# Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.

Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.




And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.

What you asshats don't understand, is these companies are the gateway......if you can sue a gun maker for the illegal use of their product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers are all next in line........you moron.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


Companies get sued all the time for being irresponsible and making dangerous products. The gun companies have been selling mass killing weapons to the public for too long.  Hope they win a fortune.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


Someone is feeding you some bullshit this case was throughout last year


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


And they just ruled it can move forward.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Car companies sell a product that kills over 38,000 people a year...

AR-15s and AK-47 civilian rifles in 2018....39....total.

So, you doofus......if you can go after a company on that statistic, car companies better look out.....their product kills more people, and more children, than guns do....as do booze and a lot of other products....


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




it is a fact that not a single time in human history has a gun killed a person


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gunmaker Remington For Sandy Hook Massacre


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Car deaths are mostly accidents.  Cars are for transportation.  Ar-15s are for mass killing.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


It’s a fact a killer with a AR is really dangerous.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gunmaker Remington For Sandy Hook Massacre


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





dont change the subject,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


You aren’t familiar with the Supreme Court?


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 12, 2019)

Yet folks that donated to Bernie can't sue the DNC when they acknowledged that their primaries were rigged, b/c it is a private corporate entity.

Sure. . .

Or folks can't sue the NFL with certain expectations of competition, b/c the NFL is a private corporation for profit, whose first priority is to promote entertainment . . .

Sure. . .

Or folks could sue the Tobacco companies, b/c judges said they could.

The law is whatever the ruling elites and the Judges in their back pockets say it is.

I can't believe you folks haven't figured this out yet.

Yeah, it will probably turn against the gun manufacturers.  Because that is what political elites want, and they can't overturn the Constitution, they know they can't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Do you think Iran should have nukes?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


You are not familiar with current laws


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I am pretty sure the Supreme Court is.  You are in denial, sad.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




I dont think anyone should,,,


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Ar-15s are for mass killing.



  If that's true, then they must be a really, really creepy products, since the overwhelming vast majority of them are never involved in any human deaths or injuries at all, much less mass killings.


----------



## Nostra (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


Cool.

Can’t wait to sue the pants off GM the next time someone driving a Chevy runs into my vehicle.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

A judge will have to rule they dont have immunity. Which probably wont happen. 
It was a lawful weapon and probably sold to dealers in a lawful way.
The Connecticut SC which overruled a superior court judge ruled on emotion. That's it. They should be removed from the bench.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Why?  By your logic they have never killed anyone.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Ar-15s are for mass killing.
> ...


They are.  When used many die.  We have quite a long list of mass killings with them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


its for a different reason you wouldnt understand,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You seem really confused.


----------



## okfine (Nov 12, 2019)

Remington has ongoing problems. I own an 870 and an 1100, both nice pieces. Never did I think someone would destroy a company, especially one as old as Remington.

"While I was in Huntsville, Remington employees told me that if they spoke to me for this article, they would be fired. One woman, a line worker, told me over the phone: “These people, they have ways of finding out if you talked. I talk to you, no ifs, ands or buts, I’m gone. It makes us feel they have something to hide. But we keep our mouths shut. Clock in, clock out.”

How America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Cars killed over 38,000 people in 2017.

AR-15s and AKs......39, in 2018.  Over 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands

Car makers should be spending a lot of money helping Remington......


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



not at all,,,it makes perfect sense,,,


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




So is a muslim with a rental truck....since a muslim in France killed 86 people and injured 435 in one attack...more than any mass public shooting with an AR-15....

Truck makers better watch out.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Cars are for transportation.  Guns are for killing.  How many died in the Vegas mass killing with just one shooter?  Orlando?  These mass killing weapons are irresponsible to sell.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Trucks are for transportation.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Nov 12, 2019)

So Sandy Hook wasn't a hoax??

Or is the Supreme Court all part of the Deep State conspiracy to take our guns??

I'll await further instructions from Trump as to what I should think about all this...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




so your OK with death as long as you get some personal gain by the product,,,


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

I was actually looking at purchasing an AR a few minutes ago.
They are so fun!


----------



## mdk (Nov 12, 2019)

To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


If weapons for mass killing are produced and sold we will have mass killings.  It’s irresponsible to sell such weapons.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> They are.  When used many die.  We have quite a long list of mass killings with them.



  At this point, you are either unbelievably deceived, or else willfully lying.

  What I stated is a hard fact.  The overwhelming vast majority of AR-15s and similar rifles have never been involved in any event in which people were killed or injured; much less in any mass-killing.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


The AR-15 is made to kill peoples. Remington did nothing to keep the people safe from NRA Gun Nutters when they go off.
The NRA was funded by Remington to give Guns to the mentally ill shooters irresponsibly before and after.

*"product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers"* Are not made to kill peoples, not the same. But all can be sued.
Gun Makers insanely have full immunity from lawsuits
for the guns, they make that are mostly all defective.

Seems they could not get 4 Assholes on the bench to take the case. I wonder if they got even 3?

I guess 6 some have kids that go to schools and think AR's are not required for home protection or anythang else in the publics' hands.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




they arent produced and sold for mass killings,,,


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Not near as many as were killed by a rental truck...

Vegas shooter....58.

Rental Truck....86.

Trucks are deadlier than guns.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

mdk said:


> To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.


They can't be held liable if everything was done legally. They have immunity.
It would make more sense to go after the dealer who sold the weapon.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > They are.  When used many die.  We have quite a long list of mass killings with them.
> ...


And when they are used by a killer 50+ people have died with just one shooter.  

Do you think Iran should have nukes?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Trucks are for transportation,  guns are for killing.  You seem triggered...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No, shitstain, they do not have immunity from lawsuits, you dumb ass.   They are protected by the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which prevents left wingers from suing them for something they didn't do........Lawfare by left wingers is evil....and car makers better watch out...since their product kills more people every single year than all guns do.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Trucks killed more people .... 86.

Ar-15......58.

Ban Trucks...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No, but obama did...which is why he let them continue to develop them, and gave them 150 billion dollars in cash to help them do it.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Cars are for transportation.  Your argument is feeble...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...




and cars killed 38,000 people....AR-15s and AK-47 civilian rifles?  39.  With over 18 million AR-15s in private hands....


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Really?  Why should Iran not have nukes?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Again, for transportation.  You can repeat yourself, but it’s still an easy counter...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> The AR-15 is made to kill peoples. Remington did nothing to keep the people safe from NRA Gun Nutters when they go off.
> The NRA was funded by Remington to give Guns to the mentally ill shooters irresponsibly before and after.
> 
> *"product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers"* Are not made to kill peoples, not the same. But all can be sued.
> ...


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> I was actually looking at purchasing an AR a few minutes ago.
> They are so fun!


They have a use.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


You know I hope your right and this goes to the supreme court and they rule in favor for the gun manufactures  just to shut to dumb asses up


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




so your saying its legal to kill people with a truck,,,
what a dumbass,,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


See the OP idiot.  They just ruled it can go forward.  Are you lost?


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > I was actually looking at purchasing an AR a few minutes ago.
> ...


Your mouth makes a better plunger


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Lawnmowers kill more people each year than AR-15 rifles do.........70 people are killed by lawnmowers each year....39 by Ar-15s and Ak-47 rifles in 2018.....

Lawnmowers and cars need to be banned, they are both deadlier than AR-15 rifles.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Not at all.  I’m saying a truck is used for transportation.  And by your logic has never killed anyone right?  You changing your logic?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Vegas shooter....58.



  One thing that is interesting to me about the Vegas Shooter.  His use of a bump stock in his crime, triggered a movement to ban bump stocks and similar accessories, but in fact, in this case, it probably saved many lives.  He wasted a lot of ammunition, most of it going harmlessly over and past the crowd at which he was shooting.  Anyone with a basic level of marksmanship skill, put in the same location and intent on shooting into that same crowd, not using a bump stock, and aiming each shot, would almost certainly have killed a lot more people, while having fired far fewer shots.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


So you are admitting it is the tool? Your arguments are confusing. 

When was the last mass killing with a lawnmower?  What was the worst?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




my logic remains the same,, I'm using yours against you,,,


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Reread what I wrote one more time
You know I hope your right and this goes to the supreme court and they rule in favor for the gun manufactures  just to shut to dumb asses up


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Vegas shooter....58.
> ...


Sounds like a really dangerous weapon.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> They can't be held liable if everything was done legally. They have immunity.
> It would make more sense to go after the dealer who sold the weapon.



  Isn't this the incident in which the shooter murdered his own mother, and took a gun belonging to her to use in his crime?  It seems to me that if this is the case, even the dealer who sold the gun to the mother could not rationally be expected to have anticipated that his customer would be murdered, and the gun stolen from her and used to commit a crime.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


car manufactures should be sued.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > They can't be held liable if everything was done legally. They have immunity.
> ...


Manufacturer sold a weapon for mass killing to the public.  Irresponsible.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Cars are for transportation.  Deaths are mostly accidents.  Gun manufacturer is arming killers with a weapon that can kill 50+ people quickly.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Again, for transportation.  You can repeat yourself, but it’s still an easy counter...



  Easy, but irrelevant.

  Guns have lawful uses, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of guns of all types, including AR-15 and similar rifles, are only ever used for lawful purposes.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, for transportation.  You can repeat yourself, but it’s still an easy counter...
> ...




Cars are for transportation. Deaths are mostly accidents. Gun manufacturer is arming killers with a weapon that can kill 50+ people quickly.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, for transportation.  You can repeat yourself, but it’s still an easy counter...
> ...


When is mass killing lawful?


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > They can't be held liable if everything was done legally. They have immunity.
> ...


But if they dug deep enough, they might could find the dealer knew the kid was nuts and sold it anyway. 
I know its bullshit but it could happen.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Again, they have immunity. The gun is legal. People use them for legit reasons. Very rarely, they are abused. Like running over someone with a car. Or slitting someone's throat.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




most of those accidents are by sane sober people,,,

are you concerned about death or how they died???


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




never,,dont be a dumbass


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Accidents are quite different than mass killing.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Then why sell weapons for mass killing?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




death is death,,,and no gun in history has ever committed a ,mass killing,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


the only weapon ever invented for mass killings is nukes,,,


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

> In their lawsuit against Remington, the Sandy Hook families say the gun Adam Lanza used  – a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle  – was marketed to promote its “assaultive qualities, military uses, and lethality.”




