Write Review
2,077,959 Total Reviews 3,512 New Reviews
9,044 Users Online

Politics and Religion

It was two unarmed teachers who became heroes
thisbud4u 2198 reads
posted
1 / 25
It was two unarmed teachers who became heroes

.... and they were women!   They were not members of the well armed militia.    The two unarmed teachers were among those who were shot in the rampage but helped save lives.

Where were all the law abiding and responsible gun owners ?   At the shooting range ?

The shooter is now confirmed to have an extensive criminal history but still got a gun and ammo "legally".    He was walking proof of what LA Gov. Piyush told NRA convention in Houston not too long ago:

"It is plain and simple.   President Obama is coming after your guns".   Right.   President Obama has nothing better to do than go after rednecks for their guns.    LMAO.

ed2000 31 Reviews 343 reads
posted
2 / 25
Let's set the record straight. The theater was another "Gun Free Zone".

Posted By: thisbud4u
Where were all the law abiding and responsible gun owners ?   At the shooting range ?
BTW, Why do you seem surprised that women can act heroically? I assume it must be a cultural thing for you. These two women are being rightfully applauded for exercising the crisis training they'd received as school teachers. One kept her wits long enough to maneuver out of the way long enough to pull a Fire Alarm. Too bad it couldn't have been a Firearm.


-- Modified on 7/25/2015 1:33:53 AM

JohnyComeAlready 367 reads
posted
3 / 25
Why do you think only rednecks own guns? (eom)


END OF MESSAGE

GiantBombing 444 reads
posted
4 / 25
The gun control 'debate'

Posted By: thisbud4u
"It is plain and simple.   President Obama is coming after your guns".   Right.   President Obama has nothing better to do than go after rednecks for their guns.    LMAO.
Well, if he doesn't, who else is going to? I'd like to be able to take credit for the sentiment but honestly I saw it on Twitter - the gun control debate in the US was effectively over after Sandy Hook; little to nothing changed (or that which did has had no effect), effectively declaring the murder of children either acceptable or unavoidable.
Related Link: It should be alarming to all how often this article is relevant. I get the impression it isn't.

YairMarx 387 reads
posted
5 / 25
I don't know, maybe it's becoming of them...


END OF MESSAGE

RRO2610 51 Reviews 441 reads
posted
6 / 25
Sandy Hook was a staged "false-flag" propaganda event.

That is why "the gun control debate in the US was effectively over after Sandy Hook".

 They've tried a clandestine elementary school in Connecticut to make their point. Maybe a mass shooting of Nuns, blind orphaned youths toddlers and infants picnicking at a park by yet another socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loner" using guns both legally as well as illegally purchased with magazines holding no more than ten rounds.  
Did I leave out any other possibly damning details to justify total gun confiscation?

 Perhaps "socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loners" should be "controlled" and/or "confiscated".

thisbud4u 294 reads
posted
7 / 25
Re: Why do you think only rednecks own guns? (eom)

There is a different explanation for this:

All Rednecks don't own guns but all those who own guns are rednecks.    I frequently visit a major sports retailer and I hear that their "guns and hunting" sections are called "redneck" areas.    Golf & Tennis section is called "Classy Sports" area.    Football, Basketball & Baseball section is called "slum dog millionaires" section.

Similarly all rednecks are not Republicans but all Republicans are rednecks.

JohnyComeAlready 455 reads
posted
8 / 25
Re: Sandy Hook was a staged "false-flag" propaganda event.

Posted By: RRO2610

   
  Perhaps "socially introverted, societally disenfranchised "loners" should be "controlled" and/or "confiscated".  
   
   
Perhaps?... but who will run the internet after that happens?

 
Valid point none the less.

 

Liberal policies seem to be where the breakdown is.

JackDunphy 339 reads
posted
9 / 25
Not unavoidable at all.

Had a security guard or two with weapons been stationed there, there was a chance zero loss of life would have happened.

And btw, the gun control "debate" has virtually been over for quite some time. Most people think US citizens should be able to own weapons as that is what our founders wanted.

