What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nancy Pelosi Owes MAGA Supporters An Apology: Colorado Gay Nightclub Shooter Identifies as Non-Binary, Uses ‘They/Them’ Pronouns

Failzero

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
2,610
Points
928
Location
Oak Run Ca.
There should be a drug screening ( that includes SSRIs ) with every 4473 Form
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
150,815
Reaction score
23,040
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Here's the thing, you only call them crazy because they wanted a gun. If they were protesting a gun store and throwing Molotov cocktails into it trying to burn out the employees, you'd be cheering them on as perfectly sane and slamming anyone who called them freaks.

No, I call them crazy because they shot up a theater and a parade, and everyone in their lives KNEW they were crazy. The freakish tattoos, the orange hair, those all should have been giveaways.

DGU's happen frequently. You know it but refuse to admit it. The documentation has been shown to you, but you keep insisting it's not a valid use unless somebody gets shot (talk about ignoring links). And yes, we only need a handful of women killed by abusive boyfriends because they were denied access to guns (because Joe thinks they'll only give them to their abusive boyfriends).

Nope, what I see is crazy stuff like Lott who uses crap methodology to prove there are then times more DGU's than crimes. So here's the ONLY number that really matters. How many civilians shoot and kill bad guys, and it is ruled as justified self defense. According to the Feebs, it's only 200 a year.

Now, I find it hard to believe that a hard-core Ammosexual like 2AGuy or Mormon Bob, who spend their whole lives fantasizing about that day they can shoot them a darkie... I mean a "criminal"... and that happy day comes, and they are content to just point a gun at them.

And yet they're not the ones shooting up the place, are they? Haven't you noticed that the shooters don't care about gun laws? I have yet to see a shooter ranting that he was killing people because he was rightly afraid Quid Pro was going to take his guns away. Apparently, you're either pretending that they are or being willfully ignorant about them.

Most mass shooters don't survive their mass shooting events, but I'll get the Ouija board and find out.

Nothing about this terrifies me because I choose not to own guns for my own reasons, so your petty restrictions don't bother me. Choice is a wonderful thing, isn't it? You, OTOH, ARE terrified that you're not going to be able to make the case that gun stores should deny guns to anyone based on how they look, how they're dressed, etc. Do you secretly want to open the door to 5' 8" white Charlie getting a gun, but 6' 3" black Tyrone doesn't because Tyrone scares the person behind the counter while Charlie doesn't?

If he was just 6'3" and dressed in a nice business suit, I'd be find with selling him a gun. If he was 6'3" with his pants around his ass, with a bunch of gang tats, then I'd be just fine.

But the real purpose will be to make the gun industry insist on a really effective background check, instead of the watered-down at their insistence NICS. Or conduct ACTUAL background checks, like a bank or an employer would do. Not just "Whoops, I typed your name into this system no one is keeping up to date, and if I spell your name wrong, you'll come up clean."

"Sorry, Tyrone, you passed the background check, but Joe says we shouldn't let you buy guns because you look like a gang-banger". You know it will happen. A customer looks gay? Sorry, no gun. Black? Sorry, no gun. Colored hair, tattoos, piercings? Sorry, no gun. Resting Bitch Face? Nope. There's a reason we don't let businesses refuse to serve customers based on their looks. Heck, we don't even let bakers refuse service to people who explicitly state they will use the product in ways unacceptable to the baker.

If gay couples were killing people with wedding cakes and we had 43,000 Cake related deaths a year, you MIGHT have a fucking point.
 

braalian

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2021
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
1,272
Points
1,938
Location
SD
Maybe he *is* using “they” pronouns to better his chances before a jury.

But that’s what happens when you normalize this sort of thing.

Maybe this will help people realize that “choosing” a gender different from the one you were assigned at birth is like “choosing” that the sky isn’t blue or feeling really strong that squares are round and 3 is an even number.

Facts are facts and can’t be changed on a whim.
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
No, I call them crazy because they shot up a theater and a parade, and everyone in their lives KNEW they were crazy. The freakish tattoos, the orange hair, those all should have been giveaways.



