rhaig

SkyDekker

******
Another homicidal toddler.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/27/mother-fatally-shot-by-toddler-who-found-gun-in-car-sheriffs-office-says/

Where are all the good toddlers with guns to take care of these killers?

ah how you seem to delight in posting these so you can sit on your high horse and say "I told you so... look at the traumatized kid I'm using to make my point!"

asshole.

Not sure why this is upsetting you so much. It is simply the price you have to pay for your freedom to have a gun. You should be sending flowers to the family thanking them for paying their 2nd Amendment dues.

oh look... another asshole.


I just see lots of people here who need to be called assholes. I haven't been banned in a while, so I figured it was time.

kallend

Another homicidal toddler.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/27/mother-fatally-shot-by-toddler-who-found-gun-in-car-sheriffs-office-says/

Where are all the good toddlers with guns to take care of these killers?

ah how you seem to delight in posting these so you can sit on your high horse and say "I told you so... look at the traumatized kid I'm using to make my point!"

asshole.

try this then
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

That contains much of the same story.

normiss

New here?

I expect dead horse beatings. I was just a little (only a little) bit surprised by how circular the arguments are.

on one side of the argument it seems there are religious (to varying degrees) people who want to be able to defend themselves. On the other side there are people mocking christian beliefs saying that the first group shouldn't need to defend themselves in a church because their god should do it for them. When the first group is only citing a list of rights enumerated by founding fathers that are described in the enumerating document as endowed by our creator.


so what it comes down to is the second group being whiney bitches complaining about the first group carrying guns (or wanting to) into some place the second group isn't likely to be anyway.

This thread is even MORE petty than I'm used to here.

tkhayes

I'd like to see a real source of information instead of one that simply copies/pastes from site to site the same drivel, word for word.

this is not news at all - more like "I heard someone say....."

I thought you statists respected the NY Times?

dear god. this thread is on page 4 and the dead horse beatings continue.

Stumpy

Everyone thinks they are better trained than average yet still we get the firearms instructors who have ND's, and the "Responsible Gun Owners" who get shot by their own children/pets.

well no. Not everyone. But what am I doing correcting you. You know all.

Stumpy

***

We are trained.

Sure you are.

I'm sure not all who carry are as well trained, but I know I and the people I shoot with have had more hours of formal firearms training than most TX peace officers. I also know we get more practice time than most TX peace officers.

So snort and laugh... just know your perception is not universal truth.

kallend

Satan? Why can't he just stop bad humans from a home invasion in his own house? What's the point of omnipotence if you can't even do that when you have advance warning (omniscience).

How would god choose to stop bad humans? Strike them down with lightning? Make them vanish? Maybe place good humans with weapons where they can stop the bad humans and inspire them to act in defense of worshipers?

Who is to say how god would respond. I wouldn't guess how you would respond much less god.

Stumpy

***The bad guy would be taken out by rounds coming from several directions.

Shame about all the other people who'd get shot with all the misses.

I'd wager they'd do as well or better than NYPD

wolfriverjoe

***

Bingo!

And one party definitely has more of the hypocritical scumbags.

Ya think?

http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2016/04/georgia_lawmaker_gets_dui_with_kids_gun_in_car.html

72 in a 45 zone. BAC 0.225%. 4 juveniles in the car (doesn't say if they were kids or teenagers). And carrying a gun.

Care to guess which party before you open the link?

scumbag yes.... hypocritical scumbag? Did he get elected on his tough on drunk drivers campaign? No?

So just a run of the mill scumbag.

kallend

***Not that he's not a scumbag, but have you ever pointed out the scumbags who are Democrats? Just sayin.

As a matter of fact, I have.

Republicans are better, though, because they espouse "law and order", "personal responsibility" and "family values" so loudly that when their hypocrisy is exposed it makes it so much more interesting.

He has, but he tends to point out the scumbags in concert with their hypocrisy. As he notes, there's less of that with the other party (pick your reasons why... we won't agree) so it's not as fun to point out.

And this is all about fun (and inciting internet riots)

kallend

***We have our work cut out for us.

Yes, getting belief in supernatural beings out of government will be hard work, but necessary.

