0
rushmc

“You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

Recommended Posts

DanG

Quote

I'd be careful on this one. New information is forthcoming.



Wait, are you implying that you have knowledge of some secret information that will make what Trump has said okay?

As a veteran how can you not be disgusted by his attitude?



It's typical Breitbart and Washington Examiner red meat for the bigots.

Apparently Khan senior once used to work for a law firm that does business with Saudi Arabia, which has contributed to the Clinton Foundation, which is, as all good bigots know, the spawn of Satan.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

It's typical Breitbart and Washington Examiner red meat for the bigots.



I just found that and... wow:|

"Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz.

“Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”
"

Only the far right hate press could try and turn colleagues sympathising with a grieving co-worker into something sinister.

Bunch of utter cunts.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Khan Sr. could be a child molester and it wouldn't make Trump right.

But I guess if you don't have any defense, go on offense. Standard bully tactics.



At least Breitbart hasn't been able to find Mrs. Khan appearing in any lesbian porn photos, although I'm sure they tried.

The tactics of the Trump campaign and its legion of supporters are not only disgusting, they are pathetic too.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I have no doubt it's what she wants to do, and just as little concern that she actually can.



'She' can do very little as the President. We have a thing called the Constitution and a thing called Congress. gun bans would have to be enacted by Congress then signed by the President to go into law.

I mean really.....this is as good as the rigth can do? It ranks right up there with Trump banning Muslims. He cannot actually do that. not ever, not in a million years, whether it is part of his agenda or not - it is not actually possible.

Like gun bans....Hillary cannot and will not ban guns because she cannot, so I have no idea what the rhetoric is out there at all or even being discussed.

Oh, maybe because the vast majority of America is stupid, does not understand how the system actually works...that's probably why, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NRA long ago ceased to be an organization for rifle enthusiasts and became instead an organ of the gun manufacturers. They need to keep up the steady scare tactics of "Xxxxx is coming for your guns" so the stupid cohort among the gun enthusiasts will rush out and buy buy buy some more.

Gun-owning households now own an estimated average of 8.1 guns (Source, Houston Chronicle).
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

NRA long ago ceased to be an organization for rifle enthusiasts and became instead an organ of the gun manufacturers. They need to keep up the steady scare tactics of "Xxxxx is coming for your guns" so the stupid cohort among the gun enthusiasts will rush out and buy buy buy some more.

Gun-owning households now own an estimated average of 8.1 guns (Source, Houston Chronicle).



Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time.

In the 80s, that number was around 4.1, but in the 90s the economy was booming. People had money to update their collections. They were having children and their sons became part of the hunting tradition and bought more guns. One person can easily have 2 different shotguns for fowl and 2 different rifles for larger game - that's 4 different guns for one person, big deal.

Also, it wasn't until the 90s when concealed carry started to take-off and people started buying hand guns - so there's that as well.

The good thing in all of this is that hunting and concealed carry aren't the cause of gun violence. In fact, the crime rate has dropped nearly 50% despite the addition of these guns - So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone?
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

Gun-owning households now own an estimated average of 8.1 guns (Source, Houston Chronicle).



Dayum!:o
I'm way behind.[:/]
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreeece

So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone?



really? In general, this is pretty much the entire philosophy of half the people in the country

(Yes, I'm dramatically underestimating that proportion)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coreeece

***NRA long ago ceased to be an organization for rifle enthusiasts and became instead an organ of the gun manufacturers. They need to keep up the steady scare tactics of "Xxxxx is coming for your guns" so the stupid cohort among the gun enthusiasts will rush out and buy buy buy some more.

Gun-owning households now own an estimated average of 8.1 guns (Source, Houston Chronicle).



Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time.

In the 80s, that number was around 4.1, but in the 90s the economy was booming. People had money to update their collections. They were having children and their sons became part of the hunting tradition and bought more guns. One person can easily have 2 different shotguns for fowl and 2 different rifles for larger game - that's 4 different guns for one person, big deal.

Also, it wasn't until the 90s when concealed carry started to take-off and people started buying hand guns - so there's that as well.