JackDunphy 388 reads
posted
10 / 25
Of course! They picked an event with Lilly white kids hoping to tug on people's heart strings.

Anti-gun nuts and the liberal media could give a shit about all the inner city, black on black crime. It NEVER comes up.

GiantBombing 407 reads
posted
11 / 25
Re: Not unavoidable at all.

Posted By: JackDunphy
And btw, the gun control "debate" has virtually been over for quite some time. Most people think US citizens should be able to own weapons as that is what our founders wanted.
Indeed. I find it very unfortunate though that as a nation you seem unwilling to adjust from an idea that is quite literally from the 18th century. I can appreciate that it's now an ingrained part of American culture and history and life and such and therefore won't change, I just personally find that to be a poor reason to so steadfastly refuse to do so. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but at that time surely the people of the nation were, at best, armed with muskets? Would the founding fathers have been so accepting of the arms and the quantities of them that exist today?

It makes me wonder what other ideas from the 1700s would have remained acceptable in the US to this day had it been similarly enshrined, which in itself is quite a worrying thought.

JackDunphy 388 reads
posted
12 / 25
Not sure how weapons have changed over the years has anything to do with the argument.

You didn't think our founding fathers knew technology would change? It changed during their time so no clue what point you are making there.

They knew the government could not always get there in time to save innocent people and they also knew that when you disarm the folks, they do not have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical govt. communist nations know this for the first thing they do when they wrestle power is to collect all the weapons.  

The anti-gun crazies in our country fail because they admit, after an incident like Sandy Hook, no law would have stopped that shooter or the Va Tech shooter, or Columbine, etc.

The only reason they bring it up is to stir partisan politics, not because their policy preferences would work. They know they won't.

GiantBombing 743 reads
posted
13 / 25
Re: Not sure how weapons have changed over the years has anything to do with the argument.

Posted By: JackDunphy
You didn't think our founding fathers knew technology would change? It changed during their time so no clue what point you are making there.
 
Simply that even the most prescient of 18th century men could not have predicted that firearms would be what they are now or available in the numbers that they are now; that the right to bear arms is a somewhat more daunting prospect in the 21st century than it was then. I was merely posing a hypothetical question as to whether the founding fathers would have the same opinions regarding firearms today.
   
The anti-gun crazies in our country fail because they admit, after an incident like Sandy Hook, no law would have stopped that shooter or the Va Tech shooter, or Columbine, etc.
Agreed, but in my opinion at least it's because the state of guns in the US (and indeed what the most fervent of anti-gun supporters forget) means that effective gun control resembles trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. It's now too late, there are too many owned by too many to ever stand a chance of actually regulating them effectively, which in essence is the real problem. If guns were and had largely always been exceptionally difficult to procure, then there's an argument to be made that we wouldn't be reading such terrible statistics as 203 mass shootings in 205 days, but the time for that to be effective passed decades ago. I don't have a solution. There is a conversation to be had regarding Australia's efforts in regards to gun control, but I will admit being very uninformed in that regard.

RRO2610 51 Reviews 292 reads
posted
14 / 25
I do! (e)


END OF MESSAGE

JackDunphy 433 reads
posted
15 / 25
And trust me, we have had that convo many, many, many times.

It just doesn't resonate or stick. Much like driving a car, people accept the risk. 40,000 Americans lose their life every year in accidents.  

We could take draconian measures to make sure that number was a fraction of that. Reduce speed limits to 15mph, massive fines and jail time for repeat offenders, etc.

Why don't we? We don't want to be inconvenienced, it would hurt business, driving times would triple or quadruple, extra stress, etc etc etc.

We have made a choice that the upside of driving, at the speeds at which we drive, far outweighs the downside of the deaths and injuries sure to occur. Similarly, people accept the inevitable gun deaths due to deeply held beliefs about our rights, which many feel are sacrosanct.

JackDunphy 526 reads
posted
16 / 25
awesome post Ed. Did you happen to see Sola's post on the GD last night?

