BREAKING NEWS--CA--Another Mass Shooting

[M14 Shooter]

What I find most amusing in this situation is that the liberals are trying to push a feminist agenda, as opposed to their typical gun-grabbing one. Go to Twitter. #YesAllWomen is one of the top trending hashtags.

You've got Tweets like "Oh, this guy in class grabbed my butt once! All men suck! #YesAllWomen"

Oh, well. It's pretty annoying, and quite vain and self-centered, for these women to hijack this tragedy for their personal gain and attention.

But if it means we aren't going to hear about Dems conspiring to take our guns...let the feminists attention whore all they want!

What’s actually amusing is that anyone would buy into such a ridiculous lie, as ‘liberals’ are neither pushing any ‘agenda’ nor do they seek to ‘grab guns.’

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yet you lump all liberals together under one stereotypical blanket as they do for the conservatives.

Amazing. I just differentiate between libtard leftwing fascists on one hand and liberals on the other and you then immediately accuse me of NOT differentiating, lolol.




Not sure what 'you all' you are referring to.

Let me essplain it to you.

The corporate play is this:

1) drive off everyday Americans from the classic liberal groups that used to look out for them by financing radical leftwing groups that control the primary process in the Democratic Party, so that the Dems are controlled by the well organized populist fanatics. This is financed by corporate proxies like the Ford Foundation which is cockroach central for this kind of thing.

2) drive these socially conservative 'Regan Democrats' into the GOP which remains controlled by the corporate crony network that keeps the 'radical' populist element out of any real power positions within the party.

End result: leftwing populists control the Democratic Party and undermines the working class leadership while the Old 'Scoop' Jackson wing of the Democratic Party flees to the GOP and takes it over.

Meanwhile Congress insulates itself from the American people with 'security', line holders and staff that anonymously screens mail.

The only version of America our politicians get is from the media and pollsters. And the American people have lost control of their own government that now regards most of them as suspicious under one category of terrorism or another.



Ummm, no, I'm not.

Amazing. I just differentiate between libtard leftwing fascists on one hand and liberals on the other and you then immediately accuse me of NOT differentiating, lolol.

I've read your posts and this differentiation isn't the norm........

As for your "lemme esplain",

Give into conspiracy theories much?

Wow, the old 'conspiracy theory' ad hominem.

Tell me, are any of the following NOT a conspiracy? The Mafia? Chicom internet warfare groups? Drug and human trafficking?

Conspiracies do exist, but usually the best explanation is anything other than a conspiracy. But they do exist.

In this case, corporate cronyism is a conspiracy and a long documented one.

They just re-label it as 'corporate lobbying'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

..... Link?

Still afraid to quote me huh? Must be hell, cowering in fear like that.

You and I both know it is impossible for you to cite any argumment you've made regarding gun control that does not derive from emotion, ignoreance and/or dishonesty.

You know it., You hate it. But, that's YOUR issue, and yours alone, regardless of how much you may try to avoid the issue.

I guarantee that, in responding, you'll only prove me correct.

I don't need to "cite" jack shit, dood. This is YOUR claim. YOU need to prove it, not me. And good luck wid it.

I freely admit that I cannot cite an instance where you or any other anti-gun loon has presented an argument for more gun control not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, because we both know that no such example exists.

You, of course, hate this fact, and are, at present, doing whatever you can to avoid having to admit it; in doing so you only serve to provide support for the premise. Just as I said you would.

Please keep up the good work.

 

[Ringel05]

Amazing. I just differentiate between libtard leftwing fascists on one hand and liberals on the other and you then immediately accuse me of NOT differentiating, lolol.




Not sure what 'you all' you are referring to.

Let me essplain it to you.

The corporate play is this:

1) drive off everyday Americans from the classic liberal groups that used to look out for them by financing radical leftwing groups that control the primary process in the Democratic Party, so that the Dems are controlled by the well organized populist fanatics. This is financed by corporate proxies like the Ford Foundation which is cockroach central for this kind of thing.

2) drive these socially conservative 'Regan Democrats' into the GOP which remains controlled by the corporate crony network that keeps the 'radical' populist element out of any real power positions within the party.

End result: leftwing populists control the Democratic Party and undermines the working class leadership while the Old 'Scoop' Jackson wing of the Democratic Party flees to the GOP and takes it over.