Wonderful marketing by Remington that they make the POS so you can kill peoples as like you were a wonderful military guy fighting off kids in school.
So the cowardly NRA Member can masturbate their sperm on their weapons as to lube them in safety.

So, Weak ass Hunters, you see deer as needing a “assaultive qualities, military uses, and lethality AR-15.” to take them down?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I’m glad the public seems to be getting tired of all the childish pro gun arguments...


----------



## OldLady (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


Yes, bars can be held liable for letting a drunk leave driving his car.  Have you not heard that Big Pharma has successfully been sued for making pain pills that are addictive?  Those days are already here.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


But before that,  Biological, Chemical was used widely.

And the number one invented mass killing weapons are fake gods/lords. Used for over 3500 years. Some say like used for 12000 years plus.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 12, 2019)

mdk said:


> To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.



I'm not, not one bit.

The ruling elite need some way to restrict the people's rights, as they cannot do it through regular Democratic means.  This has always been their tyrannical means of last resort to push policies that are unpopular.

Nor will this have any effect on any other products.  Until they want it too.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 12, 2019)

TNHarley said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.
> ...



The ACA was ruled Constitutional when it clearly wasn't.  Fascism is not Constitutional.

They can find a way to rule anyway they want.

Just wait.  These are brilliant legal minds, they will legalese the nation into a political straight jacket if they see fit.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.




GREAT NEWS YOU STUPID MOTHER FKR--------------- NO IT IS NOT YOU A----HOLES!!


More from the Washington Times:

_The justices denied Remington’s request to review the case as it carries on in Connecticut courts._

_The gun manufacturer had challenged the legal battle against it, saying federal law generally prohibits lawsuits against gun sellers and manufacturers when criminal use results from such a sale._

The same law firm suing Remington Arms is also suing Alex Jones, which means that the First Amendment is as threatened as the Second.

The lawyer representing Remington, Scott Keller, said the lawsuit against the manufacturer “is exactly the kind of case arising from a criminal’s misuse of a firearm that ‘may not be brought in any federal or state court.'”

WAKE THE HELL UP YOU STUPID ASS  morons!!

*The US Supreme Court denied a request to review a case against Remington Arms, a ruling which overturns the very foundation of society by making companies guilty of behavior by end users:*


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




A truck killed 86 people...more than any mass public shooter in our history...... cars kill over 38,000 people every single year.....

AR-15 rifles...less than 39 people in 2018.....with over 18 million of them in private hands......

Trucks and cars are deadlier than any rifle.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

My fellow "Good Men".......
All that is required for evil men to prevail, is for "good" men to do nothing.

Little by little....one small step at a time.....

But the day is coming......KNOCK KNOCK !!!!!    *Federal Gun Buy Back Task Force here to remove your firearms.    OPEN UP AND GET ON THE FLOOR.... NOW !!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yes...which is why we need to ban Trucks....a truck was used to kill 86 people and injure 435.....the Vegas shooter killed 58......Virginia Tech, 32....Trucks are deadlier than guns, rifles or pistols.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


a=]=
hey stupid fk . when you hit someone with a car .  THAT CAR COMPANY GETS SUED YOU RETARDEDD FK NN MORON . A HOLES LIKE YOU ARE WHAT MAKE A SHIT COUNTRY!!

 a baseball . HITS A KID IN THE FACE YOU FKN RETARD . NOW THE BASEBALL COMPANY GETS SUED OUT OF EXISTANCE YOU FKR ARE BEYOND GAWD DAM IDIOTS!!!!!


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


DOPer WEAK SPEWS of DEFLECTIONS!


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> > In their lawsuit against Remington, the Sandy Hook families say the gun Adam Lanza used  – a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle  – was marketed to promote its “assaultive qualities, military uses, and lethality.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another anti-gunner getting sexually stimulated by the thought of guns....


You guys really, really need to get help with your psycho-sexual issues...your wiring is all wrong.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> A truck killed 86 people...more than any mass public shooter in our history...... cars kill over 38,000 people every single year.....
> AR15 rifles...less than 39 people in 2018.....with over 18 million of them in private hands......
> Trucks and cars are deadlier than any rifle.



They do not care.  You cannot reason or negotiate with them.
They have their agenda and that's final for them.

The ONLY thing standing between forced confiscation and preserving your Rights is your willingness to sacrifice for your freedom.
If everyone decides NOT to sacrifice to protect their Rights, then they will be taken away.
It really is that simple.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



OMFG THESE ARE THE DUMBEST FKN  C WORD IDIOTS I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIVE . omfg how did we get such IDIOTS in this nation who can't fkn think past their gawd dam CNN news headlines!!

JESUS H CRIPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it's cominngg dumb fkrs it's comingn!!


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Cars are for transportation. Deaths are mostly accidents. Gun manufacturer is arming killers with a weapon that can kill 50+ people quickly.


----------



## depotoo (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


*Remington* asked the Supremes to look at the case.  Not the Sandy Hook families.
Sandy Hook: Remington Arms Company asks Supreme Court to take up case related to shooting - CNNPolitics


The company is asking the justices to reverse the Connecticut Supreme Court that ruled in March 2019 that the lawsuit brought by the victims could go forward. 
A 2005 federal law protects many gun manufacturers from wrongful death lawsuits brought by grieving family members. But the Sandy Hook plaintiffs are seeking a way around the law by targeting the company's marketing strategy. While the state Supreme Court ruled the case could move forward, it agreed to put its ruling on hold pending appeal.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


So you are saying that everyone that owns an AR15 is a mass murderer and there is no other purpose for an AR


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Desperado said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I’m saying they can quickly and easily become a mass killer.  That’s what the gun is for.  It’s irresponsible to sell weapons for mass killing to the public.


----------



## Crixus (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.




They will lose.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

MindWars said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


All other companies in America are open to being sued, for most anythang. They try to be responsible. So they are not sued.
 But ANAL gun maker got a special immunity from being sued. AT ALL! FFS!? Seems like the anal gun makers sell assault weapons to the public
needs that as making guns to kill people. No American Company can have Full immunity from the damage their products do.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Get a grip, it is because of people like you that the University of Virginia has canceled the 21-gun salute for its Veterans Day ceremony over concerns that firing weapons on campus could cause "panic" among students.


----------



## Claudette (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...



Yup. This will go absolutely nowhere.

The gun is the tool. The person using it is the weapon. No way can gun manufacturers be blamed for what people do with the guns they buy.

It would be like making car manufacturers responsible for every accident on the highway.

Yeah and he's a big moron.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

Should this ruling eventually be upheld in ANY form, it will DECIDEDLY end the 2nd Amendment.
because if it works for one arms manufacturer, it will work for them all.

This is how Tyanny becomes reality folks.

Tried to tell you all....Freedom was NEVER Free

You will never stop tyrants from your keyboard.   Nope.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 12, 2019)

mdk said:


> To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.


Actually not.

This case merely meets one of the exemption provisions in the law prohibiting bringing suite against gun manufacturers.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...


Law specific states manufacture'ers cannot be sued when the product they made was misused


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

Crixus said:


> They will lose.



Maybe...maybe not.......did you forget Obamacare?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.
> ...


Companies cannot be sued when their product was misused to illegally murder someone means it's misused


----------



## Desperado (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


So was Toyota sued when a person used their truck to run over protesters?





Companies should only be libel when their products fail.
neither of these cases fall into that category.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Crixus said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


In the coming CIVIL trail, the plaintiff does not need to win with all 6-12 jury members voting for them. I think it like 5 or 10 jury members are needed.
Can't wait to see a win. But I think its better for the ANAL Gun Maker Criminals here to make a deal out of court for now. As more cases like this are coming.
Great Job Sandy Family, MAGA and safer from Gun Nutters and the NRA BS!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > They will lose.
> ...


That's when the courts were even now 6 -3 Because the court must go with current standing laws.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Desperado said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > MindWars said:
> ...


So the car maker is marketing that car there for killing protestors?
I did not know that. Can you post the media advertising, so we all can read that..
I want to read that.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Gun manufacturers are not arming killers. Your hyperbole is nauseating


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


There is already a current law protecting companies when their product is misused


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

It's a bit funny watching all the gun owners start squirming when yet another step is made towards losing the right to bear arms.

You just keep screaming "BUT I HAVE THE RIGHT !!!!!!" or...."BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS !!!!!"  from every mountain top.......see what good it does.   They don't give a shit.

No one wants to come to the realization that freedom was never free and as Thomas Jefferson so wisely pointed out.....

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots"
_*Thomas Jefferson*_

Today's "Patriots" have mistakenly come to feel assured that their Constitution will protect them.  Even as they are UNwilling to protect their Constitution.  They think Freedom is FREE.

SAD


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> It's a bit funny watching all the gun owners start squirming when yet another step is made towards losing the right to bear arms.
> 
> You just keep screaming "BUT I HAVE THE RIGHT !!!!!!" or...."BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS !!!!!"  from every mountain top.......see what good it does.   They don't give a shit.
> 
> ...


Gun owners believe in the law but when pushed we will take matters into our own hands.


----------



## Desperado (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


So the gun makers are marketing their products to mass murders for killing  innocents?  I did not know that. Can you post the media advertising, so we all can read that..


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> MindWars said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




ZOMBIE: 
*The US Supreme Court denied a request to review a case against Remington Arms, a ruling which overturns the very foundation of society by making companies guilty of behavior by end users:


YOU WILL HAVE LOST EVERY WHERE YOU CAN SHOP IF THERE IS NO STOP TO THIS BULL SHIT LAW!!
JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE LAWS DUMB FK DEMOCRATS ---------
DOESN'T MAKE THEM RIGHT POS LOSERS!!




*


----------



## martybegan (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Products that are dangerous due to a flaw. The guns in this case work as intended.


----------



## Flash (Nov 12, 2019)

The stupid Moon Bats are confused, as usual.

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the case.

They simply refused to hear the case on the motion to dismiss like they do 99% of the cases presented to them.

There is a Federal law that provides exemption from stupid lawsuits by the filthy ass anti gun nuts.

When the right case comes the Supremes will take it up if necessary.  There hasn't even been a trial yet.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Gun owners believe in the law but when pushed we will take matters into our own hands.



Maybe you will...maybe you won't......

But in the Revolutionary war, only about 7% of the population participated.   The rest decided to sit it out and let others fight for their freedom from the comfort of home.

Today, only about *0.7%* would participate.
I'm afraid Americans have misjudged their adversaries.