TER took it down because of their policy about naming names but it was a link to a hooker shooting/killing a guy who was attacking her and who had killed other gals previously.

Maybe we should change the old saying?

"The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy, OR GIRL, with one?" LOL

marikod 1 Reviews 371 reads
posted
17 / 25
But he left the theatre and went out into the parking lot.

Why wasn’t he shot then by some honest citizen with a carry permit?

I’ll give you two choices.

1.  No one out in the parking lot could tell that he was the shooter.

2. They could tell but they were scared to death to confront him.  

         No “good guy with a gun” was very helpful here, was he? So the guy went back into the theater, fired some more shots, and shot himself.  

       Let’s go deeper. Suppose the theatre did not have the “no guns” policy. Suppose half of the audience had been carrying. What result?

I’ll give you two choices.

1. The good guys would have immediately shot this thug after the first two murders. Or
2. There would have been a blood bath as the patrons with guns started firing in the direction of the shots and then started firing at each other bc no one could tell who was the bad guy.

       Number 1 would be the right answer only if someone in the rows behind or beside the guy saw him fire the shots.  But then other shooters would have seen the good cowboy and thought he was the shooter.

          Will you “set the record straight” for us? Public carry is pretty worthless to protect against this kind of shooting

GaGambler 551 reads
posted
18 / 25
I guess that makes my mother a "redneck"

For the record my mother is not white, voted for Obama(twice), actually voted for Shirley Chisholm back in the day (Google her Hadji if you must) and was a member of  SDS back in the sixties. but according to Hadji, because my mother exercises her 2nd amendment rights, she is a redneck.

I have been taken to task for not blasting "righties" hard enough. You lefties really need to STFU about that if you none of you can bring yourselves to criticize Hadji when he makes statements this fucking ridiculous

Hpygolky 234 Reviews 370 reads
posted
19 / 25
I don't think the girl had or owned the gun....

She took it from the perpetrator while it was in his possession. Luckly the dude was a weak ass or else..

JackDunphy 457 reads
posted
20 / 25
Why do you think they make the ultimate decision to shoot themselves?

Is it not, in many cases, because they have been surrounded by a "good guy with a gun" and have no options left?

So, directly or indirectly, the armed good guy stops the bad guy, right?

BigPapasan 3 Reviews 359 reads
posted
21 / 25
Correct, she killed him with his own gun. Jack was wrong...

...about other murders by the same guy too.  He was only a suspect in other murders because of similar M.O. but you know how lazy cops are - they like to lump all unsolved murders together and blame one guy to close the books and go eat doughnuts.

ed2000 31 Reviews 434 reads
posted
22 / 25
The title of my post was directed at his factual inaccuracy regarding the gun free zone

The rest is obviously opinion as was your entire post. We've been through your assertions before with the Aurora shooting. I I don't think you convinced anyone then either. The people you need to convince are the people wounded and the families of those killed.

marikod 1 Reviews 403 reads
posted
23 / 25
Well, he just asked where were the citizens with guns

and did not limit his inquiry to the interior of theatre. So I'm not clear on how you get he was "factually inaccurate."  It would be fair to say you assumed he meant the interior only.

       And, of course, the rest of my post is indeed opinion. As with the Aurora shooting, I see you still have no rebuttal other than to say it is not so.

  Good. As The Donald would say, I like people who are consistent, even if consistently wrong. LOL.

ed2000 31 Reviews 419 reads
posted
24 / 25
If you truly believe all that then you really need to get out more. (eom)


END OF MESSAGE

ed2000 31 Reviews 606 reads
posted
25 / 25
Get real.

How much time did he spend outside? Ten seconds maybe. When he saw police he turned around and went back inside. He didn't fire his weapon outside. The cops did not recognize him but your'e claiming some armed civilian should have. Sheesh.

My rebuttal is just is just as strong as as yours, which is nothing more than saying that it IS SO.

Long ago I gave up on exercises that are the equivalent of trying to pound sand up a dead horses ass. There's simply no product point.

Post Reply Back To Forum
Register Now!