Meanwhile Congress insulates itself from the American people with 'security', line holders and staff that anonymously screens mail.

The only version of America our politicians get is from the media and pollsters. And the American people have lost control of their own government that now regards most of them as suspicious under one category of terrorism or another.



Ummm, no, I'm not.

Amazing. I just differentiate between libtard leftwing fascists on one hand and liberals on the other and you then immediately accuse me of NOT differentiating, lolol.

I've read your posts and this differentiation isn't the norm........

As for your "lemme esplain",

Give into conspiracy theories much?

Wow, the old 'conspiracy theory' ad hominem.

Tell me, are any of the following NOT a conspiracy? The Mafia? Chicom internet warfare groups? Drug and human trafficking?

Conspiracies do exist, but usually the best explanation is anything other than a conspiracy. But they do exist.

In this case, corporate cronyism is a conspiracy and a long documented one.

They just re-label it as 'corporate lobbying'.

Taking known conspiracies to justify a belief in a wild conspiracy theory based on speculative interpretation of so called documentation........ Color me surprised.......

 

[Ringel05]

What I find most amusing in this situation is that the liberals are trying to push a feminist agenda, as opposed to their typical gun-grabbing one. Go to Twitter. #YesAllWomen is one of the top trending hashtags.

You've got Tweets like "Oh, this guy in class grabbed my butt once! All men suck! #YesAllWomen"

Oh, well. It's pretty annoying, and quite vain and self-centered, for these women to hijack this tragedy for their personal gain and attention.

But if it means we aren't going to hear about Dems conspiring to take our guns...let the feminists attention whore all they want!

What’s actually amusing is that anyone would buy into such a ridiculous lie, as ‘liberals’ are neither pushing any ‘agenda’ nor do they seek to ‘grab guns.’

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What’s actually amusing is that anyone would buy into such a ridiculous lie, as ‘liberals’ are neither pushing any ‘agenda’ nor do they seek to ‘grab guns.’

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

CCJ presents himself as an attorney; if that is indeed the case, I would decline to retain him until he improves his selection of words.

 

[Ringel05]

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

CCJ presents himself as an attorney; if that is indeed the case, I would decline to retain him until he improves his selection of words.

Attorney? That explains a lot.........

 

[Pogo]

You and I both know it is impossible for you to cite any argumment you've made regarding gun control that does not derive from emotion, ignoreance and/or dishonesty.

You know it., You hate it. But, that's YOUR issue, and yours alone, regardless of how much you may try to avoid the issue.

I guarantee that, in responding, you'll only prove me correct.

I don't need to "cite" jack shit, dood. This is YOUR claim. YOU need to prove it, not me. And good luck wid it.

I freely admit that I cannot cite an instance where you or any other anti-gun loon has presented an argument for more gun control not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, because we both know that no such example exists.

No such example exists because no such gun control argument exists, based on anything, in any of my posts, here or anywhere else, ever.

If it did you could cite it.

Go ahead-- make my day. Go look for one.

That you cannot do that demonstrates that you can only post from dishonesty. Which is what I noted the first time you came in here pasting that tired old robo-post.
Oh and ignorance too.

While you're on that hapless quest however you will find plenty of posting based on reason and logic. You'll prolly want to skip those, as they counter your agenda of ignorance and dishonesty.

You, of course, hate this fact, and are, at present, doing whatever you can to avoid having to admit it; in doing so you only serve to provide support for the premise. Just as I said you would.

On the contrary, I love that fact. Lets me set you up as I just did to expose the liar you are. What's not to love?

As far as "admission" - hell my posts on this topic go back to pretty much the day I got here; it was the hot issue at the time. They're all on the record, and I'm happy to go back and quote them when the need arises. They've been consistent; my position has never changed. As Casey Stengel would say.... you could look it up. Of course, doing that would run the risk of having to admit you haven't been listening and instead pulled assumptions out of your ass that led to to characterize my philosophy from a position of ignorance, emotion and dishonesty.

Please keep up the good work.

Thanks, I intend to. And please, no more low hanging fruit. I'm 'bout full.

 

[Pogo]

What’s actually amusing is that anyone would buy into such a ridiculous lie, as ‘liberals’ are neither pushing any ‘agenda’ nor do they seek to ‘grab guns.’