The good thing in all of this is that hunting and concealed carry aren't the cause of gun violence. In fact, the crime rate has dropped nearly 50% despite the addition of these guns - So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone?

According to the DoJ, over 300,000 guns are reported stolen every year. Since only law abiding gun owners would report the theft, and only criminals steal stuff, it seems that it IS a problem that many of these legal guns end up in the hands of criminals.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone?

Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it? Being shot by a toddler (or thief) who finds one of those eight guns is the opposite of "not hurting anyone."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

******NRA long ago ceased to be an organization for rifle enthusiasts and became instead an organ of the gun manufacturers. They need to keep up the steady scare tactics of "Xxxxx is coming for your guns" so the stupid cohort among the gun enthusiasts will rush out and buy buy buy some more.

Gun-owning households now own an estimated average of 8.1 guns (Source, Houston Chronicle).



Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time.

In the 80s, that number was around 4.1, but in the 90s the economy was booming. People had money to update their collections. They were having children and their sons became part of the hunting tradition and bought more guns. One person can easily have 2 different shotguns for fowl and 2 different rifles for larger game - that's 4 different guns for one person, big deal.

Also, it wasn't until the 90s when concealed carry started to take-off and people started buying hand guns - so there's that as well.

The good thing in all of this is that hunting and concealed carry aren't the cause of gun violence. In fact, the crime rate has dropped nearly 50% despite the addition of these guns - So what business is it of yours how people spend their money if they're not hurting anyone?

According to the DoJ, over 300,000 guns are reported stolen every year. Since only law abiding gun owners would report the theft, and only criminals steal stuff, it seems that it IS a problem that many of these legal guns end up in the hands of criminals.

That vast majority of violent gun crimes are not committed with stolen guns. So while that may seem like the major problem to you, it's just more truthy gun control nonsense. When are you going to stop blaming the victims?
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


According to the DoJ, over 300,000 guns are reported stolen every year. Since only law abiding gun owners would report the theft, and only criminals steal stuff, it seems that it IS a problem that many of these legal guns end up in the hands of criminals.



Around here, they seem to get stolen from the cars of LEOs quite often. The tourist killing that propelled Trump's campaign into high gear was done with a gun from a BLM ranger.

Consider it one of the prices of laws that prevent citizens from possessing weapons in location type X. Criminals don't care, but people who can't go home first may have the choice of leaving it in the car at risk, or committing a felony by bringing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If you prove you are unable to be a responsible gun owner, you shouldn't be allowed to impersonate one.

Yep. And yet we have police chiefs still on the force who have accidentally shot themselves. Twice. Can't take away HIS gun! We have Zack Gilchrist, who accidentally fired a round into the bedroom of a neighbor's daughter. Then two years later accidentally fired a round into his OTHER neighbor's house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As a veteran how can you not be disgusted by his attitude?



By 'his,' I take it you are referring to Trump. For the record, I am disgusted. Trump stepped all over his schlong on this one.
Instead of both parties making a positive argument for their policies and positions, they also bring up what I would call "show pony victims" of the opposition's actions, policies, etc. The RNC did with the families of those killed at Benghazi. The DNC did it with Khan. Pimping grief to tug on the heart strings of the faithful and the undecided for votes is IMHO, offensive.
Now with respect to Mr. Khan. He made the decision to go up and speak. Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq? The families of those killed in Benghazi were subject to the same.
Finally, as we see form the posts, opinions fall along partisan lines. I'll go back to what I stated previously, pimping another's grief to tell the world your opponent sucks the big one is a bad strategy for all of the risk involved and the craven behavior of those who enable it.
My 25 cents and a cup of coffee's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq?


Why should he have been worried? Do you think there's a problem with his history?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time.



not sure what common sense that is....why would guns increase over time? Beds, cars, power tools, furniture does not necessarily increase over time, you buy what you need and be done with it. OR You buy new and get rid of old.

I am pretty sure the increase in gun owning households is due to paranoid and delusional beliefs that the big bad govt is coming to get your guns, on top of the obviously relaxed laws that allow people to purchase and carry guns.

