Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Slade3200]

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

 

[iceberg]

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

 

[Slade3200]

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

you mean not letting him buy any rifle though don't you?

Bolt action is fine. Most countries with strong gun control allow certain rifles.

So if a car pulls up in your driveway and 4 thugs with their pants below their asses get out, you want a bolt action rifle?

Not really a dog in this fight..but...sure..with bolt-action I could drop 2 in 10 seconds or less..probably less...do you think the other 2 will keep coming? I doubt it..they'll spray and pray with their illegally owned guns..and get the **** outta Dodge..I'd plug at least one more as he ran..but, of course, that would be illegal..as the threat to my life would have ended. I would NOT want a fully auto..or an AK semi.

Truth be told...I'd prefer the shotgun..rifle does concern me at close ranges...the chances of a round going right through my target...and ending up somewhere i did not intend...are there.

 

[Slade3200]

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

Culture is totally different..and the small population in comparison to ours makes the argument invalid..IMO. BTW..I don't think it's guns either...as I've said before it's culture and how we view violence. We will not legislate gun violence away. We can make it a bit harder..if we choose.

 

[NotYourBody]

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

You don't think that is being done now?
Have you ever seen the NICS form?
What would you do different?

I would ban all guns and enact stiff felony prison sentences for offenders.

Barring that, I would look for something that has not already failed.

In reality, gun nutters are too afraid to ever get their white knuckles loose from their guns willingly.

I expect the next Democrat president to take executive action. The Supremes see to be okay with that notion.

Dear NotYourBody
You are welcome to enact whatever bans you want in YOUR district
that is democratically decided under the terms your local residents agree
to be governed under.

Similar to prolife who want to ban abortions and don't want to fund any of that either.
You are free to set up such policies within your own districts and fund whatever
you want to follow by democratic process you all agree to.

However, this does not give you authority to impose your beliefs
on other people in other districts and states. Alaskan laws
apply to citizens within that state. Same with Texas laws that Texans decide democratically.

If we can agree to respect the same democratic process for all people,
maybe we can stop this posturing and MISREPRESENTATION that electing
people by party gives anyone the right or authority to impose their parties BELIEFS
on the rest of the nation by abusing govt to establish such beliefs at the expense of other CREEDS.

That's against Civil Rights and Equal Protection of people from "discrimination by CREED"
to establish your beliefs and deprive others of their rights and liberties without DUE PROCESS.

That's fine if you establish your own beliefs and policies locally by democratic process
within Constitutional protections and limits on govt.

But quit this abusive fraud of promoting the false notion that anyone
can impose and enforce federal legislation that deprives other citizens
of the same rights to due process and democratic representation.

You are doing a huge disservice by undermining Constitutional laws
principles and process by falsely teaching it is lawful to take your
local policy and mandate it for the entire nation through Congress.

That's unconstitutional, and we all share responsibility to start teaching this correctly!
www.ethics-commission.net

Dear emilynghiem

I am a smallish white woman, with not very much muscle mass, living on the California/Tijuana Border.

I have zero power to force a president to call for a national emergency and issue an executive order. I have no influence on the Supreme Court. I don't have any of the Supreme's phone numbers and Trump blocked me ages ago.

You are giving me far more power than i actually have. Perhaps that's why the GOP is so fearful. They see the boogie woman around every corner.

Good grief get hold of yourself!

I am harmless. But I do go to Tijuana for lunch and shopping on occasion and I frequently ride public transportation. Two very very dangerous situations. Yet I've never been attacked and never had need of a gun. I don't get why people are afraid of everything everywhere always.

 

[NotYourBody]

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

I bet if we keep going, we can catch up.

---------------------------------------------- if the USA keeps importing the mentioned third worlders the USA will probably Catch UP 'NYBod.

I believe that herd is already storming out of the barn. I'm not sure you can turn it around at this point. Even with a wall.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

For the most part legal gun owners are some of the most law abiding people in the country

Sure thing.

View attachment 271943

I've seen that meme somewhere just can't remember where and for what purpose

Me too.

