Jump to content

Random News Observations


Recommended Posts

It's your mo to post some empty platitude about silly libs or govt bad. Such irony

 

did i take a shot at Bob? there was nothing negative in my comment on his post. I hate the actions of our government - end of story. Libs have been in control for the last 4 yrs and Bush spent 8 years giving them anything damn thing they wanted so he could have his war...yea we do have a bad government right now. maybe someday it will change.

 

libs are silly - they are also damaging our country deeply and out of control at the present momment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The most interesting thing about the worlds largest beaver dam is that it was discovered via Google Earth and some guy trekked out there to see it IRL and was the first person to ever set foot in that

Beware of overcharging someone. Thats the #1 lesson learned from the Zimmerman case. He was guilty of avoidable behavior that ultimately culminated in a fatality- manslaughter- but he was not guilty

You should've tried to get on the jury and convince the rest that he was not guilty.

Posted Images

 

Man, I wish I knew what has pushed this guy and people of his ilk so far to the right of crazy town.

 

Even if you think Obama is a bad president and even a little corrupt, which I don't believe. Not any more corrupt than the rest of em. But where has all of this hate come from in this country? We're people this outrage during the Great Depression when shit was way worse? Is it race, on top of hate of liberals? Bush was despised but this hate now seems WAY worse. And half the time, it's bs straw man arguments. Is the hyperbolic news cycle and talk radio to blame for constantly firing up the idiots in the name of profits and ratings?

 

Watched a Walmart doc from 2005 the other day. All these redneck republicans telling me how they vote and how they love capitalism, but hate Walmart for putting small mom and pop stores out of business and suggesting regulation. Its like these people are just puppets. No brains. And they vote against their own interest.

 

/ramble

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good thing this guy is a responsible gun owner

 

http://livewire.talk...ver-gun-control

 

For every fruit cake you dig up, I can post a thousand stories like this.

 

Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9

http://www.dailymail...kids-attic.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

For every fruit cake you dig up, I can post a thousand stories like this.

 

Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9

http://www.dailymail...kids-attic.html

 

and for every one of these there are far more people shot by accident or shot in a domestic assault or commit suicide by shooting themselves.

 

The safest homes are ones without guns in them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we did this in the sick thread already. Brv posted that exact link about the woman shooting the dude and someone else posted a link of a guy that shot his own kid. So, yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and for every one of these there are far more people shot by accident or shot in a domestic assault or commit suicide by shooting themselves.

 

The safest homes are ones without guns in them.

 

That would be a correct statement if you are referring to criminals entering that home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we did this in the sick thread already. Brv posted that exact link about the woman shooting the dude and someone else posted a link of a guy that shot his own kid. So, yeah.

 

 

Oh, come on. Everybody knows that an argument is won by the person who presents the most compelling anecdotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hows everyone enjoying today's pay check?

 

#itsonlythebeginnning...

 

 

Well, a lot of people aren't enjoying it all that much, mostly because the reduction social security payroll tax expired. This was a tax cut that applied to about 163 million Americans.

 

Of course, Republicans, having an insane backward view of the world that only makes less sense as you examine it, didn't fight against the expiration of this tax cut. They DID fight tooth and nail to prevent tax hikes on millionaires, but apparently they only care about taxes that effect the rich.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/11/payroll_tax_holiday_the_most_important_part_of_the_fiscal_cliff_must_be.html

 

I'm assuming that's what you're referring to, right?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

and for every one of these there are far more people shot by accident or shot in a domestic assault or commit suicide by shooting themselves.

 

The safest homes are ones without guns in them.

 

Anyone looking at my political stances would either call me a lib'ral(the right) or probably a democrat(everyone else) and I'm firmly against gun control. Guns are an important tool to help protect yourself and your family.

 

I disagree with your last sentence but I get to use my own qualifiers and assumptions since you didn't clarify that broad sweeping statement.

 

The safest homes are those with roofs that don't have rotten roof beams.

 

The safest homes have working fire alarms.

 

The safest homes are those with an occupant who has a master of arms for whatever firearm they own and will use it in an appropriate fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone looking at my political stances would either call me a lib'ral(the right) or probably a democrat(everyone else) and I'm firmly against gun control. Guns are an important tool to help protect yourself and your family.

