AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 8:32:17 GMT -5
... The more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them, the better. Except for the criminals who decide they had better shoot all the bystanders in case one is a random idiot. There are numerous studies that reveal that this is not the case. Criminals of the sort that would rob a Waffle House are not mass-murdering fools on a suicide mission.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 8:38:52 GMT -5
Fine. Here's a link for you. More are available if you want to look for them though. This is just one to get you started: ok, thanks. that is one ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. anyone i know? anyone with any power and influence? that having been said, i have LITERALLY never seen this opinion in print before, so thanks again. The District of Columbia- that lost the Heller case- was not one anonymous blogger.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 10:51:07 GMT -5
ok, thanks. that is one ANONYMOUS BLOGGER. anyone i know? anyone with any power and influence? that having been said, i have LITERALLY never seen this opinion in print before, so thanks again. The District of Columbia- that lost the Heller case- was not one anonymous blogger. i was referring to Richard's post, Paul. if you got something better, bring it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Oct 20, 2015 11:14:06 GMT -5
... The more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them, the better. Except for the criminals who decide they had better shoot all the bystanders in case one is a random idiot. There are numerous studies that reveal that this is not the case. Criminals of the sort that would rob a Waffle House are not mass-murdering fools on a suicide mission. Yet. But "(t)he more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them," the more likely they will act accordingly. One option is to not rob, but another is to shoot. Which will the criminal element end up deciding on? Who can be sure.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 13:21:14 GMT -5
... The more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them, the better. There are numerous studies that reveal that this is not the case. Criminals of the sort that would rob a Waffle House are not mass-murdering fools on a suicide mission. Yet. But "(t)he more criminals have the idea some random idiot might shoot them," the more likely they will act accordingly. One option is to not rob, but another is to shoot. Which will the criminal element end up deciding on? Who can be sure. Human nature points to selecting "a".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 13:22:54 GMT -5
The District of Columbia- that lost the Heller case- was not one anonymous blogger. i was referring to Richard's post, Paul. if you got something better, bring it. Your argument is that no one is trying to rid us of the second amendment, or our second amendment rights. That is a patently absurd argument.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:46:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 13:29:03 GMT -5
i was referring to Richard's post, Paul. if you got something better, bring it. Your argument is that no one is trying to rid us of the second amendment, or our second amendment rights. That is a patently absurd argument. There is a Washington Post (I think) article where the writer wants to end gun ownership in America. Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of a forced buy back of guns in America. She is certainly against the 2nd amendment. Many of the posters here want to circumvent the 2nd amendment. Most people want to say they defend a right, while they push for laws that limit the right. They do it with religion, with speech and with gun rights. Most posters here want less freedom, less rights and more government central planning of life.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 15:08:00 GMT -5
i was referring to Richard's post, Paul. if you got something better, bring it. Your argument is that no one is trying to rid us of the second amendment, or our second amendment rights. That is a patently absurd argument. actually, no. that is not what i said. what i said was that i am not aware of anyone of any prominence and stature in the US that wants to ban guns. i have said that three times now. if i have to say it again, i will refer you back to this post. it is not absurd, it is a fact. but it is a fact that you can change. send me a link.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 15:08:33 GMT -5
Your argument is that no one is trying to rid us of the second amendment, or our second amendment rights. That is a patently absurd argument. There is a Washington Post (I think) article where the writer wants to end gun ownership in America. Hillary Clinton is open to the idea of a forced buy back of guns in America. She is certainly against the 2nd amendment. Many of the posters here want to circumvent the 2nd amendment. Most people want to say they defend a right, while they push for laws that limit the right. They do it with religion, with speech and with gun rights. Most posters here want less freedom, less rights and more government central planning of life. HC is not in favor of a FORCED gun buyback. get your facts straight.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 15:12:53 GMT -5
Your argument is that no one is trying to rid us of the second amendment, or our second amendment rights. That is a patently absurd argument. actually, no. that is not what i said. what i said was that i am not aware of anyone of any prominence and stature in the US that wants to ban guns. i have said that three times now. if i have to say it again, i will refer you back to this post. it is not absurd, it is a fact. but it is a fact that you can change. send me a link. Yeah, and you've been totally wrong three times. Say it again, and it'll be four times. And so on and so forth and what have you. The entire Democratic Party and a good number of Republicans would scrap the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. They ALL want to ban guns, it is not as yet politically (or, thanks to guns, practically) possible at the moment. That is the ONLY thing that stops them from being open about their true feelings and intentions. This is a nation right at the brink of full blown hard tyranny. A very well armed, quite determined, and believed-to-be unstable minority are currently keeping the peace.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 15:15:05 GMT -5