----------



## Crixus (Nov 12, 2019)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > They will lose.
> ...




They will lose. This has been done before. A judgment against Remington would open the gates for law suits against big tobacco, the booze industry, auto makers you name it. Also, Remington won't be getting sued, it's the bigger company that owns Remington and many other gun companies. And Bammer care was a SCOTUS case. This is civil court. This law suit is nothing but a scheme for democrat lawyers to bilk money out of folks whose kids were murder victims. This stuff is why lawyers are typically derided as slimy.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 12, 2019)

Flash said:


> The stupid Moon Bats are confused, as usual.
> 
> The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the case.
> 
> ...



Correct.
But can you see that something is not right here?

Have the votes on the SCOTUS been made public yet?
Did Kavanaugh and Gorsuch vote in favor of allowing gun manufacturers to be subject to lawsuits?   why didn't they all just say no?  It's already law isn't it?


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Flash said:


> The stupid Moon Bats are confused, as usual.
> 
> The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Desperado said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...



Can you imagine what these pussy idiots will do hearing the fireworks on the 4th of July.

Can we imagine the pussies who cann't function when this nation finds itself unnder attack and these pussies asses have a higher chance of livinng it then we do omfg   these are some really  PUSSY ass kids you leftis pos have raised....Oh wait the state raised them that's why they are all such assholes!! you let them be raised by GOV TEACHING and you the parents are also a victim that's why you idiots are so gawd dam stupid!!

LOL that was my rant on these mother fkn moronns!!


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


you ,mean like the fact that anywhere between 500K and 3 million times a yr guns are used to stop crime and murder???

why do you keep leaving this fact out???


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

OldLady said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


but none of those are protected rights,,,


----------



## satrebil (Nov 12, 2019)

What BrainFart neglected to mention is that this ruling does *NOT *assign any culpability to Remington, it merely allows the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove their case. 

Critical thinking isn't a strong point among leftists.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 12, 2019)

Big Pharma is being sued for the opiod crisis, this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Remington is being sued for marketing them for killing peoples. It was not misused. Remington needs to pay for damage done. They inspire anal Gun Nutter crimes.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Big Pharma is being sued for the opiod crisis, this doesn't surprise me.


Dang, you mean they don't have the Gun Makers Full immunity thang?
They need to get that ASAP! So they can make more thangs that kill peoples freely.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

satrebil said:


> What BrainFart neglected to mention is that this ruling does *NOT *assign any culpability to Remington, it merely allows the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove their case.
> 
> Critical thinking isn't a strong point among leftists.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

satrebil said:


> What BrainFart neglected to mention is that this ruling does *NOT *assign any culpability to Remington, it merely allows the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove their case.
> 
> Critical thinking isn't a strong point among leftists.


Gunmaker lost appeal to stop the civil case from going to trial.
If they got a case, why the appeal? As surely they can just win it on merits
as weapons don't kill peoples, people do. That them peoples be
the makers of guns and CEO's who cause the mass killing deaths.

I would like laws that allow victims and families of the victims to sue all Family and kins, in-laws and close friends.
For the killings, their family members and friends allowed as supporters..


----------



## satrebil (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> satrebil said:
> 
> 
> > What BrainFart neglected to mention is that this ruling does *NOT *assign any culpability to Remington, it merely allows the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove their case.
> ...



Read what I wrote again, smoothbrain.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



They don't, a rifle is not a mass killing weapon, a bomb is.  Or a Truck....


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Big Pharma is being sued for the opiod crisis, this doesn't surprise me.
> ...



I use opiods for my illness, I take about 50-80 a year, it has benefited myself. Not sure why it will kill you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Then why sell weapons for mass killing?



  Repeating a lie over and over again does not make it true.

  Nobody is selling weapons for mass killing.


----------



## justoffal (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



It's that goddamn closet faggot Roberts.  He's been on Obama's cock ever since he first met him.

Jo


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




why do you keep leaving this fact out???


Oooh, ooooh, pick me, pick me!!!!!   

Cause he's an asshat?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



You are a moron.......Remington did not sell the gun to the shooter, they didn't sell the gun to the shooter's mother......they did not send Remington employees to that school to shoot anyone....you are a moron...as are the parents trying to make money off of their dead children.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Did you call for your personal asshat?


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...


The drugmaker gave hit backs to get people hooked on them. And many died.
And I have to cover that cost from my taxes. Let them pay for it.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




Hey, dumb ass....the ACLU asked him to do that....you moron....

Gun Control Laws Should Be Fair

But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.

To the contrary, studies show that people with mental disabilities are _less_ likely to commit firearm crimes than to be the _victims_of violence by others.

--------------------------
*The ACLU and 23 national disability groups did not oppose this rule because we want more guns in our community. *

This is about more than guns. Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Flash said:


> The stupid Moon Bats are confused, as usual.
> 
> The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the case.
> 
> ...


I tried to point all of that out dumbasses ignored it.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.




Gun manufacturers generally only sell to licensed gun dealers.  Not to the general public.

BTW, the Sandy Hook shooter didn't buy his weapon at all- Mr. Lanza stole the rifle at all.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...



Every drug out there is involved as you call them "hit backs." I am responsible for my usage of them, no one else.


----------



## Flash (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > The stupid Moon Bats are confused, as usual.
> ...




These stupid Moon Bats are uneducated and low information and will always ignore facts if the facts conflicts with their filthy ass agenda to make this country a socialist shithole.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Snap time they kill ok so what? you can legally kill should the manufacture be sued then? should they be sued when cops kill? When a product is misused no one can sue the manufacture Laws on the books prevent the stupid shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Flash said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


THEY ARE LIKE TODDLERS IN THE CRIB LOOKING UP AT THE LITTLE THING WITH STARS AND MOON S ON IT TRYING TO CATCH ONE LOL


----------



## Flash (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> [
> 
> 
> Gun manufacturers generally only sell to licensed gun dealers.  Not to the general public.
> ...



In fact the demented sonofabitch killed the legal owner of the firearms in order to steal them.

You are correct about the manufacturers.  Even if you buy from a factory like I bought a Bushmaster AR-15 a few years ago they are a licensed FFL and will only ship to another FFL.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 12, 2019)

Where in any advertisements does Remington promote mass killings? Hollywood uses guns to promote mass killings, maybe they need to sue Hollywood for the violent movies.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

mdk said:


> To be honest, I am quite shocked that the SCOTUS allowed this case to proceed. If Remington Arms Co. is held liable I believe it will open up a Pandora's Box of legal issues for other industries. We'll see how it plays out.




Broke ass companies or higher prices..


Maybe like malpractice insurance for doctors?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Do you think you should have a bathtub?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Papageorgio said:


> Where in any advertisements does Remington promote mass killings? Hollywood uses guns to promote mass killings, maybe they need to sue Hollywood for the violent movies.




It's in the story.. it also talks about video games.


.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


What's fair to others giving mentally damaged people guns?
I'm sure if they win the case, the anal Gun maker will appeal that award.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Desperado said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


Actually it’s the fact that we have regular mass shootings.  No other country regularly has mass shootings...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


thats a lie,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Cause it’s not a fact.  It’s imaginary.  Hence why your range is so broad.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Flash said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


I don't think he stole the weapons from mom. He was using the household items.
Was it show and tell day by mistake?

What Adam Lanza Took, and Didn't Take, to Sandy Hook Elementary - The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

December 14, 2012. All of this material had been legally purchased by Nancy Lanza.

*FIREARMS*

*Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:*

Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun

Why is he using human TARGETS? Vs. Deer pictures?
Is it as the gun is for killing peoples in mass?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


Most people consider 50+ people a mass killing.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


They irresponsibly sold a weapon for mass killing to the public.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...


Who else suffers regular mass shootings?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


according to the CDC its true,,,
and the range is so broad due to the fact that the crime was stopped before it got deadly and also that many of the cases are not even reported,,,

still at the lower end of 500K thats a lot of defensive uses compared to deaths,,,

to take away guns with these numbers is like taking seatbelts and airbags out of cars,,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



No other country has the 1st amendment,  no other country has the 2nd, no other country has sanctuary cities.


.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




happens in mexico on a daily basis,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


No the CDC has never studied it.  That is a blatant lie.

It’s an imaginary number.  Many real ones are done by people involved in criminal activity.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Who else suffers regular mass shootings?




Mexico just had a mass shooting where a large family was unfortunately killed.

Mexico, BTW, has extensive Gun Control.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Certainly not North Korea. 


.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Mexico is a lawless country that is unstable. That’s the best you have?  How many do they have?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You are comparing us to a shit hole run by a dictator?  Bet you have no idea how many they may have.  Probably hard to get a gun there.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 12, 2019)

Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued."  "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

This all is a direct appeal to those civilians who would be violent, including a sick identification of this weapon with masculinity. There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society, and, when it is used for its intended purpose, it is lethal. There are other, less powerful guns that can be used for hunting or defending one's home against any invasion.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




not my concern,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Who else suffers regular mass shootings?
> ...


Mexico is corrupt.  Law enforcement is corrupt.  Can’t have gun control with no means to enforce.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


So you have no facts.  Shocking.  The gun lobby is full of lies.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Not NRA Gun Nutters.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


that should tell you something if you werent such an idiot,,,
us having the 2nd A is why our cops and government are more corrupt,,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Why is it hard to get a gun there?


Think before you speak.


.


----------



## flack (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


 They will win nothing.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Many countries with few guns are less corrupt. Nice try.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



American law enforcement isn't that corrupt, but they don't have any means to enforce gun control here.

America's police are afraid to even approach young African American men, who are America's sacred cows, for anything.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...




Liberal code word for hating the Constitution 

.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Link to all their shootings.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


name one???


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.





Yes it is very good news. 

Maybe now some sort of responsibility and accountability will be imposed on the weapons manufacturer.

I hope the Sandy Hook families win their case with bankrupting the weapon manufacturer.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


The 2nd allows gun ownership to members of a well REGULATED militia.  Is has been bastardized by the gun lobby.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Most of Europe.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


where does it say that???


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Our law enforcement is regularly shot.  This is rare in countries with strong gun control.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


I hope youre kidding,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




You are not the brightest bulb are you?


Once again why is it hard to get a gun there comrade?

.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Read it.  It sure doesn’t mention self defense.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


got it right in front of me and it says nothing about your claim,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




No shit and only a few haircut styles allowed,  only state run television...


.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Law enforcement is rarely shot in the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Denmark...


----------



## DOTR (Nov 12, 2019)

MisterBeale said:


> Yeah, it will probably turn against the gun manufacturers.  Because that is what political elites want, and they can't overturn the Constitution, they know they can't.