 

I disagree with your last sentence but I get to use my own qualifiers and assumptions since you didn't clarify that broad sweeping statement.

 

The safest homes are those with roofs that don't have rotten roof beams.

 

The safest homes have working fire alarms.

 

The safest homes are those with an occupant who has a master of arms for whatever firearm they own and will use it in an appropriate fashion.

 

The problem is that a firearm in the home is far far more likely to be used in an inappropriate fashion than in that very small case of needing it against an intruder for self defense.

 

I'm not naive enough to think that the US is going to disarm. That just isn't going to happen nor should it but there should be more regulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that a firearm in the home is far far more likely to be used in an inappropriate fashion than in that very small case of needing it against an intruder for self defense.

 

I'm not naive enough to think that the US is going to disarm. That just isn't going to happen nor should it but there should be more regulation.

 

Yes, holding a butter knife makes it more likely someone is going to butter some bread.

(-Wait, what?-)

I'm agreeing that having a firearm in the home makes it exponentially more likely that a firearm will be used in that home.

 

 

You are correct that the U.S. will not disarm. You're also willing to concede the reality that guns are here to stay and even go so far as to say they should stay; can you give me some examples of what regulations would reduce the number of times a firearm is used in an inappropriate manor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Require liability insurance for owning guns the same way that car owners must.

 

Require gun owners to be licensed and prove they are mentally stable and have passed firearms safety courses.

 

Stop allowing any guns to be sold without proper background checks and waiting periods.

 

Restrict the size of magazines.

 

Give a Doctor the ability to issue a temporary order to remove a mentally unstable person's gun license the same way that somebody with certain medical conditions will lose their driver's license.

 

Tax the shit out of ammunition and guns.

 

Punish gun owners who store their weapons improperly where children can access them.

 

The long term goal from a public health perspective should be to reduce the number of guns in circulation over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Require liability insurance for owning guns the same way that car owners must.

 

Insure against what exactly?

 

If you own a gun and discharge it in an unlawful way, you're going to jail and anyone affected by your negligence can sue you in civil court.

 

We have gun laws in the U.S. I swear we do.

 

Require gun owners to be licensed and prove they are mentally stable and have passed firearms safety courses.

 

I don't have a problem with a firearms safety course to own a gun as long as it's built into the price of the gun and affordable. If it's not then people will go to the black market and circumvent the law anyway. I think anyone who owns a gun should know how to use it in a safe manner. I do have a problem with a federal database and registration lists so I guess I'm against a federally mandated safety course...which sucks.

 

In Colorado it's ridiculous how the state doesn't have required curriculum or required range time when getting a concealed carry license. You need a license to conceal carry a gun in CO. You do not need a license to own a gun.

 

Stop allowing any guns to be sold without proper background checks and waiting periods.

 

You mean stop private citizens from selling their property to another private citizen? You're saying anyone selling a gun should have to go through a dealer who will do a background check?

 

Waiting periods aren't an effective tool in stopping gun violence as we learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban and yet I'm not 100% opposed to a waiting period as long as it's a reasonable time frame like a couple days or something. 5 working days is absurd when someone acknowledges what a waiting period is actually for.

 

There's a black market for gun sales and straw purchases for individuals who can't pass a background check right now. Making a law to stop people who shouldn't have a gun from obtaining a gun won't work if those people are motivated enough.

 

 

Restrict the size of magazines.

 

Magazine limits only limit the law abiding citizen as we've seen from states who've implemented a 10rd magazine law. How does a 10 round magazine reduce gun violence? Why 10 and not 11 or even 4? Reloading is a very simple step....like very simple. Magazine size does not stop a murderer from murdering, a crazy from crazying or a criminal from criminaling. Magazine limits do not stop or even hinder gun violence in any meaningful way.

 

Give a Doctor the ability to issue a temporary order to remove a mentally unstable person's gun license the same way that somebody with certain medical conditions will lose their driver's license.

 

Doctors already have this ability and so do judges.

 

Tax the shit out of ammunition and guns.

 

Yes, monetary considerations will always be a factor in any good or service. Make it too expensive to obtain a gun and only the wealthy will have a gun. Make the ammo too expensive to buy and the person who owns a gun will have no way to learn to use it in a safe manner. Neither of these outcomes to taxing guns and ammo are acceptable.

 

I'm completely against creating a larger disparity between the classes than already exist with new taxes.