actually, no. that is not what i said. what i said was that i am not aware of anyone of any prominence and stature in the US that wants to ban guns. i have said that three times now. if i have to say it again, i will refer you back to this post. it is not absurd, it is a fact. but it is a fact that you can change. send me a link. Yeah, and you've been totally wrong three times. Say it again, and it'll be four times. And so on and so forth and what have you. The entire Democratic* Party and a good number of Republicans would scrap the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. They ALL want to ban guns, it is not as yet politically (or, thanks to guns, practically) possible at the moment. That is the ONLY thing that stops them from being open about their true feelings and intentions. This is a nation right at the brink of full blown hard tyranny. A very well armed, quite determined, and believed-to-be unstable minority are currently keeping the peace. no. i am NOT wrong. YOU are wrong. what part of "i am not aware" do you not understand. that statement is 100% true. anonymous bloggers don't count. who, of any prominence and influence, wants to ban guns? LINK, bro.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 15:26:49 GMT -5
Yeah, and you've been totally wrong three times. Say it again, and it'll be four times. And so on and so forth and what have you. The entire Democratic* Party and a good number of Republicans would scrap the 2nd Amendment in a heartbeat. They ALL want to ban guns, it is not as yet politically (or, thanks to guns, practically) possible at the moment. That is the ONLY thing that stops them from being open about their true feelings and intentions. This is a nation right at the brink of full blown hard tyranny. A very well armed, quite determined, and believed-to-be unstable minority are currently keeping the peace. no. i am NOT wrong. YOU are wrong. what part of "i am not aware" do you not understand. that statement is 100% true. anonymous bloggers don't count. who, of any prominence and influence, wants to ban guns? LINK, bro. Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Eric Holder, Rahm Emmanuel, the ENTIRE Democratic Party and a good chunk of the GOP would like to ban guns. They are not public about this- though some Dems have slipped up on occasion- because, as I've pointed out, it is not politically or as a practical matter a tenable position right now. The only link is the link between the dots you have to connect for yourself as a thinking person.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 15:30:28 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 15:38:03 GMT -5
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, who is leading the gun control push in the Senate said in a 1995 interview, after getting her assault weapons ban passed, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” Video below.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 15:59:36 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 16:14:45 GMT -5
no. i am NOT wrong. YOU are wrong. what part of "i am not aware" do you not understand. that statement is 100% true. anonymous bloggers don't count. who, of any prominence and influence, wants to ban guns? LINK, bro. Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Eric Holder, Rahm Emmanuel, the ENTIRE Democratic Party and a good chunk of the GOP would like to ban guns. They are not public about this- though some Dems have slipped up on occasion- because, as I've pointed out, it is not politically or as a practical matter a tenable position right now. The only link is the link between the dots you have to connect for yourself as a thinking person. Hillary never said ban guns in that speech. that was a gun repurchasing program, and it has already been discussed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 16:15:59 GMT -5
less than a second to find an incorrect attribution from a site known for it? moreover, one that was already given, and i already commented on? twice? how about something that actually matches the request?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 16:18:17 GMT -5
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, who is leading the gun control push in the Senate said in a 1995 interview, after getting her assault weapons ban passed, “If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” Video below. this is an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban. yes. certain TYPES of guns are already banned. but obviously that is not the same thing as "banning guns". a gun ban would include ALL GUNS. i think that was abundantly clear when we discussed this earlier, but if not, it should be clear now. edit: if you THOUGHT i meant "ban ANY TYPE of gun", i didn't. i CONCEDE that certain TYPES of guns have been banned in the past, and are still banned. obviously.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 20, 2015 16:34:05 GMT -5
You have to give him some credit. He keeps trying.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 18:14:56 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Eric Holder, Rahm Emmanuel, the ENTIRE Democratic Party and a good chunk of the GOP would like to ban guns. They are not public about this- though some Dems have slipped up on occasion- because, as I've pointed out, it is not politically or as a practical matter a tenable position right now. The only link is the link between the dots you have to connect for yourself as a thinking person. Hillary never said ban guns in that speech. that was a gun repurchasing program, and it has already been discussed. Just stop. Quit it. Hillary signaled approval for a draconian mandatory "buy back", read: confiscation, citing specifically the Australian plan that Obama alluded to in previous speeches. Democrats would ban guns, and begin confiscating them immediately if they could get away with it. I know it, you OUGHT to know it, and thankfully enough extremely well-armed Americans know it, and thankfully the current environment they won't get away with it. And thankfully the trend is that an increasing number of Americans believe in the natural right of self defense, and more Americans than at any time in history now view the government as an immediate threat to their personal liberty.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 20, 2015 18:17:11 GMT -5