  They dont need to. All they have to do is sue the gun companies out of existence. Just like they stifle free speech on the internet and airwaves and bookstores. It is lawyers and corporations doing us in while people squat naively under the Constitution which only checks the government (and that not always).


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




A lot of people will engage in self-defense regardless of what the law is. This is what we know from Chicago.

If you live there, you have to go see you local unlicensed gun dealer working out of the trunk of his car or the backroom of a cocktail lounge.

No background checks, all cash and carry.  Youths, the Insane, criminals, mentally retarded, illegal aliens- anyone with the coin of the realm can buy anything they have.

So the real choice isn't guns or no guns.

Its safe, legal weapons for law abiders, or unsafe weaponry sold to anyone.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Lots of legal guns guarantees lots of illegal guns.  Hundreds of thousands stolen each year.  Lots of guns means lots of shootings.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




And they dont have the 1st amendment,  either..


And Denmark is the size of New Hampshire. 

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




So you going to start suing 3d printers now?

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Since Louisville manufactures a weapon that has killed more people than Remington  Lousiville should be sued.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I have about 100 80% lowers and about 30 blanks in anticipation that manufacturers will be forced out of business so I can take over making guns. You can't regulate blanks


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




Yes...in those countries the police and military shoot and murder innocent men, women and children in the thousands, and the socialists in Europe murdered them to the tune of 12 million.......


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


I want to see them Gun Nutters fight off drones and laser bombs. With their 2nd anal rights.  They won't be coming like in the 1770's or the civil war.
In one front line with little cover. To let insane 2nd Anal Gun Nutters shoot them down in mass.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




For now, that is changing......the respect shown to police in the past in those countries is over.....and they are under violent attack more and more...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Remind us how they did against a bunch of sheep herders .


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


OH so you support killing innocent civilians maybe it will be your house mistaken in a drone attack for a suspected gun owner's house.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Were drones with laser-guided bombs used?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Is the purpose of that item to kill?  What’s the worst mass killing with that weapon?


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




So , why do you think it would be good for the nation to massacre millions of Americans en masse?

I don't see what the benefit is?

And how about the Criminal Element?   Who is going to maintain order without firearms?

The liberal idea that ordinary law abiding Americans should lock themselves in their homes and hide from the criminal element (who will always be armed)  is a lot like Communism.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Actually their homicide rates are a fraction of ours.  Law enforcement rarely is shot and rarely shoot people.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The gun lobby lies and lies...


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


The NRA and all members are 100% American Born Gun Nutter Terrorists on the American public.
Too cheap to be an army today. All those members can be, is an American version of ISIS.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


They have close ties with Russia...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Louisville slugger since when does a product need a purpose to kill to make the manufacture legally liable? Is it the purpose to get drunk when alcohol is consumed? Time to sue Jim Beam and Anheuser-Busch


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...



How can they be when they protect the Constitution?


.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


And the worst mass killing with a slugger is?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


did you ever find that part of the 2nd that says only a well regulated militia is allowed to own guns yet???


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


And communist are within the democrat party Democrats are connected to Russia far greater than any American gun owner is.


----------



## flack (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


Isn't going to happen.


----------



## theHawk (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.



Roberts is a turncoat.  Hopefully the jury will throw it out, unless it’s stacked full of SJW morons then we’ll see a serious breach of the constitution.


----------



## flack (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


Failed English did you?


----------



## Desperado (Nov 12, 2019)

So tired of laws being drawn up for the lowest common denominator - Screw that for the greater good.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


Not needed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


does it matter? what law is there that something has a purpose when it is misused?
Is it the purpose to get drunk when alcohol is consumed? Time to sue Jim Beam and Anheuser-Busch


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Yes that’s how it starts.  You must not read well.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Still dodging the question?


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

theHawk said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


We go to war, the winners get to make the other side pay for damages done with guns.
Point to where in the constitution (COTUS) the 2nd Anal tells victim of gun shootings can't sue as a
right for the 2nd Anal Gun Nutters and makers damages done?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

flack said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Nope.  Anyone reading self defense sure has though.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


no it doesnt,,,and the 2nd half says the people not the militia,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Yes it does.  The 2nd half says those in a well regulated militia can have arms.  Bearing arms is a military term.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

This shows the clear meaning of the 2nd.  The gun lobby has bastardized our constitution.

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




What do you have against Self Defense, brain?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


then why does it say "the people" and not militia members???


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> This shows the clear meaning of the 2nd.  The gun lobby has bastardized our constitution.
> 
> The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure




the 2nd speaks for itself and you are bastardizing it by lying about what it says,,,


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...




No it's not.

I just did a search on number of mass shootings in America in 2018. Since 2019 isn't finished yet I went for the last full year.

There was a total of 323 mass shootings last year with 387 people being murdered and 1274 people being injured.

That is one mass shooting nearly every single day in 2018. Which means yes they happen on a regular basis here now.

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2018 - Wikipedia


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > This shows the clear meaning of the 2nd.  The gun lobby has bastardized our constitution.
> ...




Why would be the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, if it didn't recognize rights of the people?

The militia, aka the Army, has always had the right to bear arms even in despotates. The idea of having an amendment which guarantees the right of the Army and police to be the exclusive bearer of arms isn't anything new


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > flack said:
> ...


It’s not in the constitution.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...





That's really not very many considering the size of America and how many people save their lives each year with the defensive use of firearms.   I have seen numbers up to 2 million defensive uses each year.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




That's your opinion that Self Defense isn't allowed in the Constitution.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


It’s the right of states to have a well regulated militia.  The national guard fills this role.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


It’s clearly not mentioned.  That’s a fact.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Yes imaginary numbers promoted by the gun lobby.

It’s a lot compared to other countries.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


OMG!!! say it aint so,,,
keep in mind many countries hide or suppress their numbers,,,

not to mention anywhere between 500K and 3 million times a yr guns are used to stop violent crimes including murder,,
so to take guns away is like taking seatbelts and airbags out of cars,,,,


just means we need more good people with guns not less


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...




those numbers are from the CDC not the gun lobby,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You mean anywhere from like 100 to who knows.  Those are imaginary numbers.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




if that were the case then it would say that but it doesnt,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


LINK

The cdc has NEVER done a study.  You are blatantly lying again.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


It doesn’t say self defense...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


the low number is 500K not 100,,,the K means thousands if you didnt know,,,

and those are CDC numbers not imaginary ones,,,but you already knew that didnt you,,,


----------



## theHawk (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Show us where it says gun makers are responsible for such things and not the individual perpetrating them.

You Dems had the White House and Congress and enabled background checks to prevent all this.  Why aren’t they liable?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


doesnt have to,,, we are talking about ownership not use,,,


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




They have a national guard in North Fucking Korea and Cuba.

It isn't a "right" of the people, except perhaps in the minds of a modern libtard, for the government to well-regulate the people with a home guard


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


All NRA Supported shooting events.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


They are imaginary,  link the cdc study.  Your
Lying is tiring.


----------



## sparky (Nov 12, 2019)

theHawk said:


> Show us where it says gun makers are responsible for such things and not the individual perpetrating them.







~S~


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


No you dodge first
Is it the purpose to get drunk when alcohol is consumed? Time to sue Jim Beam and Anheuser-Busch[


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

theHawk said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


I know for a fact I have linked it to you before,,,so at this point its on you,,,

you want me to educate you then it will cost you money,,,I charge union teachers wages


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


ARs are made to kill and have been used to mass kill.  When has Jim beam been used by a mass killer?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


now your just disrespecting the dead,,,


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


In working order as to be expected 
Don't forget the unorganized Militia.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


jim beam isnt a protected right dumbass


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I know for a fact you are lying.  The gun lobby lies and lies...


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


----------



## theHawk (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


In other words you got nothing, Shiff for brains.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


Deflection, the truth is the truth. AR's are not for hunting animals, it for hunting peoples.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Yes I believe Jim Beam has caused mass fatalities on the road  And Jim Beams purpose is to get you drunk
Every *day*, 29 people in the United States die in motor *vehicle crashes* that involve an alcohol-*impaired* driver. This is one *death* every 50 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related *crashes* totals more than $44 billion.
Impaired Driving: Get the Facts  | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury Center


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


if your to stupid to google "how many lives are saved by guns each yr CDC report" then I cant help you,,,


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

theHawk said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...




they work good for both,, but not my choice with hunting,,,give me a big bore 45-70


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


How many with AR's?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Great a nice scary graph with nothing to support those numbers 
That tells me you got nothing but fear.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


doesnt matter,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Give one example of a mass killer using Jim beam.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Real Game hunters use a bolt action rifle, with scopes. Better ones just use the iron sight.
Cowards go hunting say for deer with AR's.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


AR's are rarely used in murders so why are you asking how many AR's save lives?


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I can’t find what doesn’t exist,  and that is why you can’t link to it.  Stop lying already.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Why?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


STUPID FUCKER CAN'T YOU READ THE cdc PROVIDED INFORMATION?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...





Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


It ain't about hunting stupid.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...





Hunting has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

I'm not going to walk out of my house packing heat because I think I might run into a possum for dinner.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...




nothing cowardly about it,,,it might be because they use an AR as an all around gun so they dont have to own many different types which can get expensive,,


----------



## Dana7360 (Nov 12, 2019)

I've read the second amendment. It's short and to the point.

It's for a well regulated militia.

There is absolutely nothing in the second amendment that says a person can have a military weapon to murder large numbers of humans in a short period of time.

 ” A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.

There is nothing in there about protection for a private citizen.

There is wording of a militia keeping the security of the free state. 

It's totally legal to sue a company for false advertising and advertising that will cause harm or death to humans.

I've found that the people who are so fixated on weapons, especially semi automatic ones, are those who have a very small penis or feel they have no control of their lives. Most of them have never been in the military and would never be able to get past even basic training. 

As a person who was in the military and was trained by our government on how to use a military style weapon, I know what they are and that they have no place in our society outside the military.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


I just googled exactly what I said and got it,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I don’t see a single mass killer using jim beam moron,


----------



## theHawk (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


ARs are for defense against thugs and treasonous assholes.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


The gun lobby lies and lies...


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> I've read the second amendment. It's short and to the point.
> 
> It's for a well regulated militia.
> 
> ...