And reversing the shift in assets to those who are already the wealthiest will also require work.


1) big corporate taxes, no corporate subsidies... force corps to invest in themselves to avoid taxes. This leads to more productivity, more jobs more cash flow on the streets, more confidence in the economy.

A) simple consumption based taxes for the populous with non-taxed goods for basic needs... tax avoidance becomes simple, don't buy taxed goods. (similar to the TX sales tax system)

kallend

******I know how you feel.
Follow the Constitution as written? What a liberal concept... NOT.

Tough concept, isn't it? People get elected to office, take an oath to perform that job, and then decide NOT to perform the job as written in the Constitution?

Why would they not be expected to perform the tasks that are part of the job, as defined in the Constitution? Do tell.

You mean like - Oh - Idunno - refusing to prosecute and uphold immigration law?

OK, enough about G.W. Bush.
thank you for reinforcing the point. It's been going on so long that even the "blame bush" crowd think it's normal and ok. "bush did it, so it's ok for obama to do it too"

While I'm all for saying that they need to hold the hearing and either confirm or deny an appointee, declaring they need to be bypassed is taking it a bit far. Sure... something isn't being done the way you want? Bypass it! (uh... no)

Remember who did what and ensure you don't vote for them again? Yup! Do that.

gowlerk

Quote

Just curious - is "cowardly bigot" a personal attack - or do mods get a free pass on the whole PA thing?

It's only a PA if "unknown" is a person who makes a complaint.

and the mods pretty much get a pass too

Let's go ice skating in hell!

SkyDekker

******
Apologizing is for the weak.

says the Canadian

Which may have clued you into the fact it was sarcasm.

yes. I believe we've had the apology discussion before.

I'll try to be less subtle next time.

SkyDekker

Apologizing is for the weak.

says the Canadian

434

And Ron Paul?

Bernie Sanders?

Two gentlemen who seems to serve their people well. Both sounds like healthy mental people to me. Im just asking.

Not long ago I told a friend of mine, "show me politicians who aren't corporate whores, and I'll show you two old unelectable white guys, and one of them is retired".

Bernie's ideas are "interesting" but would leave about 70% of households with less spending money (even after not having to pay for health care). Removing spending money during a failing economic period is asking for trouble.

normiss

Your title makes my head hurt.

it's not too bad... there's an e where there should be an a and vice-versa.

but yeah...

BartsDaddy

Guese I hit a nerve?

careful... complaining about how the moderators do their thing here is against the rules.

I mentioned "charging" as I'd heard it mentioned in a video account. Though it was hearsay.

As with any incident, let's see what the official report says before we cry foul. I'll put my tinfoil back on my sandwich.

My gut says nothing was done wrong here. I expect the "charging" account will not be confirmed.

gowlerk

It looks to me like he "charges" out of the van at no one in particular, but he exits it very quickly and no one else does. He appears to have his hand up, or at least extended outward, but then clearly reaches for something on this belt when the armed officer approaches. After that another officer approaches from the opposite direction. It's not clear enough to see a weapon, maybe he is reaching for a cell phone. But definitely is not in a surrendering posture when he is shot.

yup... so what we have here is video that doesn't match either side's story. He wasn't charging at officers, nor was he clearly surrendering when he was shot.

So is this a case of reality not matching recollection, or fabricated stories on both sides?

Some will ask why that matters. And in this specific legal case it may not. But if it's fabrication on both sides, it makes you wonder why both sides need to fabricate a story.

I'm sure someone will offer me tinfoil now. I'll wrap my sandwich in it. Thank you.

billvon

>Just like the story in the OP. The suspect was DRUNK, DUI is just as big a danger to the public as a
>firearm in said drunks hands.

Agreed. So you would support making penalties for carrying while drunk match the penalties for DWI?

In some states that is already the case. (at least the same classification as or higher than a DWI)

From memory, so with a grain of salt... in TX first offense DWI is a class B misdemeanor while carrying your handgun while intoxicated is a class A misdemeanor and results in losing your license to carry for several years. The second offense DWI is a class A.