out of basic curiosity, have you ever been in a situation where an active shooter is both present and a threat? If so, how did you react? If not, how can you know how you would have reacted?
Nope. I haven't been in a situation like that yet. I can only tell you this. I've been in other dangerous situations including facing certain death. Like I said, you don't know shit about me. You don't know my strengths and my over all capabilities. You don't know my natural instincts or my feelings or the beliefs that would come into play during a situation like that one. What would you do if you were on the same situation with a firearm? Would you use it for defense without thinking twice or would you waste valuable time fucking around and mulling over the con's and talking yourself out of using it for defense?
The point I was making is simple. Responding to a life-threatening asymmetrical threat the first time is an unknown for everyone. 99% of all such threats are first time events, so the only alternative to winging it is training. Now training to overcome the adrenaline rush while responding, and an active shooter response requires both precision and speed, is exactly the training that the military offers: long term and relentless. Law enforcement tends to grab the already trained ex-military types for SWAT for that very reason.
So no; I don't know how you would react. Neither do you. FWIW, the same applies to me.
The point that I've been making is the shooter wasn't/most likely isn't a highly trained professional (upper 1%) either. The shooter, like most unprofessional shooters, would most likely be in the same percentage (the so-called 99%) as us (you and me) and would be susceptible to pain, fear, surprise and so on just like everyone else who hasn't been involved in a shootout with others or a situation where someone is shooting at them.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
03-21-2018, 07:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018, 08:08 PM by Eric the Green.)
(03-21-2018, 03:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (03-21-2018, 02:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: various armed forces of the United States.
How many members of the armed forces view themselves as citizens of the United States (American citizens) first?
Most will.
See for example the article I just posted in let's make fun of Trump, etc. about a former officer who resigned from Fox News. "Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to 'support and defend the Constitution,' and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform." he said.
Quote: If we go to war, we will no longer be casual acquaintances on the internet, we will be wartime adversaries and whatever happens to you in blue territory ain't going to matter to me.
Right
Quote: As far as I'm concerned, the Bloods and Crypts, the Neo-Nazi's, MS-13, radical Islamic groups and other criminal/lawless groups can do whatever they want within blue cities and the Reds can do whatever they want to do within blue states to weaken the power of blue state(s) while a war of attrition is being fought all over the map.
ha ha. "the Bloods and Crypts, the Neo-Nazi's, MS-13, radical Islamic groups and other criminal/lawless groups" ARE the Red groups, and if they do "whatever they want," they will be arrested or otherwise dealt with. Yes, the Reds will do what they can, but they will be defeated by the superior forces of the USA. I expect the gun fanatics, tax cheaters, religious wackos, xenophobes, racists and other red rebels will be a distinct minority; most Americans will continue to accept the rule of law, including sensible gun regulations, sensible immigration policies and reasonable taxes and social programs. Red American terrorists will be dealt with in the same way that the USA deals with terrorists today.
Myself, and I suspect I speak for many blues, the reds may very well be welcome this time (unlike your predecessors, the grays) to secede, and if you develop an alternative group of red states, you are welcome to them, as long as you don't impose your red rule over the blue territories, including if WE should be the ones who decide to secede from you guys (should my prophecy be wrong and you continue to rule the USA as you do now).
I suspect the only deterrent to this policy on our part, is what you guys will do with the natural treasures in red territories. I suspect they would be despoiled rather quickly, and that you would contribute mightily to global warming with no willingness to change. So that remains an obstacle to allowing reds to secede, just as allowing slavery was in the end not acceptable to the blues in 1861-1865. I don't know if blues today would be willing to fight you guys over this environmental issue or not, though. It depends on how stiff your resistance is, I imagine. But if you want to continue to kill yourselves off with guns, that should be OK, as long as we have stiff border controls to keep them out of blue territory.
|