LIAR!!!!

if it meant militia then why does it say THE PEOPLE???

all guns are military style weapons and is exactly what was intended by the 2nd,,,


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> I've read the second amendment. It's short and to the point.
> 
> It's for a well regulated militia.
> 
> ...


the well regulated Militia also consists of the unorganized Militia which is every able body man and woman who are not connected with the regular military or national guard.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


this isnt from the gun lobby,,,


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > I've read the second amendment. It's short and to the point.
> ...


It doesn’t mention unorganized militia, sorry.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


but it does say the people not militia members,,,

and also how can you call up a militia if the people dont have guns ???


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Jim Beam did it themselves.
Thousands of dead fish litter Kentucky River after Jim Beam warehouse fire
Kentucky fire that burned more than 45,000 barrels of bourbon, but the contaminated liquor is beginning to travel from the Kentucky River into the Ohio River.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


The people have a right to be in the well regulated militia.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


if they so choose,,,but they would be worthless if they didnt have guns


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Those in the well regulated militia have the right to arms.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




according to the 2nd its the people that have that right,,,
one reason it says it that way is because an unarmed militia is useless


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in _United States v.Miller_ as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the militia and applied only to weapons used by the militia. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


WOW, you don't know the different types of Militias?


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)




----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Constitution only protects the well regulated kind.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Militia 
In U.S. Code it defines what is a militia

*10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes*
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
*(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.*


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


AND WHAT GOOD WOULD A MILITIA BE IF THE PEOPLE DIDNT HAVE GUNS???

THATS WHY THE 2ND WAS WRITTEN THE WAY IT WAS,,,

you may not like it but your feelings are irrelevant,,,


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


ALL ABLE BODY MEN AND WOMEN ARE PART OF THE UNORGANIZED MILITIA. 
FYI the National guard doesn't need a second amendment right to keep a firearm and its members cannot keep their firearms supplied by the government.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


That’s not well regulated.  Sorry.


----------



## Brain357 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


It’s the feeling of the Supreme Court for most of our history.  It’s very recent the gun lobby trashed the constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Well regulated meaning is as follows
IN WORKING ORDER AS TO BE EXPECTED.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


sorry but its only recently we started getting gun laws,,,for 150 yrs there were no gun laws,,,

so its lying commie fucks like you that have trashed the constitution,,,


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> View attachment 289495


And when the supreme court rules in favor of Remington you'll be calling them evil 
lol


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


it says "the people" not "the militia",,,sorry


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


both are correct because all able body men and women are in the militia. James Mason said who is the militia the people are.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




It means to give them guns.


You do know back then blacksmiths made them right?

.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


its more like you need one to have the other,,,to call up a militia that doesnt have proper weapons is nothing more than a neighborhood  BBQ


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Wrong. When used for mass murders, many die. But most aren't used for that purpose.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Wonderful marketing by Remington that they make the POS so you can kill peoples as like you were a wonderful military guy fighting off kids in school.
> So the cowardly NRA Member can masturbate their sperm on their weapons as to lube them in safety.
> 
> So, Weak ass Hunters, you see deer as needing a “assaultive qualities, military uses, and lethality AR-15.” to take them down?





2aguy said:


> Another anti-gunner getting sexually stimulated by the thought of guns....
> 
> 
> You guys really, really need to get help with your psycho-sexual issues...your wiring is all wrong.



  I do not know the true source of a quote popularly, but incorrectly attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual development; but it certainly is the case that every once in a while, a hoplophobe demonstrates this statement to be quite true.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > Wonderful marketing by Remington that they make the POS so you can kill peoples as like you were a wonderful military guy fighting off kids in school.
> ...


freud quotes: Where did Freud say, "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> So, Weak ass Hunters, you see deer as needing a “assaultive qualities, military uses, and lethality AR-15.” to take them down?



  An AR-15 is not widely-regarded as a suitable gun with which to hunt deer.  In some jurisdictions, it is not legal to use it for this purpose.

  You know why?

  It's not deadly enough to guarantee a quick, clean kill.  Against an animal the size of a deer, there's too much risk of only wounding the animal, causing the animal to suffer needlessly.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Yes it does.  The 2nd half says those in a well regulated militia can have arms.  Bearing arms is a military term.



  It says, _“…the right of *•THE PEOPLE•*…shall not be infringed.”_

_“The People”_ means all free American citizens.


----------



## The Purge (Nov 12, 2019)

Ok. Now let's  have everyone killed in an auto accident sue the car manufacturers ....same shi . Only worse because many more people are killed in an auto than with a gun....Let's sue ladder manufactures when you fall off one and break your neck....sue tobacco because it kills, so does alcohol....sue the manufactures.....face it, this was a very stupid decision!


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Yes imaginary numbers promoted by the gun lobby.



  I'm guessing that you haven't the faintest clue what imaginary numbers are.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Until it's used to run down eighty six people.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 289495
> ...


In this case, I don't see that happening.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Mass shootings are a tragedy but they are at such a low rate and not all school shootings are done with a rifle that banning AR's would have little effect on any shootings


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Agreed. I have argued before that someone with a pistol and enough clips can kill just as many and in the same amount of time as an AR-15. A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic pistol. Each is limited to how fast you can pull the trigger.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


There is a law on the books protecting manufacturers from being sued when their product has been abused. They also have warnings on firearms about safety use. Remington will win especially with a pro-second amendment supreme court.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Today, a six-shooter is all the public needs for self-defense. AR's are for hunting peoples.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



And car manufacturers are making vehicles when they know full well that some of their vehicles will be used while the driver is intoxicated and will be killed or kill others. They also know full well that many people, mostly teens, will use their vehicles irresponsibly by texting and driving and will kill themselves and others.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

When your dumbed down and we have to DECODE the TRUTH for the SHEEP to see but yet they still deny it all even when its in their faces. 





Supreme Court Allows Remington to be Held Liable for Sandy Hook Shooting


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


What qualifications on self-defense do you have to give such a statement?
AND HUNTING HAS NO CONNECTION TO RIGHTS FOR FIREARM OWNERSHIP.


----------



## MindWars (Nov 12, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



some people are to stupid to think of " LOGIC"  that' s why they CAN'T think and parrot the headlines only.


----------



## skews13 (Nov 12, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...



This was a huge decision. The biggest loss for the gun nuts in a generation.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...




Not really true, at least not for everyone.

A 6-shooter wouldn't have done  senior citizen Charles Bronson much good when he lived in the dangerous neighborhood of East New York.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

skews13 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


1. there is a law that protects gun manufacturers from being sued when their product has been abused.
2. this is a pro-second amendment court 
3. YOU'LL BE CALLING THE COURT NAZIS WHEN THEY FOLLOW THE WORDING OF THAT LAW.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Baz Ares said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


FYI..the 2nd is not an issue in this case. No one is saying that the right to bear arms should be curtailed. 

Look at the Tobacco and Oxycontin settlements....for a clue as to what the plaintiffs are going for...if abuse is foreseeable...manufacturer can be held liable.

Negligent Exception ....it's a thing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...


You want to bet it's not about the second amendment?
It's a back door attack on it.
So you mention Tobacco which only effected one person but you neglected to mention alcohol which kills daily and not just the one who was drinking.
Plus as I said there are laws protecting gun manufacturers from being sued when their product was abused.
So you can take your FYI and shove it up your ass.


----------



## Baz Ares (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Automakers recall millions of cars over deaths caused by defects in what they make, so people stop suing them over the matter.
Gobmint makes sure they do so, with many complaints made. Automakers are not making cars to kill peoples. They fix so they don't kill more.

Gunmakers make the gun to kill, AR's are made to kill peoples in mass. Most guns are defective in design. 
Guns loaded can go off, and kill and wound. No people involved other than person shot.  
But they don't get recalled, and the victims can't sue them for the damage. Protected with a BS law.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 12, 2019)

DOTR said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it will probably turn against the gun manufacturers.  Because that is what political elites want, and they can't overturn the Constitution, they know they can't.
> ...


Folks will be forced to manufacture their own guns and ammo. . . like they did in 1776.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


Another dodge I never mention auto manufactures I did mention alcohol
The purpose of alcohol is to get drunk that is what it is manufactured for.but when you add a vehicle it's really deadly
28 people a day are killed because of alcohol and vehicles


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 12, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Uh-huh----about those laws...why, do you suppose...the courts allowed this case to go forward..in the face of your putative laws?
Could it be..that you are wrong/ That there are legal exceptions to said laws..that there is, at least, a viable legal argument to be made for exception? You mention tobacco and incorrectly state that it affects only one person...thousands, if not millions, have been affected by 2nd hand smoke.

You guys are always about someone's ass.....given the Freudian interpretation of a fixation on guns....

I'll have to decline your offer of a date night! But thanx..is always flattering....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...



That's a stupid question. Gun manufacturers are not marketing their guns to kill people. I challenge you to find one advertisement where they advocate using their guns for killing.


----------



## Godboy (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


Damn, who is going to make automobiles now that that manufacturers can be sued if someone decides to run a person over? Knife makers too for that matter. How are we going to cut our steaks?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued."  "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."
> 
> This all is a direct appeal to those civilians who would be violent, including a sick identification of this weapon with masculinity. There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society, and, when it is used for its intended purpose, it is lethal. There are other, less powerful guns that can be used for hunting or defending one's home against any invasion.



A car in the hands of a texting teen is lethal when it is used for an _un_intended purpose. In fact, a man texting and driving was responsible for the deaths of thirteen people in Texas in 2017.

A vehicle was not manufactured for the purpose of killing people. Cell phones were not manufactured for the purpose of killing people nor for use while driving a vehicle. But those thirteen people are just as dead as any thirteen people killed by guns. Are their deaths somehow less tragic than those killed by firearms?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Baz Ares said:
> ...



A militia is comprised of citizen soldiers with their own weapons for the most part.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 12, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



2nd hand smoke is a huge myth..  liberals just hate cigarette smoking and like to get high.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 12, 2019)

Baz Ares said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Hah?


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 12, 2019)

So a company can be sued when a customer intentionally misuses one of its products?  The judge must be a complete loon.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 12, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.



The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun.  From the link:

"While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."

Also, further down in the article:

"the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."

So, the lawsuit was changed because you cannot prosecute a manufacturer for the misuse of their product.  Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle.  IMO it seems a bit of a stretch to try to divine what was in the killer's mind.  Also, that advertisment probably reached thousands if not millions and only Lanza chose to use the rifle to commit his horrendous act.


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 12, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle.



Didn't Lanza the rifle belong to his mother and didn't he take it and then murdered her before going to the school?  That's my recollection.