Still figuring out the purpose.

college-educated disconnected from the military,

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn’t “even” it out. A person who shoots themselves is an accident (and often times the result of supreme stupidity / irresponsibility). It’s not one-billionth as tragic as people being slaughtered simply because left-wing representatives unconstitutionally prevented their constituents from defending themselves.

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

The Ar 15 just happens to be one of the most popular rifle frames in the country

There are over 8 million of them in the hands of civilians and 99.9999% of those civilian will never shoot anyone

And no it does not shoot faster than any other semiautomatic rifle

All my rifles but 1 are semiautomatic. I'm more of a hand gun person myself. I don't have as much use for rifles as some do so I only have a few but all of them are in a much larger caliber than an Ar 15.

But why don;t you answer my earlier question to you

What other of your guaranteed rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes?

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

Interesting how's Vietnam going?

Explain?

If I have to explain the reference you're not going to understand the explanation.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

White supremacist /Antifa what different does it make?

Your right there, both groups seem to be on the payroll of CNN

you caught me in mid post
leftist have no problem defending Antifa you will not find right wingers defending White supremacist

Why would anybody from the right defend white supremasists? There’s good people on that side right? ;-)

Dear Slade3200
bigrebnc1775 is right.
Fine people referred to historic preservationists
and others on both sides of the Confederate history debate
that were focused on historic issues not on white supremacists, nationalists or race.

More information came out later, after the liberal spin in the media was already established as predominant,
that diverse groups of people (some in SUPPORT of PRESERVING HISTORIC STATUES and some OPPOSED who believed such statues should be removed) came out to that protest, including Asian and Black participants from Texas on BOTH sides of the debate.

This fuller explanation and context was conveniently left out in the media hype.

NOTE: So was the REST of Trump's more recent statement where he referred to Omar going BACK to her country of origin,
and FIX THE PROBLEMS IN THOSE PLACES.

In other words, show you can fix the problems before trying to tell other people and govt how to fix them.

Hi Emily, I understand that and am fine with preserving statues. I’m not a supporter of destroying statues... but that’s besides the point. I’ve explained in my last few posts

And likewise, I have explained the Presidents position on what he said.

 

[OldLady]

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

And you don't realize that you position is against the natural right of self preservation do you?

I firearm is the single most effective tool for self defense.

That six year old who was gunned down this weekend at the Garlic Festival had the right to life, too. So do the 10,000 Americans murdered every year by someone else's gun. This argument is not going to get you anywhere.

 

[emilynghiem]

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

No, it's not an opinion, Pismoe.
Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Do you believe we have inalienable rights or only the rights "bestowed" upon us by the government?

Isn't there something about "natural rights" like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't know. I'm not a philosopher.

Exactly. But they aren't the only "natural rights." Jefferson used the words "amongst them."
If you truly believe we have these natural rights, you have to believe we have them outside the concept of any government.
If you believe these rights are more important than any other, i.e. right to vote, right of free speech against your government, right to an attorney, etc.,then you have to believe you have the inalienable, "natural right" to protect them.

Well Said Defiant1 and cc OldLady
Even if some rights aren't totally naturally but involve govt
YES agreed we still have a natural RIGHT OF DEFENSE of our own beliefs
and representation in these matter.

Examples of some rights that become POLITICAL and not fully natural
* gun rights involve safety and responsibility that affect other people
and are INHERENTLY CONNECTED WITH Enforcing/Defending LAWS not violating them.
So laws involve GOVT, and so gun rights are interconnected with agreements by laws.
They don't exist on their own purely by human nature (like the right of DEFENSE DOES).
Guns involve agreements with others under laws we decide mutually democratically by consent.
* voting rights involve the political system of govt, so that gets politically
and are not naturally occurring. But the right to participate in DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
involving assembling, free speech and expression ARE natural human activities and rights.
* abortion and health care involve services that need to be rendered medically safely.
so this is going to involve govt regulations on the MEDICAL licensing.
But it DOESN'T mean govt has to regulate the TERMS of policies and payments
which can remain localized or individuals FREE CHOICE and not govt regulated.
Just the professional safety and services/facilities might need govt regulation to ensure
uniform protections.

Because health care involves labor and resources of others, this isn't a naturally occurring right.
You can't force other people to provide their labor and resources for free unless they voluntarily agree.
And it involves personal choices and BELIEFS that govt is not designed to regulate.