 

Punish gun owner's who store their weapons improperly where children can access them.

 

I don't understand what this means exactly. I'm pretty sure there are negligence laws on all the states books w/r/t firearms. I guess a federal law wouldn't be a bad thing to make the punishment and requirements more uniform.

 

Kids shouldn't have access to guns and parents who don't store the guns in a safe manner shouldn't be allowed to have them in the house.

 

The long term goal from a public health perspective should be to reduce the number of guns in circulation over time.

 

The number of guns in circulation has no relation to the amount of gun violence. The number of guns purchased in the last 20 years has increased and yet gun violence has gone down in that same time period.

 

Currently all law abiding citizens in the united states who can pass a background check has the RIGHT to purchase and own guns. The slippery slope of new gun control laws could easily lead to effectively rendering the second amendment useless. This is not acceptable.

 

Simply put, guns are a leveling tool and I have the right to own one. It's a pretty big deal.

 

 

Anyone who doesn't elect to exercise that right is fine in my book but those same people are completely defenseless when confronted by someone with a gun who intends to do them harm. Personal protection is the responsibility of the individual and not the state.

 

I don't see how anything you've suggested would hinder someone from doing a Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora movie shooting committing suicide, accidentally shooting themselves/someone else or stopping a criminal using a gun to commit a criminal act. Aren't these the very things gun control advocates are trying to prevent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interesting study that suggests the main reason for the increase in crime in the US, Canada and other countries that started in the 1940's and peaked in the 1970's and the subsequent decrease was due to lead exposure.

 

Before WW2 car usage wasn't that high so children weren't exposed to as much as they were in the 50's and later as the use of cars and leaded gas exploded and then when lead was taken out of gas lead exposure has steadily dropped.

 

Lead exposure causes all the sort things that lead to criminality. A very interesting theory.

 

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lead-and-crime/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Simply put, guns are a leveling tool and I have the right to own one. It's a pretty big deal.

 

 

Anyone who doesn't elect to exercise that right is fine in my book but those same people are completely defenseless when confronted by someone with a gun who intends to do them harm. Personal protection is the responsibility of the individual and not the state.

 

 

 

A well trained responsible individual who stores their weapons properly can be safer with a gun.

 

Unfortunately that doesn't outweigh the damage that is done by those who aren't responsible or mentally stable or through accidents and suicides and I'm not even talking about the use of guns by criminals.

 

Just recognize that your "right" has a price tag.

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't hate guns like some people do. I used to belong to a shooting club where we shot single shot target pistols and rifles at an indoor range. The guns belonged to the club and were stored there and some of the more serious shooters had their own guns but those also were stored at the club and not at their homes.

 

It pissed me off a lot when the City of Toronto out of a knee jerk reaction to some shootings closed all the gun ranges in the city which was just stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

correct? that's a good way. the elitest part wasn't necessary but their points are spot on. if armed guards won't make schools safer then why do so many schools use armed guards?

 

Whether guards should be used is totally not the point.

 

Saying that the President's children have armed guards in this context is pretty sick.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50480124

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not sick. it proves the point. why is it idiotic for regular schools but not for the one his children go to? it's a completely valid question. give me the answer.

 

and to the rest of his red herrings and other logical fallacies... guards in schools won't protect from all mass shootings? no shit. seatbelts don't protect from cancer. they're not meant to. second, no an armed guard can't eliminate the ENTIRE threat, but nothing will. a trained, armed officer would be a hell of a lot more effective than requiring the (apparently otherwise law abiding?) shooter use more magazines and forego a pistol grip. to the other points: part of the training of a trained guard is to protect his/her weapon so a student grabbing it isn't nearly plausible enough to negate the positives; if the alternative to being killed in a crossfire is to allow a shooter free reign to go from room to room with impunity, I'll take the chance of the crossfire; and finally, name one instance of a trained officer going "psychotic" and massacring people on the job. for each one I'll name three instances of somebody shooting somebody in a "gun free" zone.

 

 

so no, the point isn't that it's bad form to mention the president's daughters, the point is that in the current debate stemming from sandy hook, the ONLY proposed solution that would have had any chance of stopping the shooting was the armed guard proposal. not smaller magazines, not better background checks, and not harsher penalties. reality matters whether you want it to or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...