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 12, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun.  From the link:
> 
> "While the suit initially centered on a claim of negligent entrustment — or providing a gun to someone who plans to commit a crime with it — the case now hinges on how Remington marketed the gun."
> 
> ...



Ok, so Brain357 is an idiot.  Thanks.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 13, 2019)

K9Buck said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > The link provided by the OP only mentions in passing that the lawsuit is about Remington's advertising of that particular gun.  From the link:
> ...



Either a useful idiot to the left or a leftist propagandist.  Let's not forget also, that NPR fed them this and made it more palatable by leaving out the 'bitter' facts of the case buried in the 'whipped cream' OP ED part of the story.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 13, 2019)

K9Buck said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Now they are going for the advertising claiming that is why Lanza chose that particular rifle.
> ...



Good point.   The rifle must have talked to him and told him to do all this horrendous shit.


----------



## KissMy (Nov 13, 2019)

Every citizen needs WMD's so they can take out a thousand good citizens in under 5 minutes when they have bad day at a Vegas casino.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 13, 2019)

KissMy said:


> Every citizen needs WMD's so they can take out a thousand good citizens in under 5 minutes when they have bad day at a Vegas casino.



Why would you think every citizen would do such a thing?  You know, if you really think about it, there are more guns (WMD's) than people in the U.S.......yet your fantasy projection has not come to pass.  Apparently your projection is just that.   OR does your mind really work that way?


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 13, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...




I imagine that he wasn't picky about the brand and just took whatever he could get.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Nov 13, 2019)

K9Buck said:


> So a company can be sued when a customer intentionally misuses one of its products?  The judge must be a complete loon.


How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 13, 2019)

2aguy said:


> And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.
> 
> What you asshats don't understand, is these companies are the gateway......if you can sue a gun maker for the illegal use of their product, car makers, booze makers, computer makers are all next in line........you moron.



If the Car Makers acted like the Gun Manufacturers, this would be their 2020 model. 






And this would be their prime customer...





You see, funny thing. When people figured out hunting was largely just animal cruelty, and stopped doing that, the gun manufacturers had a problem.  How to sell people something they would never use and didn't really need?  

So they created a MARKET for military grade weapons for civilian use, and marketed them to the most unstable people. 

That they made it easy for Nancy Lanza to own a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, is the problem. Did she think the Zombies were coming?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...


 lol wrong is still wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.
> ...


Sorry snowflake your Nazi wishlist will not happen


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 13, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sorry snowflake your Nazi wishlist will not happen



Sorry, man, if Remington has to pay the Sandy Hook families...  everyone else who was killed by a gun will sue.

Bye-bye gun industry...  

They won't be so keen on the Second amendment once they start paying out money.


----------



## flack (Nov 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.
> ...


 You are just wrong on so many fronts.


----------



## K9Buck (Nov 13, 2019)

flack said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



He's always wrong. That's why I have him on ignore.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...



The problem with this as I see it is that, however Remington marketed the gun, that is not evidence or proof that Lanza even saw the advertisements or acted because of them. Also, the Remington didn't even belong to him and it was right there in the home, making it a weapon of convenience. What was he going to do, go and pay $800 for a new one when there was one right there? I don't think so. I would say that marketing was not a factor here in any way whatsoever.

This whole case stinks and should have been tossed out at the beginning.


----------



## flack (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


From what I understand is he was too young to buy that type of weapon so advertising has no basis in this case. It will go nowhere.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry snowflake your Nazi wishlist will not happen
> ...


Great no government guns 600 million guns in the publics hands


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


Lanza choose it because that's what his mother had when he murdered her and stole it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

KissMy said:


> Every citizen needs WMD's so they can take out a thousand good citizens in under 5 minutes when they have bad day at a Vegas casino.


Hyperbole much? Just because you leftist dream of carrying out the next mass shooting doesn't mean others are


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



Wrong. It says the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Also, there is no militia until one is called up.



> Bearing arms is a military term.



If it was strictly a military term in this case then it wouldn't say "...the people...".


----------



## flack (Nov 13, 2019)

* U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes *

 U.S. Code 
 Notes 
prev | next
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...



The problem with this argument is that Americans have _always_ had the right to keep and bear arms and have been doing so from the beginning, long before the first mass shooting. 

The right to keep and bear arms has no bearing on mass shootings other than that the firearms are just a tool to commit mass killing. If it did, there would always have been mass shootings. This should tell any person with a modicum of common sense and critical thinking that the guns are not what is killing the people, per se.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


There is an unorganized militia


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> K9Buck said:
> 
> 
> > So a company can be sued when a customer intentionally misuses one of its products?  The judge must be a complete loon.
> ...



It was misused because murder is against the law. Simple as that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Nov 13, 2019)

That would be like suing Ford because somebody ran over your kid.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And you are an idiot....where did Remington have any culpability in what happened, you doofus.
> ...



And yet thousands more die in vehicles than by firearms anyway.



> You see, funny thing. When people figured out hunting was largely just animal cruelty,...



If hunting is animal cruelty then the cruelty committed in all the pork, beef and chicken slaughterhouses must be off the scale.



> So they created a MARKET for military grade weapons for civilian use, and marketed them to the most unstable people.
> 
> That they made it easy for Nancy Lanza to own a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo, is the problem. Did she think the Zombies were coming?



Irrelevant and not your concern. Why a person chooses to own a firearm is no one else's business. It becomes the public's business when a murder is committed but in the eyes of the law, the weapon was only a tool.


----------



## flack (Nov 13, 2019)

A fact sheet of the FBI’s 2018 crime statistics published Monday detailed some of the Bureau’s analysis of crime statistics, particularly studying the types of weapons used in murders. Rifles, as a particular category of firearm, were used to kill 297 people in 2018. By comparison, knives and other cutting instruments were the murder weapon for 1,515 murders in 2018.


The rifle category of firearms is a broad one comprised of bolt, pump, and lever-action firearms in addition to semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s, suggesting semi-automatic rifles comprise an even smaller number than the 297 total murders by rifle in 2018.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...




This isn't about the merits of the case...this is simply setting the precedent that gun makers can be sued for anything.....and allowing left wing, democrat, anti-gun lawyers sue them into obedience......forcing them to stop making guns for civilians.   The democrats want to take every gun maker to court, cost them millions and discourage them from resisting....since fighting back will put them out of business...this should have been squashed at the state level.....


----------



## flack (Nov 13, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...


 They will simply move out of the country.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 13, 2019)

flack said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




Yes, they will....which is just fine with the democrats.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 13, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.



It wasn't 'made' to kill children and innocent souls and also it was never advertised to do so.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Nov 13, 2019)

Leo123 said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > How was the gun misused ? It did what it was made to do.
> ...


Who was it meant to kill then ?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Leo123 said:
> ...



Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.

If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.     

People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is _how_ they die.


----------



## Leo123 (Nov 13, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Read Remington's advertisement (on which the suit is now based) and, which I published and linked to in the OP's article.  Show where it says the gun was meant to kill children and innocent souls.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



No one. 

This is a false premise, a premise not shared by gun enthusiasts because _they don't purchase them to kill people_.


----------



## Mac-7 (Nov 13, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


This is sad news for liberty


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> 
> If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.
> 
> People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is _how_ they die.



  It's about more than that.

  Ultimately, the desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms is driven by motives and desires, which, if acted upon, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms to oppose those so acting.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...


A well written response..Thanks.

I think you're in the right area with your analysis. This is being treated in the same tort model as won against big tobacco.

About changing a way of life? Maybe, maybe not--I've been country all my life...and as long as I can get a gun when I want one...I'm cool. I like it when any huge business takes it in the shorts. Taking them down as peg..as long as my 2nd is intact....is fine with me. I don't foresee a gun shortage any time soon!

Redneckery is alive and well..trust me on this! 

ROTFLMAO Guns are not the be-all and the end-all of rural culture. This is a tempest in a teapot, I think


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 13, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> ...


If that was what was happening..I'd be right beside you on the line---but it isn't..really.
The right for gun companies to be immune from lawsuit has nothing to do with the amount of, or type of, guns available. Not for the foreseeable future, IMO. Nor does it impact the 2nd amendment. Our right to bear arms is not being infringed. You might want to ask yourself, "Am I shilling for the gun companies?"

It's 70-30 that the companies win anyway.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 13, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Ultimately, the desire to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to keep and bear arms is driven by motives and desires, which, if acted upon, would give these citizens just cause to use these arms to oppose those so acting.
> ...



  Denying the obvious truth will not make it go away.

  It's a fact—those of you who want to disarm law-abiding citizens have malicious reasons for wanting to do so.  You are willfully, openly on the side of tyrants and violent criminals, and against that of law-abiding citizens.  Who do you think you are fooling when you try to claim otherwise?


----------



## whitehall (Nov 13, 2019)

I wonder if the S.C. will allow law suits against automobile companies when cars are used in criminal acts.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Nov 13, 2019)

I think that this is a good thing. Having corporations to be held liable when their products causes physical injury or death to an individual or to the environment. Now this should open up doors to make vaccines makers and chemicals companies to be responsible for their products instead of having Tax-payers to be held liable.



*The United States Supreme Court dismissed a request by Remington Arms to block a lawsuit filed by the families of the victims of the Sandy Hook school massacre.

While a 2005 law shields gun manufacturers from liability when their weapons are used to commit crimes, lawyers for the families argue that a loophole in the law allows them to seek damages from Remington. They claimed that the gun manufacturer marketed the gun “as a highly lethal weapon designed for purposes that are illegal — namely, killing other human beings.”

Earlier in the year, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in a divided opinion that the family members were “entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations.” That decision overturned a lower court's decision that found Remington was shielded from the wrongful death lawsuit. * Supreme Court Will Allow Sandy Hook Families To Sue Remington Arms | iHeartRadio


*Supreme Court Deals 2nd Amdt A Mortal Wound*

*(AP) WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal law prohibits lawsuits against drug makers over serious side effects from childhood vaccines*.



*The court voted 6-2 against the parents of a child who sued the drug maker Wyeth in Pennsylvania state court, for the health problems they say their daughter, now 19, suffered from a vaccine she received in infancy.

The ruling was a stinging defeat for families dissatisfied with how they had fared before a special no-fault vaccine court.
Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems  Supreme Court vaccine ruling: parents can't sue drug makers for kids' health problems*


New Supreme Court Ruling Protects Makers of Generic Drugs | Frank M. Eidson P.A. | Orlando Workers Comp Lawyer | Free Case Review


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 13, 2019)

Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Nov 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.


