No worries at all my friend . I totally get where you’re coming from . Yeah I agree this new world is crazy . Makes me wish for simpler times when none of these precautions were necessary. Don’t think we will ever see it again unfortunately
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
No worries at all my friend . I totally get where you’re coming from . Yeah I agree this new world is crazy . Makes me wish for simpler times when none of these precautions were necessary. Don’t think we will ever see it again unfortunately
or a his car, or knife, or hammer, or whatever else he had available as a weapon. This dismissive answer is dishonest.
Hahaha..... I see what you did there... using "girlfriend" and "brother's wife" interchangeably.
Last edited:
You are naive and foolish. It is exactly the game plan . You need to educate yourself and then debate with knowledge. We have slowly become a militarized society. 43 federal agencies carry guns. Local police departments have weapons of war for daily use. The other party had two candidates that, during their run for the nomination, literally said, yes, we are coming for your guns.
You must be living under a rock....or, you have a poor understanding of words. You know some talking points but you lack any ability to think.
You are a prime example of why there is an ignore button. You are now included on my ignore list.
Like Silver said, its OK not to understand a subject matter.
Unfortunately, what most people do is, instead of learning about it, repeat whatever they hear from Don Lemon or Sean Hannity and just repeat it and argue with others using whatever talking point they hear and using terms they don't understand.
What I try to do (and I'm not perfect) is to start with a clear understanding of my basic philosophical position and then learn about a subject until I can get a clearer view of my perspective. Its not a perfect approach, but I try.
But when people throw around terms like "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" without an understanding of a definition of those terms, or if it even has a definition, it makes me just roll my eyes and dismiss their argument.
Last edited:
Did this incident occur in America, or somewhere else?
Shifting the goalposts aside, the question was if the guy that attacked his neighbor would have done it with or without a gun. I think he would have done it anyway. And this is not simply conjecture. People attack and kill others with household items a lot more than with rifles.
Most of the non-gun owners have never even heard of Armalite.
I don’t know where you get your info, but you are wrong. The AR 15 was a select-fire weapon, which by definition includes fully automatic. The Armalite company sold the design to colt who then sold the gun with The Armalite tag to the military, and it was designated M16 amongst others.Colt sold it’s civilian version as the Colt AR 15 which was semi-automatic.
So he could have gotten a knife or a machetes and done the same thing. The gun is irrelevant in that situation.
I’m sure if you ask the couple they would have much rather had him come after them with those weapons as opposed to a gun.
Yeah man being a conspiracy theorist makes you a shining beacon of critical thinking.
Lol this is rich coming from the guy advocating for more murders like theirs.
Right, because people will always choose to be bludgeoned to death instead of being shot.....geez.
No one is advocating for murder. You’re completely off base.
You said “watch list” which is also the way some refer to the “no fly” list.
Just because the FBI has taken an interest in someone doesn’t put them on the no fly list.
If you’re going to spin yourself in circles, at least make yourself clear.
I think you have confused me with another poster or mis construed my comments. I have not talked about “gun owners”, my discussion has centered on people who own assault style weapons and those who refuse to see the reasons why those weapons are not necessary or even reasonable for your average citizen to have access to. Lumping all gun owners into the same discussion is inaccurate and I certainly have not made comments directly disparaging all who own guns. That is simply inaccurate, and an assumption made by anyone interpreting my comments to including such a broad group of people.
Again though- this is theater designed to change the narrative from what is the subject at hand to trying to discredit me by twisting my words beyond their meaning. That is what I was speaking to- taking one or two comments I made that you felt were disrespectful and making assumptions about me based off of your interpretation is irrelevant to whether or not your average citizen should be allowed to legally and easily purchase weapons designed to kill people on a massive scale.
What silver and others assumed about me based off of my comments would be comparable to me... I don’t know- implying you and others who oppose any gun control measures are ok with, and in fact CONDONE the mass shootings that are plaguing our nation. Beyond implying people are calloused towards them because they want to keep their “big sexy guns”... I have not said or implied anything along those lines and still assume that, regardless of your stance on gub control- we are all equally sick of these mass shootings and want to find a way to stop/severely reduce them.
FBI... ROFLMAO.. FBI??? you kidding right?? Comey ROFLMAO, Strok ROFLMAO, Page?? you kidding right? Andy?? ROFLMAO, oh my... my side hurts...