Nope, what I see is crazy stuff like Lott who uses crap methodology to prove there are then times more DGU's than crimes. So here's the ONLY number that really matters. How many civilians shoot and kill bad guys, and it is ruled as justified self defense. According to the Feebs, it's only 200 a year.

Now, I find it hard to believe that a hard-core Ammosexual like 2AGuy or Mormon Bob, who spend their whole lives fantasizing about that day they can shoot them a darkie... I mean a "criminal"... and that happy day comes, and they are content to just point a gun at them.



Most mass shooters don't survive their mass shooting events, but I'll get the Ouija board and find out.



If he was just 6'3" and dressed in a nice business suit, I'd be find with selling him a gun. If he was 6'3" with his pants around his ass, with a bunch of gang tats, then I'd be just fine.

But the real purpose will be to make the gun industry insist on a really effective background check, instead of the watered-down at their insistence NICS. Or conduct ACTUAL background checks, like a bank or an employer would do. Not just "Whoops, I typed your name into this system no one is keeping up to date, and if I spell your name wrong, you'll come up clean."



If gay couples were killing people with wedding cakes and we had 43,000 Cake related deaths a year, you MIGHT have a fucking point.
The freakish tattoos, the orange hair, those all should have been giveaways.

So, you would be against selling any of these people firearms?

1669554483138.png
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
I'm against selling ANYONE firearms without a thorough background check.
you were stating you wouldn't sell a firearm based on their looks.

would you refuse to sell to them, based on their looks?
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,259
Reaction score
12,807
Points
1,550
No, I call them crazy because they shot up a theater and a parade, and everyone in their lives KNEW they were crazy. The freakish tattoos, the orange hair, those all should have been giveaways.
Like I said, you want to deny goods and services to people who look, for lack of a better term, "icky". You want to finally punish those stupid kids for their tattoos, strange hair and pants around their ankles. When everyone in their lives KNOW someone's crazy and make him bring a letter to that effect to the gun shop, you might have a case to stop them. Otherwise, it's open season for anyone who doesn't like certain segments of the population to stick it to them.
Nope, what I see is crazy stuff like Lott who uses crap methodology to prove there are then times more DGU's than crimes. So here's the ONLY number that really matters. How many civilians shoot and kill bad guys, and it is ruled as justified self defense. According to the Feebs, it's only 200 a year.
Nope, a DGU is as simple as pulling your jacket back to show an assailant that you're armed and he decides it's smarter to leave while he can, and those statistics are from the government, not Lott. You really should pay better attention when presented with the facts. Concealed Carry deters crime.
Now, I find it hard to believe that a hard-core Ammosexual like 2AGuy or Mormon Bob, who spend their whole lives fantasizing about that day they can shoot them a darkie... I mean a "criminal"... and that happy day comes, and they are content to just point a gun at them.
And that's where you're completely nuts. The mere fact that you accuse them of wanting to kill black people is proof positive. And, notice that you're admitting here that 2A enthusiasts are NOT, as of now, shooting up the place. All you can complain about is what you imagine MIGHT happen, and you want to base Federal firearm policy on your imagination. That's not how it works.