Thanks for bringing this up.
We need to have this discussion and clarification.

Yes we have a natural right to choose, defend and represent our beliefs, views and consent.
but the actual content of the policies can involve resources or rights of other people that
are outside our own individual rights that exist and occur purely by human nature and design.

 

[NotYourBody]

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

I don't know about bombs, but hand grenades would be useful.

not really as they are too indiscriminate

an effective self defense weapon is one that can be directed accurately

How about a crossbow?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Police responded to the festival grounds around 5:30PM. Around 11 people were reportedly shot. One of them has died.

Never knew there was a garlic festival, prayers go to the victims.



MASS SHOOTING: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival - Breaking911

And still no mass shootings reported in countries with strong gun control this week. Makes you wonder why they happen so often here...

They didn't have lots of mass shootings before they banned guns.....Britain averaged 1 every 10 years before they banned guns...

Your theory, More Guns = More Mass shootings

Britain.....1 every 10 years with guns.....after they banned guns .....the same

In science, when a theory doesn't actually work, it means the theory is wrong.

Yes countries that have never been filled with guns have never had a mass shooting problem. Go figure.

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

Glory Bee please by all means be the first at the door to make that attempt lol
Shit son make provocative outlandish comments and you call gun owners nuts lol

 

[Dick Foster]

Another point for the anti gun illeriate mongrels here, most sniper rifles are bolt action and not semi automatic. What that means is a good shooter with a bolt action, even a single shot , can easily take down people from so far away they'll hit the ground dead before they or any people nearby even hear the shot. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, the bodies start dropping. And before you think crazy people can't shoot I'll remind you what Lee Harvey Oswald, a full on left leaning commie nut case with a really crappy rife did.

Maybe that's the answer, we just outlaw Democrats from having ANY firearms whatsoever then everybody will be happy.

 

[edward37]

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

and this is my point not to just slade, but both sides who do this all the time.

they say it's ignorant to call Obama/Trump names like hitler, nazi, racist and other extreme names and defend their chosen side it would seem to the "death". but then they turn around and do the very same thing they called stupid but only now it's ok cause they're doing it to someone they hate.

if someone else doing an action makes them stupid, then i would fall under that same "stupid" connotation if i do the same thing.

Yes iceberg it's equally stupid and detracting when either sides
engages in this.

it looks like Slade3200 acknowledges as much of the hype/hyperbole on the left
is equally dismissable. So that means we can cut all that crap out,
and just stick to the real issues, shall we?

i wish. but he can be hard headed (as we all can) in seeing this at times. when you REALLY HATE SOMEONE objectivity is so very hard to come by. me and hillary for example. there's a lot of things i think about her and none on the good side. but this doesn't mean she deserves or should have less rights than the rest of us. while i think she's "gotten away" with things, it happens in life. there will simply never be a final reckoning here on earth that will satisfy us when looking at those we emotionally cannot stand.

we've let ourselves be driven by 90% emotions and that is a hallmark of the left. being emotional in your arguments. i'm more a math person and does it add up? i try not to take emotional shortcuts but i'm human, it can happen. but i still try to avoid it. i seldom if ever call obama, hillary and others jr high DEMOCRAP / RETHUGLICAN type names cause that's elementary playground bullshit and nothing adults in my mind should be doing.

when people just dive into the name calling i've found it's usually because they have nothing else to offer. Slade3200 does this but hes not completely driven by it. in this thread he even saw it and backed up a bit. more than most do so credit where credit is due. someone like edward37 will just rant and rave in hate and never bother to put it down. terminally a child in my mind but hey - his life.

anyway - time to go do something hopefully a bit more productive today and make some mind maps for projects i've got going on at work.

Edward37 is a realist and sees no good points in this immature slob in the WH

 

[bodecea]

Mississippi Walmart...T's & P's....

 

[Defiant1]

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

I don't know about bombs, but hand grenades would be useful.

not really as they are too indiscriminate

an effective self defense weapon is one that can be directed accurately

How about a crossbow?

The crossbow is an offensive weapon not a defensive weapon.