But as an anomaly and statistically insignificant, this gun owner (me) is actually reducing the number of guns he owns.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/10/us/gun-sales-terrorism-obama-restrictions.html?_r=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

Quote

Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq?


Why should he have been worried? Do you think there's a problem with his history?




It's only a problem if you have a bigoted view of immigrants and middle eastern nations.

Even Charles Manson, Tim McVeigh and Jeff Dahmer had lawyers who worked for them. It's what lawyers do.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes

Quote

Common sense would tell you that the amount of guns in a "gun-owning household" would tend to increase over time.



not sure what common sense that is....why would guns increase over time?


I addressed that it in the part of my post that you conveniently ignored. I don't mind selective quoting as long as you don't ask questions that I've already addressed in the parts that you selectively left out.

tkhayes

Beds, cars, power tools, furniture does not necessarily increase over time, you buy what you need and be done with it. OR You buy new and get rid of old.


Guns are built to last. I thought it was common sense that you don't throw them in the garbage.

tkhayes

I am pretty sure the increase in gun owning households is due to paranoid and delusional beliefs that the big bad govt is coming to get your guns.


Nah, there was a major spike after Sandy Hook when there was talk about banning semi-automatic assault rifles. Clinton banned them back in 1994-2004, so to think that they would ban them again is neither paranoid nor delusional.

This is all beside the point tho - we were talking about the average number of guns per gun-owning household. We've seen larger spikes in 1994-1998 when the average amount of guns jumped from 4-6 per household. By 2000, there were just under 7 guns per gun-owning household - so the fact is that in the last 15 years, the average number of guns only went up by about 1 gun per household.

The overall increase can largely be attributed to concealed carry, hunting and the end of the assault rifle ban in 2004.

tkhayes

But as an anomaly and statistically insignificant, this gun owner (me) is actually reducing the number of guns he owns.


Don't get shot off of your high horse. . .
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tkhayes


not sure what common sense that is....why would guns increase over time? Beds, cars, power tools, furniture does not necessarily increase over time, you buy what you need and be done with it. OR You buy new and get rid of old.



Don't know about you, but power tools certainly accumulate in my household.

Beds and cars are silly - they're large items that match up to the number of people in the house. Cars and furniture are also items that have finite lifespans before they are either non functional or dated.

Guns are very durable items - at least if you avoid buying utter shit. They aren't going to wear out, and therefore the count will only go down if you choose to sell it. In most states, selling is a pain. In CA, they keep declaring many of mine unsaleable unless they pay a yearly ransom tax for BS drop tests. All of the "AW"s remain unsaleable since 2001. So a given household is only going to trend upward.

When the people in a household die, where do the guns go? Likely to relatives/friends who already own guns. So again, the number trends up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boomerdog

Quote

As a veteran how can you not be disgusted by his attitude?



By 'his,' I take it you are referring to Trump. For the record, I am disgusted. Trump stepped all over his schlong on this one.
Instead of both parties making a positive argument for their policies and positions, they also bring up what I would call "show pony victims" of the opposition's actions, policies, etc. The RNC did with the families of those killed at Benghazi. The DNC did it with Khan. Pimping grief to tug on the heart strings of the faithful and the undecided for votes is IMHO, offensive.
Now with respect to Mr. Khan. He made the decision to go up and speak. Is he that naive/stupid to think opposition research was not going to vet his history in spite of the fact his son was KIA'd in Iraq? The families of those killed in Benghazi were subject to the same.
Finally, as we see form the posts, opinions fall along partisan lines. I'll go back to what I stated previously, pimping another's grief to tell the world your opponent sucks the big one is a bad strategy for all of the risk involved and the craven behavior of those who enable it.
My 25 cents and a cup of coffee's worth.



The Dems launched a direct personal attack against Trump through their surrogate, Khan. Then they tried to insulate themselves from retaliation by hiding behind the Khan's dead son ...Hamas-style. Disgusting, but that's how they roll. Soon, the Khan's will be tossed aside and forgotten just like Cindy Sheehan. Would've worked against anyone else ....but this time....Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0