They’re getting information from state, and possibly local databases. A smaller town may not have as complete info as a larger town, possibly information was entered incorrectly ( or not at all). Could’ve been something as simple as the person requesting the info misspelling a name, wrong address, could be a myriad of reasons.
So your interest is strictly financial?
Since statistically more people are beaten to death/killed with sharp objects than with ANY kind of long gun ranging from an AR to a shotgun to a .22, how do you propose handling insurance for that?
Do you propose forcing people to buy insurance when they purchase a knife, hammer, or baseball bat? What if they just decide to beat a person to death with their fists? Or steal a truck and run them over?
You’re still as far gone as the supposed Marine who still doesn’t realize his Mini 14 shoots the same bullet, at the same rate of fire, at the same velocity, and with the same magazine capacity as another gun he thinks should be outlawed because it looks different.
I have to respectfully say at this point you’re no longer trolling, you’re just making yourself look foolish. At least the other guy had the common sense to tap out.
After the Boston bombing there was actually talk about taking pressure cookers off the market.
It’s already illegal to kill someone. A person who decides he/she wants to break the law and kil people is going to find a way to do it.
[/QUOTE]
Watson, in the interest of being civil, I'd say accusing people of calling for more murders is being intellectually dishonest.
Watson, in the interest of being civil, I'd say accusing people of calling for more murders is being intellectually dishonest.
Holding people accountable for what they argue is the epitome of being intellectually honest.
No my interest is not strictly financial.
If you have a solution for the sharp objects situation I will gladly listen. But we don't get to ignore the gun problem just because there are other problems. I've given you a solution for the gun problem.
Not confused, it was you. It's a nice attempt though to walk back the rhetoric with "not all gun owners" type of statements.
And you didnt just imply, but flat out said those that disagree with you condone the shootings. Your words:
"Right- “gonna make an omelet, gotta break some eggs” is the crux of the defense here- IOW: “I like owning my big sexy gun and have fun shooting it, so I don’t care if my fellow Americans are being slaughtered in the streets around me.” That is what it boils down to. ‘merica!!"
Again. You’re the one with the concerns about people being flagged by the FBI being involved in shootings. If that’s a potential problem then those lists should create extra levels of review even if it means someone who is accidentally on those lists have to wait and extra day or two. If that is too much of an issue then again you aren’t really concerned about people on any of these watch lists being involved in these shootings. Don’t get involved in conspiracy theories if you aren’t interested in addressing the issue.
Dumb point.
Pretty much every year there’s at least one case show up at the ER where family members living together (usually brother/brother, father/son) get in a fight over the last piece of chicken. No lie, it’s always the last piece of chicken. Never the last cookie, always the last piece of chicken.
Some end in gunfire, but most are stabbed to death with a kitchen knife. Happened frequently enough that for several years we had a pool going to guess which month it would happen.
So, in your story, if the guy had run over his neighbors with a truck or stuffed them down his wood chipper, would they be any less dead?
Here’s the deal. He made a conscious decision to kill someone over something stupid. If he loses it to the point he decides to kill someone, does it really matter how he does it?
No, you provided the pathway that all Tyrants take for the “gun problem”. You’ve offered no solution.
And accusing people of calling for more murders isn't. I know which one you came across to me as doing.
Yes. The idea that death was imminent and there were no other alternative options are ridiculous and illogical.
Without a gun, he very well could have just yelled at them and went back in his house and pretended to be tough on a sports message board.
Is there where you continue to deny that the policies you advocate result in more murders?
Murder is against the law. What policies are being advocated for that change that?
Acknowledging that some freedoms we insist on can be abused does NOT mean that person wants those rights to be abused.
There is a very big difference between that and calling for more murders.
Nope. You're just playing semantics.
When you have the opportunity to prevent abuses and willfully choose not to prevent them, you're complicit in the abuses. But I understand why you refuse to admit it, because you know it highlights the fallacy in your argument.
You haven’t “given a solution” for anything.
You’ve thrown a spitball against the wall suggesting if people buy rifle insurance it’ll pay death benefits, while ignoring the fact that more people are beaten/knifed to death than shot with a rifle.
It’s too much to ask if you truly believe that someone who has made a conscious decision to kill innocent people would be dissuaded from doing so by paying the first month’s installment on whatever goofy kind of rifle insurance you propose to be available.
If they decide not to pay that first month’s installment, do you really think they believe it’ll make a difference in their prison sentence?
Again, at this point you’re not trolling. You’re either playing dumb, or it just comes natural to you.
- Status