Most mass shooters don't survive their mass shooting events, but I'll get the Ouija board and find out.
They usually leave communications behind, indicating what they're mad about. How many have even hinted that they shot up a school because they were rightly afraid Quid Pro was going to take their guns? My money is on NONE.
If he was just 6'3" and dressed in a nice business suit, I'd be find with selling him a gun. If he was 6'3" with his pants around his ass, with a bunch of gang tats, then I'd be just fine.
Doesn't matter. You want the door open for minimum wage clerks to refuse to sell a gun to someone based on how that person looks to them. That means Tyrone doesn't get a gun, at least not in the blue run cities. IM2 would tell you that racism runs rampant and white gun store clerks would jump with glee at the opportunity to do their part to keep the black population disarmed.
But the real purpose will be to make the gun industry insist on a really effective background check, instead of the watered-down at their insistence NICS. Or conduct ACTUAL background checks, like a bank or an employer would do. Not just "Whoops, I typed your name into this system no one is keeping up to date, and if I spell your name wrong, you'll come up clean."
If they're following the law, you don't have much of a case. You want the law to give minimum wage clerks power to deny Tyrone a gun, even if all he wants to do is protect his family from the gang bangers down the street, and you know it would happen. And, of course, Shenequa would be denied and killed by her abusive boyfriend, because you're convinced that she would just give it to him. That's the problem with opening that door, it only gets pushed further open and every clerk would use their own prejudice to decide who gets guns and who doesn't.
If gay couples were killing people with wedding cakes and we had 43,000 Cake related deaths a year, you MIGHT have a fucking point.
PA laws cut both ways and you don't get to pick and choose which ones to enforce. At one point in this country's history, a store could legally eject a customer simply because of the way he/she looked, and you want to return to those days.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,259
Reaction score
12,807
Points
1,550
I'm against selling ANYONE firearms without a thorough background check.
You have also stated that simply looking crazy (in your opinion, not anyone else's) should be grounds to refuse service, above and beyond any background checks. Remember, you are on record as wanting a "crazy" appearance to trump a clean background check. Are you willing to let every minimum wage clerk use their own personal biases to decide who looks crazy and who doesn't?
 
Last edited:

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
93,348
Reaction score
34,012
Points
2,290
You have also stated that simply looking crazy (in your opinion, not anyone else's) should be grounds to refuse service, above and beyond any background checks. Remember, you are on record as wanting a "crazy" appearance to trump a clean background check. Are you willing to let every minimum wage clerk use their own personal biases to decide who looks crazy and who doesn't?

Sell a guy a gun because he passes all checks, get sued because he used it to kill somebody. Refuse to sell a customer a gun because the clerk thought he looked crazy, he still sues because a clerk is not a licensed psychiatrist.
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
42,407
Reaction score
7,738
Points
1,860
Location
Peaking out from the redwoods
The MSM lost their narrative when the shooter's sexuality was reported.
His sexuality wasn’t reported. The douche is trolling.
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,259
Reaction score
12,807
Points
1,550
Sell a guy a gun because he passes all checks, get sued because he used it to kill somebody. Refuse to sell a customer a gun because the clerk thought he looked crazy, he still sues because a clerk is not a licensed psychiatrist.
And ultimately what he wants is the stores out of business, sued no matter whether they follow the law or not. He knows full well that there's no way "He looked crazy to me" would ever hold up in court.
 

Lakhota

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
118,311
Reaction score
19,946
Points
2,220
Location
Native America
1669578839833.png
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
93,348
Reaction score
34,012
Points
2,290
And ultimately what he wants is the stores out of business, sued no matter whether they follow the law or not. He knows full well that there's no way "He looked crazy to me" would ever hold up in court.

That was in Biden's gun agenda while he was running: get rid of liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. No sales of guns or parts over the internet. Having to obtain a federal firearms license for anybody that owns a gun at the cost of about $800.00. It would include a psychological evaluation of you by a gun hating shrink, interviews with your family, neighbors, coworkers and even ex-wives and girlfriends, and if the shrink decides you shouldn't have a gun, you're not only disarmed, but lost $800.00 in the process.

In other words, stop everybody from either being able to own a gun or buy one once sellers and manufacturers are sued out of business.

Commies hate the Constitution, so they look for ways to try and get around it.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,062
Reaction score
41,293
Points
3,615

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
150,815
Reaction score
23,040
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Like I said, you want to deny goods and services to people who look, for lack of a better term, "icky". You want to finally punish those stupid kids for their tattoos, strange hair and pants around their ankles. When everyone in their lives KNOW someone's crazy and make him bring a letter to that effect to the gun shop, you might have a case to stop them. Otherwise, it's open season for anyone who doesn't like certain segments of the population to stick it to them.
I want to prevent those guys from getting guns because they are nuts. That seems pretty reasonable.