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

Not to speak for CCJ but I as I pointed out earlier, Liberals don't seek to 'grab guns'. Leftists might, but they're another bag. And it does say Liberals above.

 

[Ringel05]

Wow. An outright lie.
Sad.

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

Not to speak for CCJ but I as I pointed out earlier, Liberals don't seek to 'grab guns'. Leftists might, but they're another bag. And it does say Liberals above.

Semantics. Depends on one's perspective and liberals, like conservatives, like moderates like the loony left and wacky right all have agendas.
Hell we have an "agenda" when we go grocery shopping........

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, no -- I'm simply setting a stage that allwos him to help prove the premise tha anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
As usual, he's doing an excellent job.

Hate the be the one to break it to ya but I see that coming from both sides to varying degrees.

However true that may be it does not change the fact that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - indeed, it only concedes the point.

To refer to advocates of gun control as “anti-gun loons” is also to only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Persons in every state and jurisdiction are currently at liberty to possess firearms in accordance with the Second Amendment right to self-defense per Heller/McDonald, that some firearms in given jurisdictions are disallowed, such as AR platform rifles, doesn’t mitigate this fact.

Lawmakers who enacted the bans of AR platform rifles and the like as well as the judges who upheld the bans have acted in good faith, they are not ‘anti-gun loons.’ These decisions will soon be subject to judicial review in their appropriate courts of appeal, where a more comprehensive application of Second Amendment jurisprudence will hopefully be applied invalidating the bans and allowing persons in the adversely effected jurisdictions to again possess semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in excess of 7/10 rounds.

This is a process, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy compared with that of the other privileges and immunities codified in the Bill of Rights. The process has worked well over the last two centuries; with perseverance there’s no reason to believe that a more accurate understanding of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment will be realized, resulting in consistent firearm regulations Nationwide.

 

[Pogo]

C_Clayton_Jones is obviously either playing ostrich or is playing the smoke and mirrors/denial game.

Not to speak for CCJ but I as I pointed out earlier, Liberals don't seek to 'grab guns'. Leftists might, but they're another bag. And it does say Liberals above.

Semantics. Depends on one's perspective and liberals, like conservatives, like moderates like the loony left and wacky right all have agendas.
Hell we have an "agenda" when we go grocery shopping........

Sure, everybody's got an agenda. Nuttin' wrong with that and that's why I didn't touch that part. Just pointing out that he did say Liberals -- which is the same point I made earlier to Owl. Since Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment, lumping us in with "gun grabbers" is more than a little disingenuous.

Or to put it another way, it's arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Ah luvs me some irony.

 

[Ringel05]

Not to speak for CCJ but I as I pointed out earlier, Liberals don't seek to 'grab guns'. Leftists might, but they're another bag. And it does say Liberals above.

Semantics. Depends on one's perspective and liberals, like conservatives, like moderates like the loony left and wacky right all have agendas.
Hell we have an "agenda" when we go grocery shopping........

Sure, everybody's got an agenda. Nuttin' wrong with that and that's why I didn't touch that part. Just pointing out that he did say Liberals -- which is the same point I made earlier to Owl. Since Liberalism wrote the Second Amendment, lumping us in with "gun grabbers" is more than a little disingenuous.

Or to put it another way, it's arguing from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Ah luvs me some irony.

Good that they made that point we've been trying to get across for us. Unfortunately there are many leftists who call themselves liberals but then again there are many wingnuts who call themselves conservatives..........
Oh and to set the record straight I was addressing the no agenda claim specifically and the gun-grabbing claim in context of what I stated above.

 

[DriftingSand]

What I find most amusing in this situation is that the liberals are trying to push a feminist agenda, as opposed to their typical gun-grabbing one. Go to Twitter. #YesAllWomen is one of the top trending hashtags.

You've got Tweets like "Oh, this guy in class grabbed my butt once! All men suck! #YesAllWomen"

Oh, well. It's pretty annoying, and quite vain and self-centered, for these women to hijack this tragedy for their personal gain and attention.

But if it means we aren't going to hear about Dems conspiring to take our guns...let the feminists attention whore all they want!

It doesn't surprise me that the gun-grabbers want to ignore this.

First, the guy stabbed his first three victims to death...hardly a great starting point for a rant about guns.