All major Democrats want to ban and confiscate guns. Nothing they do is reasonable, it's all an incremental approach with the end goal being a disarmed American public. Period. Everyone knows it. Some will pretend not to see it because they favor it, and they don't want to let the cat out of the bag. However, ALL intelligent political observers know that disarming America is a principal aim of the Democratic Party.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 18:24:10 GMT -5
Hillary never said ban guns in that speech. that was a gun repurchasing program, and it has already been discussed. Just stop. Quit it. Hillary signaled approval for a draconian mandatory "buy back", read: confiscation, citing specifically the Australian plan that Obama alluded to in previous speeches. Democrats would ban guns, and begin confiscating them immediately if they could get away with it. I know it, you OUGHT to know it, and thankfully enough extremely well-armed Americans know it, and thankfully the current environment they won't get away with it. And thankfully the trend is that an increasing number of Americans believe in the natural right of self defense, and more Americans than at any time in history now view the government as an immediate threat to their personal liberty. the buyback program was voluntary, it was a temporary program, and it only eliminated about 40% of all firearms in Australia. you and hickle keep saying mandatory, but it wasn't mandatory, and it didn't result in any bans. so, no. i am not going to stop and quit and let you and others openly lie about stuff. even with the loathsome Clinton in Palin's famous crosshairs. edit: save your bullshit NRA commercial for someone who doesn't own and use a gun (or rifle, if you want accuracy).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 18:25:52 GMT -5
All major Democrats want to ban and confiscate guns. Nothing they do is reasonable, it's all an incremental approach with the end goal being a disarmed American public. Period. Everyone knows it. Some will pretend not to see it because they favor it, and they don't want to let the cat out of the bag. However, ALL intelligent political observers know that disarming America is a principal aim of the Democratic* party. if all Democrats want it, then you should have no trouble finding one that went on record saying it. go.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 20, 2015 18:28:24 GMT -5
The Democratic party's secret agenda has been discovered. Time to confiscate the firearms and move their owners into the FEMA camps surrounded by razor wire and howitzers situated every five feet, aimed at the FEMA housing.
Jade Helm 15 was a trial run and a resounding success. Next stop: Jade Helm 30.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2015 18:28:47 GMT -5
You have to give him some credit. He keeps trying. at least Paul and i are on the same page as far as banning ALL guns -vs- banning assault weapons. reasonable people can debate the latter. no reasonable debate can be had on the former, imo. at least, not in my experience.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 20, 2015 19:19:44 GMT -5
He was likely charged with (some variation of) "the unlawful discharge of a firearm"... if not, he should have been. According to a little Googling: It seems as if (a)(3)(A) could apply. Dunno- land? The problem with this is it is at the level of reckless- whereas the guy in the theater might be seen as merely negligent- but I hope there is a law for that as well. Triggers do not pull themselves- and anyone sending a round into a room full of people has no business owning a gun. Without training requirements for a carry permit this is what you get.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 20, 2015 23:22:44 GMT -5
fishy 999, This says it all.
Triggers do not pull themselves-
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:46:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 8:30:02 GMT -5
fishy 999, This says it all. Triggers do not pull themselves-Precisely. Even if, for some unknown reason, he had it out (for whatever reason... maybe he was trying to adjust how it sat in his concealed carry holster) and was re-holstering it... HE somehow caused the trigger to be moved in a backwards motion to the point that it engaged and fired the weapon.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 21, 2015 18:45:23 GMT -5
He was likely charged with (some variation of) "the unlawful discharge of a firearm"... if not, he should have been. According to a little Googling: It seems as if (a)(3)(A) could apply. I'm not sure I'd want to be the DA on the case where the guy the police credit with saving them is charged with "reckless" discharge of a firearm. The problem is that there's no law against yelling "stop", and it does not warrant being shot at. That being said, being shot at warrants deadly force in self defense. This is what I call Zimmerman Land. It's foolish, but it's not illegal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:46:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2015 18:47:59 GMT -5
He was likely charged with (some variation of) "the unlawful discharge of a firearm"... if not, he should have been. According to a little Googling: It seems as if (a)(3)(A) could apply. I'm not sure I'd want to be the DA on the case where the guy the police credit with saving them is charged with "reckless" discharge of a firearm. The problem is that there's no law against yelling "stop", and it does not warrant being shot at. That being said, being shot at warrants deadly force in self defense. This is what I call Zimmerman Land. It's foolish, but it's not illegal. Huh? How did the guy that shot himself while in the theater (that's what this look-up of Kansas law was for) "save cops"?
|
|