And so what about vaccines makers?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 13, 2019)

Aletheia4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.
> ...



Non sequitur.  Sorry, but vaccines don't kill people nearly as much as guns do.  If you are talking about vaccines POSSIBLY causing autism, again, sorry, because they are still trying to figure if it is real or not.   Not vaccinating your kids is dangerous not only to your kids, but to the population at large.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 13, 2019)

So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?

Misusing a stolen device is no reason to sue the maker of that device.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 13, 2019)

airplanemechanic said:


> So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?
> 
> Misusing a stolen device is no reason to sue the maker of that device.



Wrong.  If you use a screwdriver to kill your neighbor, then your neighbors relatives can sue.  You can't.  You're the one that committed the crime.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Nov 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > So can I sue Craftsman if I use one of their screwdrivers to kill someone?
> ...



So you think they should be able to sue a screwdriver manufacturer if someone misuses their product?


----------



## Aletheia4u (Nov 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



A Botched Vaccine Campaign For Measles Killed 15 Children in South Sudan


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 13, 2019)

Aletheia4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Aletheia4u said:
> ...



You should read your own link.  It wasn't because the vaccination itself was dangerous, it was because the vaccines were mishandled and were not properly refrigerated.  Sorry, but food can become dangerous if left un refrigerated for a couple of hours.  If you don't believe that, then at your next BBQ, leave the potato salad made with mayo out in the sun for a couple of hours before eating.  Guarantee it will at a minimum make you sick.  If it's bad enough, it can kill you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You should read your own link.  It wasn't because the vaccination itself was dangerous, it was because the vaccines were mishandled and were not properly refrigerated.  Sorry, but food can become dangerous if left un refrigerated [sic] for a couple of hours.  If you don't believe that, then at your next BBQ, leave the potato salad made with mayo out in the sun for a couple of hours before eating.  Guarantee it will at a minimum make you sick.  If it's bad enough, it can kill you.



  And then, by the logic that we're seeing in this thread from those on the left *wrong*, you should be able to sue the manufacturer of that mayonnaise.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 13, 2019)

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc. 

Liberals these days simply do not (and don't want to) understand middle class rural Americans and it makes them uneasy. The fact that they keep asking why anyone needs an AR-15 is evidence of that. If it were anything else, such as a four wheeler or something, they wouldn't bother asking the question. They simply do not understand the mindset of a gun enthusiast and for that, they feel he shouldn't have his guns. There is much they don't understand about the average conservative and for that, we are evil.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc.
> 
> Liberals these days simply do not (and don't want to) understand middle class rural Americans and it makes them uneasy. The fact that they keep asking why anyone needs an AR-15 is evidence of that. If it were anything else, such as a four wheeler or something, they wouldn't bother asking the question. They simply do not understand the mindset of a gun enthusiast and for that, they feel he shouldn't have his guns. There is much they don't understand about the average conservative and for that, we are evil.



  What it comes down to is that *LI*b*E*rals, in general, are intensely bigoted against a major part of mainstream America.  From Hitllary's _“basket of deplorables”_ remark, to the anti-American rant from EvilEyeFleegle to which you were responding, you see the same hatred, the same contempt, against this heart of the American population and American culture.  They openly embrace evil and madness and tyranny, and somehow think that it makes them superior to those who do not.

  And then they wonder why they lost so big in 2016, and they will similarly wonder why they will have lost so big in 2020.  It will never be enough to court the votes of perverts, criminals, traitors and such, while alienating mainstream Americans.


----------



## Aletheia4u (Nov 14, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Oh, so I guess that heroin users and diabetes patients knows how to handle needles and their insulin heroin that they shoots up, better than those that went to school for handling them. 
 That is how the vaccines makers lies to get out of trouble. Most vaccines are made with mercury, and that it is very toxic to the brain. You aren't even allowed to touch or inhale that stuff. 




People are not dumb as you think. 

CDC on vaccines: More children are not getting immunization shots


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle (Nov 14, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc.
> ...


ROTF!You found that an anti-American rant?  Either you can't read...or are as drunk as a skunk!


----------



## August West (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...


Here`s an alternate theory. Could it be that Americans are tired of seeing people leaving Walmart, schools, churches, etc. in body bags? You simply do not understand the mindset of those who are anti-mass murder. No one wants your deer rifle or your six shooter.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

flack said:


> From what I understand is he was too young to buy that type of weapon so advertising has no basis in this case. It will go nowhere.



The problem is, his mother was the kind of irresponsbile crazy person that never should have had that kind of gun to start with.   Remington put that gun in that home with the crazy mom and the brain damaged kid.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The problem with this argument is that Americans have _always_ had the right to keep and bear arms and have been doing so from the beginning, long before the first mass shooting.
> 
> The right to keep and bear arms has no bearing on mass shootings other than that the firearms are just a tool to commit mass killing. If it did, there would always have been mass shootings. This should tell any person with a modicum of common sense and critical thinking that the guns are not what is killing the people, per se.



Most of our history, civilians did not have access to weapons like THIS! 





The problem with the gun nuts is they misrepresent history. Gun ownership was actually RARE in the colonies.  A gun cost more than a skilled laborer made in a month, and it had very little value to most people, so few people had them.  Guns were actually owned by the state militias...

Industrialization in the 19th century made them a little more common, but nowhere near what we have today.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.



Good point.  Once we end the gun ownership, we need to end the inbreeding you people do, it's just making you mean and stupid. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.
> 
> People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is _how_ they die.



Okay, let's look at this shit-for-brains argument. 

Yes, more people die in accidents in a needed vehicle that we use every day.  But everyone involved is working very hard to make them safer.  The car companies roll out new safety features every year, government puts up new traffic controls and regulations every year.   When a problem emerges, like idiots texting and driving, we pass sensible laws against doing that. We make the laws against DUI tougher every year...  

ON the other hand, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON for a civilian to own an AR-15 or other military grade assault rifle. None. They have limited utility for home defense, they aren't good for hunting... they are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, which is to kill people.  

So, um, yeah, when Remington decides to sell that weapon to Crazy Nancy Lanza and her Zombie Kid, they are responsible for what follows.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Aletheia4u said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, if car companies can be sued for lethal airbags, then gun makers should face the same consequences.
> ...



What about them? Oh, wait, you are one of those crazy Anti-Vaxers, aren't you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc.



Um, yeah, the thing is, all of those are valid complaints. 

Most of Trump's supporters ARE racist.  They enjoy the fact Trump can get away with racism that would get their asses hauled down to Human Resources.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Liberals these days simply do not (and don't want to) understand middle class rural Americans and it makes them uneasy. The fact that they keep asking why anyone needs an AR-15 is evidence of that. If it were anything else, such as a four wheeler or something, they wouldn't bother asking the question. They simply do not understand the mindset of a gun enthusiast and for that, they feel he shouldn't have his guns. There is much they don't understand about the average conservative and for that, we are evil.



Oh, quite the contrary, I understand your mindset perfectly fine.  The problem with the Angry White Male is that he's angry that he doesn't enjoy the affluence his father or grandfather enjoyed, but he's too stupid to realize who took that affluence away from him.  So he clings to his guns and his bible like that does him any good.  And when Trump tells him to blame the darkies who have a little more than they used to have, instead of the wealthy like himself who took that affluence away, they go for it... mostly because it's always easier to kick down than to punch up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> What it comes down to is that *LI*b*E*rals, in general, are intensely bigoted against a major part of mainstream America. From Hitllary's _“basket of deplorables”_ remark, to the anti-American rant from EvilEyeFleegle to which you were responding, you see the same hatred, the same contempt, against this heart of the American population and American culture. They openly embrace evil and madness and tyranny, and somehow think that it makes them superior to those who do not.
> 
> And then they wonder why they lost so big in 2016, and they will similarly wonder why they will have lost so big in 2020. It will never be enough to court the votes of perverts, criminals, traitors and such, while alienating mainstream Americans.



Yawn.. guy, 54% of the population voted against Trump in 2016.  You've already lost the room, you are just relying on technicalities to win now..  

The reality is, you guys are on the losing side of history... Racism is no longer acceptable. Homophobia is no longer acceptable.  Any day now, your Mormon Prophet is going to have a talk with God and find out God is okay with the gays...


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


 It's not the mayo it's the onions that make you sick.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc.
> ...


Wow, just wow.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > What it comes down to is that *LI*b*E*rals, in general, are intensely bigoted against a major part of mainstream America. From Hitllary's _“basket of deplorables”_ remark, to the anti-American rant from EvilEyeFleegle to which you were responding, you see the same hatred, the same contempt, against this heart of the American population and American culture. They openly embrace evil and madness and tyranny, and somehow think that it makes them superior to those who do not.
> ...


Uh, no. A third of the voting age population didn't vote at all.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> ...


There is no military in the world that uses or owns an AR-15. It would be suicide to do so.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

flack said:


> Uh, no. A third of the voting age population didn't vote at all.



So. They never do... what's your point?  



flack said:


> There is no military in the world that uses or owns an AR-15. It would be suicide to do so.



The AR-15 and M-16 are the same weapon... the M16 just has a full-auto option.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

August West said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...



I understand the mindset of those who are anti-mass murder as I am anti-mass murder myself. Are you implying that gun enthusiasts are _pro_-mass murder? 



> No one wants your deer rifle or your six shooter.



I don't own a six shooter and I'm not offering my deer rifle to anyone and you are not obligated to take it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > From what I understand is he was too young to buy that type of weapon so advertising has no basis in this case. It will go nowhere.
> ...



First of all, Remington didn't put that rifle anywhere but on the store shelf. The mom put it in the home. Secondly, Remington has no way of knowing if a particular customer will use their product irresponsibly and they are not obligated to know. They and all other gun manufacturers don't sell their product to the customer, they sell it to the dealers and the dealers are duly licensed to do so.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this argument is that Americans have _always_ had the right to keep and bear arms and have been doing so from the beginning, long before the first mass shooting.
> ...



Like what, a rifle that shoots no faster than a semi-automatic pistol but _looks_ like an M-16? 



> The problem with the gun nuts is they misrepresent history. Gun ownership was actually RARE in the colonies.  A gun cost more than a skilled laborer made in a month, and it had very little value to most people, so few people had them.  Guns were actually owned by the state militias...
> 
> Industrialization in the 19th century made them a little more common, but nowhere near what we have today.