Second, California has universal background checks, gun registration, large magazine ban and a 10 day waiting period...Elliot bought his three guns legally in California. Difficult to convince folks that these measures that they have used all their political capital to codify are worthwhile when they totally failed to stop this shooting.

Third, and most importantly, the police were warned well in advance that Rodgers was mentally unstable and planning to harm himself or others, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

Not exactly the kind of things the gun grabbers want to advertise.

Yup. Proof that "strict" gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Nutcase, Democrat criminals will get their hands on them with or without strict restrictions.

 

[jon_berzerk]

What I find most amusing in this situation is that the liberals are trying to push a feminist agenda, as opposed to their typical gun-grabbing one. Go to Twitter. #YesAllWomen is one of the top trending hashtags.

You've got Tweets like "Oh, this guy in class grabbed my butt once! All men suck! #YesAllWomen"

Oh, well. It's pretty annoying, and quite vain and self-centered, for these women to hijack this tragedy for their personal gain and attention.

But if it means we aren't going to hear about Dems conspiring to take our guns...let the feminists attention whore all they want!

It doesn't surprise me that the gun-grabbers want to ignore this.

First, the guy stabbed his first three victims to death...hardly a great starting point for a rant about guns.

Second, California has universal background checks, gun registration, large magazine ban and a 10 day waiting period...Elliot bought his three guns legally in California. Difficult to convince folks that these measures that they have used all their political capital to codify are worthwhile when they totally failed to stop this shooting.

Third, and most importantly, the police were warned well in advance that Rodgers was mentally unstable and planning to harm himself or others, and it didn't do a damn bit of good.

Not exactly the kind of things the gun grabbers want to advertise.

the police were warned well in advance that Rodgers was mentally unstable and planning to harm himself or others,

under California law that is sufficient enough

for the state to confiscate the firearms

awhile back i posted a link of a lady that was in a 72 hold

who later had a knock at the door by the cops

to confiscate her firearms

which they did

no due process

they surely knew or should have known that he had firearms

 

[Avatar4321]

Police can't stop this despite being aware in advance he was planning this and instead say he is polite well mannered young man.

Police can't stop this. and somehow we should be unarmed in facing potential threats.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Police can't stop this despite being aware in advance he was planning this and instead say he is polite well mannered young man.

Police can't stop this. and somehow we should be unarmed in facing potential threats.

the cops probably should have had a better handle

on it considering he lived in a independent living facility for people with disabilities

California has firearms registration a simple running has name would have produced

a list of four firearms

in fact Rodgers worried about that in his manifesto that the cops

would be back for his guns

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't need to "cite" jack shit, dood. This is YOUR claim. YOU need to prove it, not me. And good luck wid it.

I freely admit that I cannot cite an instance where you or any other anti-gun loon has presented an argument for more gun control not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, because we both know that no such example exists.

No such example exists because no such gun control argument exists, based on anything, in any of my posts, here or anywhere else, ever.

Ah. Glad to see you've moved bast mere dishonesty and right into outright lies.
Very nice.

 

[Pogo]

I freely admit that I cannot cite an instance where you or any other anti-gun loon has presented an argument for more gun control not based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty, because we both know that no such example exists.

No such example exists because no such gun control argument exists, based on anything, in any of my posts, here or anywhere else, ever.

Ah. Glad to see you've moved bast mere dishonesty and right into outright lies.
Very nice.

You forgot to document that. A day later, you should have something, right?

Because otherwise you'd be forced to admit to posting from dishonesty.

Tick... tick.... tick...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hate the be the one to break it to ya but I see that coming from both sides to varying degrees.

However true that may be it does not change the fact that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty - indeed, it only concedes the point.

To refer to advocates of gun control as “anti-gun loons” is also to only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Not in the slightest.
Advocating gun control does not make you an anti-gun loon, doing so using arguments based on emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty does.

Persons in every state and jurisdiction are currently at liberty to possess firearms in accordance with the Second Amendment right to self-defense per Heller/McDonald, that some firearms in given jurisdictions are disallowed, such as AR platform rifles, doesn’t mitigate this fact.

As you know you have left out lsome important facts, above, you're arguing from dishonesty.

Lawmakers who enacted the bans of AR platform rifles and the like as well as the judges who upheld the bans have acted in good faith, they are not ‘anti-gun loons.’

As their unsound argument/justifications for the ban are all based on emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty -- they, indeed, are.