If someone had talked to Joker Holmes parents or his school and said, 'Hey, we are about to sell him an assault rifle and a 100 round drum magazine" They'd have said, "For the love of God, don't do that! He's been mentally unstable for months"

Nope, a DGU is as simple as pulling your jacket back to show an assailant that you're armed and he decides it's smarter to leave while he can, and those statistics are from the government, not Lott. You really should pay better attention when presented with the facts. Concealed Carry deters crime.

The government isn't allowed to study gun violence. They just repeat all the studies, including the utterly bullshit ones like Lott.

And that's where you're completely nuts. The mere fact that you accuse them of wanting to kill black people is proof positive. And, notice that you're admitting here that 2A enthusiasts are NOT, as of now, shooting up the place. All you can complain about is what you imagine MIGHT happen, and you want to base Federal firearm policy on your imagination. That's not how it works.

Nope, that's exactly how it works. Scared little racists who think that having a gun makes them safe, and they get horrified when they are told most gun deaths are suicides or domestic violence.

They usually leave communications behind, indicating what they're mad about. How many have even hinted that they shot up a school because they were rightly afraid Quid Pro was going to take their guns? My money is on NONE.
Well, we can start with Adam Lanza, who was an NRA member. But he was upset Obama was going to take his guns... or his crazy prepper mom was. She stocked up enough guns to fight the Zombies.

Doesn't matter. You want the door open for minimum wage clerks to refuse to sell a gun to someone based on how that person looks to them. That means Tyrone doesn't get a gun, at least not in the blue run cities. IM2 would tell you that racism runs rampant and white gun store clerks would jump with glee at the opportunity to do their part to keep the black population disarmed.

Or he'd claim that the guns stores in the black neighborhoods are a plan to exterminate black people... I kind of gave up trying to reason with his level of crazy.

If they're following the law, you don't have much of a case. You want the law to give minimum wage clerks power to deny Tyrone a gun, even if all he wants to do is protect his family from the gang bangers down the street, and you know it would happen. And, of course, Shenequa would be denied and killed by her abusive boyfriend, because you're convinced that she would just give it to him. That's the problem with opening that door, it only gets pushed further open and every clerk would use their own prejudice to decide who gets guns and who doesn't.

First, what are you doing leaving who gets a gun to a minimum wage clerk? The fact is, DGU's are rare, so I don't really worry about it. It's far more likely Shenequa's boyfriend will slap her around and shoot her with that gun.


PA laws cut both ways and you don't get to pick and choose which ones to enforce. At one point in this country's history, a store could legally eject a customer simply because of the way he/she looked, and you want to return to those days.

Uh, no, guy... the idea is to get the gun stores to actually do real background checks. If they had done an actual background check on Holmes or Credo, they'd have realized these people had no business owning a gun.

That's why we need background checks and waiting periods.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
47,062
Reaction score
41,293
Points
3,615
I want to prevent those guys from getting guns because they are nuts. That seems pretty reasonable.

If someone had talked to Joker Holmes parents or his school and said, 'Hey, we are about to sell him an assault rifle and a 100 round drum magazine" They'd have said, "For the love of God, don't do that! He's been mentally unstable for months"



The government isn't allowed to study gun violence. They just repeat all the studies, including the utterly bullshit ones like Lott.



Nope, that's exactly how it works. Scared little racists who think that having a gun makes them safe, and they get horrified when they are told most gun deaths are suicides or domestic violence.


Well, we can start with Adam Lanza, who was an NRA member. But he was upset Obama was going to take his guns... or his crazy prepper mom was. She stocked up enough guns to fight the Zombies.



Or he'd claim that the guns stores in the black neighborhoods are a plan to exterminate black people... I kind of gave up trying to reason with his level of crazy.



First, what are you doing leaving who gets a gun to a minimum wage clerk? The fact is, DGU's are rare, so I don't really worry about it. It's far more likely Shenequa's boyfriend will slap her around and shoot her with that gun.




Uh, no, guy... the idea is to get the gun stores to actually do real background checks. If they had done an actual background check on Holmes or Credo, they'd have realized these people had no business owning a gun.

That's why we need background checks and waiting periods.
So you are proposing the govt question friends and family of anyone buying a gun?
 

hadit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
37,259
Reaction score
12,807
Points
1,550
I want to prevent those guys from getting guns because they are nuts. That seems pretty reasonable.
Okay, so you want to deny people access to firearms based on what YOU think about their appearance. Yes, we've established that and you're refusing to deal with the inevitable, namely that Tyrone and Shenaequa won't get guns because racist minimum wage clerks will take advantage of the power they have to deny sales based on appearance.
If someone had talked to Joker Holmes parents or his school and said, 'Hey, we are about to sell him an assault rifle and a 100 round drum magazine" They'd have said, "For the love of God, don't do that! He's been mentally unstable for months"
And if someone had called the school and said there was a heavily armed crazy person heading to the school they could have locked the place down and had the cops waiting for him. Isn't hindsight wonderful? Meanwhile, in the real world, Tyrone and Shenaequa won't get guns because racist minimum wage clerks will take advantage of the power they have to deny sales based on appearance. No, you can't institute FBI style security clearance measures like giving a customer's neighbors and family members veto power over their ability to buy a gun if they haven't even committed a crime. That's ludicrous.
The government isn't allowed to study gun violence. They just repeat all the studies, including the utterly bullshit ones like Lott.
Source for them not being allowed to study gun violence? Lacking such or admitting you just made it up (because you do that a lot), we'll just ignore it.
Nope, that's exactly how it works. Scared little racists who think that having a gun makes them safe, and they get horrified when they are told most gun deaths are suicides or domestic violence.
Except that you're just making it all up. I keep telling you those foil helmets you order off the back page of your comic books don't give you mind reading powers, but here we are...
Well, we can start with Adam Lanza, who was an NRA member. But he was upset Obama was going to take his guns... or his crazy prepper mom was. She stocked up enough guns to fight the Zombies.
Oh, his MOTHER was the one legally stockpiling weapons? You know, the person who DIDN'T go on a shooting rampage. See, it's the details that always trip you up. You come out of the gates with a bunch of emotional rants, then we quickly see them fall apart with the details come to light.
Or he'd claim that the guns stores in the black neighborhoods are a plan to exterminate black people... I kind of gave up trying to reason with his level of crazy.
Actually, he's a proponent of arming the black population. Where you'd get an argument from him is if you say crack was not designed and planted by the CIA and the FBI to exterminate black neighborhoods. But that has nothing to do with the reality that there would be racist minimum wage clerks gleefully exercising their power over the black population by selling guns to white people and not to black people, because Joe says don't sell a gun to someone you think looks crazy or dangerous. Oh, wait, that was supposed to only be people JOE thinks look crazy or dangerous. He doesn't really want everyone ELSE to decide that.
First, what are you doing leaving who gets a gun to a minimum wage clerk?
I'm not doing it, the stores are. What, are you going to dictate who they can hire as clerks now too? You do know what clerks do, right? They ring up the sale, take the money, and say, "Have a nice day". That's about it, unless the store offers consultations and the clerks help with that. Do you think McDonalds pays clerks much more than MW?
The fact is, DGU's are rare, so I don't really worry about it. It's far more likely Shenequa's boyfriend will slap her around and shoot her with that gun.
They're as common as offensive uses are. You keep closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "Fake news" whenever someone shows you the evidence, but in the real world substituting your personal fantasies for the truth just makes everyone shake their head at you and turn away.
Uh, no, guy... the idea is to get the gun stores to actually do real background checks. If they had done an actual background check on Holmes or Credo, they'd have realized these people had no business owning a gun.
So, the background checks required by the government aren't "real"? That's a creative idea. Have you told your legislators yet? Because it seems like that's something they should be told.
That's why we need background checks and waiting periods.
We already have them. Obviously, they're not working, or you wouldn't be mistakenly demanding them. In Va, we had purchase limits as well. Did that help? Let's face it, no matter what measures are enacted, even if we followed to the letter all your demands, here's what would happen:

1. No reduction in gun violence.
2. Guns would still be on the streets.
3. You would be demanding more restrictions, because you won't be happy until no one but governments and criminals have any guns.

Funny, isn't it, that you trust governments and criminals more than law abiding citizens who harm no one.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top