It doesn't negate the fact that the 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms...". It also doesn't negate the fact that some citizens did have guns and they wanted to make sure they would always have the right to own them. Also, when they wrote the Constitution, they likely had no idea how many citizens actually had guns and probably didn't care. They just wanted to be sure that in times of trouble, the citizens would be armed or could be armed to help defend the country.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > Uh, no. A third of the voting age population didn't vote at all.
> ...


A fact sheet of the FBI’s 2018 crime statistics published Monday detailed some of the Bureau’s analysis of crime statistics, particularly studying the types of weapons used in murders. Rifles, as a particular category of firearm, were used to kill 297 people in 2018. By comparison, knives and other cutting instruments were the murder weapon for 1,515 murders in 2018.


The rifle category of firearms is a broad one comprised of bolt, pump, and lever-action firearms in addition to semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s, suggesting semi-automatic rifles comprise an even smaller number than the 297 total murders by rifle in 2018.



As a complete category in the FBI statistics, all firearms accounted for 10,265 of the 14,123 murders assessed for the year 2018.


Handguns were the primary firearm used in murders, having been used in 6,603 of the firearm-related murders, while shotguns were used in 235 murders, “other guns” were used in 167 and unspecified types of firearms accounted for the 2,963 remaining firearms-related murders.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> ...



Actually, no. This is the way it really works. Remington made the rifle. They sold it as part of a batch to a Distributor. That Distributor signed for the rifle, accepting custody and responsibility under the various Firearms acts. The Distributor sold it to a Gun Shop. This store was also operated by a Federally Licensed Firearms Dealer. The Dealer signed for the weapons in the sale, accepting responsibility and custody of the rifle. With me so far Joe? 

Now, Nancy Lanza, who you decry as crazy without any evidence. By all accounts was a law abiding citizen, who had broken no laws, and was in fact the first victim on that horrific day. But you have to blame someone, so blame a gun owner who was killed and had their weapons stolen. 

Remington did not sell to Nancy. A local Gun Shop did. Nancy never harmed anyone. Nancy was a victim, but you can’t bring yourself to tone down your irrational hatred of gun owners so you call her crazy too. It is not possible to order a rifle from Remington, and have it delivered to your door. They don’t sell to the public like that. 

It is in fact, a question of responsibility. You don’t want to take responsibility for your own life, and safety. You want others to do it for you. You want the Military to go out and stop bad people here and there. You want the police to stop the bad people in your town. Even though they are unable to actually protect you. You want it. 

The first victim was Nancy. She was killed by her son. If she had lived, I am sure you would have screamed for criminal charges. There is so much of the story that you have factually wrong. There is so much truth you refuse to acknowledge. I am not surprised. Truth gets in the way of agendas.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> ...



I'm from upstate New York and am no redneck by any definition of the word. So who's being mean and stupid?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you look at gun control advocates' arguments from a critical thinking perspective, they simply don't stand up and collapse under their own weight. If it was about reducing the number of deaths, they would go after other, worse causes than firearms such as motor vehicle deaths. At the very least they would go after handguns more rigorously than AR-15s as handguns constitute the majority of firearm deaths.
> 
> People like this don't give two shits about people dying. What they care about is _how_ they die.





> Okay, let's look at this shit-for-brains argument.
> 
> Yes, more people die in accidents in a needed vehicle that we use every day.



First of all, vehicles are needed no more than guns. They are a luxury and a convenience, nothing more. Secondly, you just proved my point that you don't care how _many_ people die, only _how_ they die.

Pro-gun control people have a vested interest in motor vehicles so they're not willing to give them up or restrict their their use. However, they're not interested in firearms and in their arrogant self righteousness, they feel no one else should be either.



> But everyone involved is working very hard to make them safer.  The car companies roll out new safety features every year, government puts up new traffic controls and regulations every year.   When a problem emerges, like idiots texting and driving, we pass sensible laws against doing that. We make the laws against DUI tougher every year...



_When a problem emerges, like idiots texting and driving_ (or committing murder), _we pass sensible laws against doing that. _See how that works?

And yet, in spite of all their efforts to make driving safer, more people still die in vehicles than by firearms.



> ON the other hand, THERE IS NO GOOD REASON for a civilian to own an AR-15 or other military grade assault rifle. None.



First of all, in the eyes of the law and by the principles of logic and common sense, there is no good reason to own most of the crap we do. Secondly, NO GOOD REASON is not reason enough to ban their use. Thirdly, AR-15s are not military grade, they only _look_ military grade. Being former military yourself, you should know this.



> They have limited utility for home defense, they aren't good for hunting... they are designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, which is to kill people.



By this logic, knives (kitchen and specialty cutting tools like box cutters being the exception) were made to kill people so they should be banned.



> So, um, yeah, when Remington decides to sell that weapon to Crazy Nancy Lanza and her Zombie Kid, they are responsible for what follows.



They are no more obligated to determine if someone will misuse their product than car manufacturers are to determine if someone will misuse theirs to text and drive or drive under the influence and kill people (not to mention the fact that, as you yourself pointed out, we have laws against texting and driving). Neither are hammer manufacturers (bludgeoning) or knife makers (stabbing) or cinder block makers (drop from overpass) obligated to determine if their products will be misused.

Everyone knows the law that murder is illegal and so no one should be held liable for others choosing to break a law they were well aware of.


----------



## August West (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...


Gun nuts aren`t pro mass murder. They just don`t care. The slogan at the NRA could easily be Body Counts Don`t Matter. I`m not talking about normal gun owners, just the crazies and if you own assault weapons you are one of them.


----------



## blackhawk (Nov 14, 2019)

Do we really want to set the precedent of making the manufacture of a product  responsible for how those who purchase the product use it?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > None of that was to say they will be successful or that guns are the end-all, be-all of redneckdom. I just look at the bigger picture and I see a pattern emerging. We see the words "old white men" popping up a lot; people being summarily called "racist" for nothing more than their political views; being judged as "uneducated" and racist for having voted for Trump; being considered a heartless monster who doesn't care about children being killed for supporting the 2nd Amendment; being ridiculed for being Christian, etc., etc.
> ...



See what I mean?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Liberals these days simply do not (and don't want to) understand middle class rural Americans and it makes them uneasy. The fact that they keep asking why anyone needs an AR-15 is evidence of that. If it were anything else, such as a four wheeler or something, they wouldn't bother asking the question. They simply do not understand the mindset of a gun enthusiast and for that, they feel he shouldn't have his guns. There is much they don't understand about the average conservative and for that, we are evil.





> Oh, quite the contrary, I understand your mindset perfectly fine.  The problem with the Angry White Male is that he's angry that he doesn't enjoy the affluence his father or grandfather enjoyed, but he's too stupid to realize who took that affluence away from him.  So he clings to his guns and his bible like that does him any good.  And when Trump tells him to blame the darkies who have a little more than they used to have, instead of the wealthy like himself who took that affluence away, they go for it... mostly because it's always easier to kick down than to punch up.



My father was never affluent, I'm not affluent and I'm an atheist so I don't have a Bible. 

You reveal your ignorance about the average middle class conservative. If there exists anything like the Angry White Male you describe, he is angry not because he's no longer affluent; he never was affluent. He's angry because he works to provide for his family, pays for his and their health insurance, puts a roof over their heads, puts food on the table and pays his taxes and then the government wants to indiscriminately allow people to cross our border illegally and give them everything he's had to work for.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...


 That about sums it up.


----------



## flack (Nov 14, 2019)

August West said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...


 What, exactly is an assault weapon. Anything used to assault someone with is an assault weapon. Including a rock.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

August West said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



Wrong.



> The slogan at the NRA could easily be Body Counts Don`t Matter. I`m not talking about normal gun owners, just the crazies and if you own assault weapons you are one of them.



First of all, AR-15s are not assault weapons. Secondly, the majority of AR-15 owners are law abiding citizens. My niece's husband is one of them and he happens to be a police officer.

The picture you have in your mind of pro-2nd Amendment people is like a child's drawing; simple and lacking any subtlety or depth.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Most of Trump's supporters ARE racist.  They enjoy the fact Trump can get away with racism that would get their asses hauled down to Human Resources.



  This is why sane people now understand that when a *LI*b*E*ral uses the term _“racist”_, that it means nothing more or less than _“someone to whom a *LI*b*E*ral is badly losing an argument.”
_



JoeB131 said:


> And when Trump tells him to blame the darkies who have a little more than they used to have, instead of the wealthy like himself who took that affluence away, they go for it...



  I challenge you to produce, from any credible source, any genuine quote from President Trump where he told anyone to _“blame the darkies”_ for anything.

  You can't, of course, and you know that you can't.  As is usual for you, you are willfully, flat-out lying.  That's pretty much all you ever do.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn.. guy, 54% of the population voted against Trump in 2016.  You've already lost the room, you are just relying on technicalities to win now.



  Trump won fair and square.  It is for very good reason that we use the Elector College System, and not the popular vote to elect our President—to prevent a few heavily-populated areas from dominating the election and disenfranchising large parts of the country.

  And your side only won the popular vote because of illegal votes cast by invading foreign criminals.  If not for blatant voter fraud, openly supported by your side, you'd have lost that as well.




JoeB131 said:


> The reality is, you guys are on the losing side of history... Racism is no longer acceptable. Homophobia is no longer acceptable.  Any day now, your Mormon Prophet is going to have a talk with God and find out God is okay with the gays...



  Nobody is claiming that racism is acceptable.

  I do think that much of the population is getting fed up with the faggots, especially now that they are openly going after children.  I think you will live to find that it is the faggots, trannies, child molesters and other degenerate sexual perverts—and those who openly side with them—who are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> flack said:
> 
> 
> > There is no military in the world that uses or owns an AR-15. It would be suicide to do so.
> ...



  Anyone who is not hopelessly and unimaginably ignorant about firearms would know that having a fully-automatic mode makes the M-16, for all intents and purposes, a completely different weapon than an otherwise similar weapon that does not have fully-automatic capability.

  Your statement is about like saying that a Yugo is the same car as a Bugatti.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

August West said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > EvilEyeFleegle said:
> ...




In 2018.....total number of mass public shootings....12.  Total killed... 93.

Total number of people killed in car accidents in 2017..... over 38,000.

So...according to you, cars now need to be banned.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop crime, including mass public shooters......according to the CDC.......

Can you tell which numbers are bigger or did you go to a democrat controlled public school?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. But make no mistake, this is not about saving lives or even about gun control. It's about eliminating a way of life, a way of thinking, a way of viewing the world and a way of belief. This is just the first step in purging what they see as the redneck persona from society. Or at least, taking away all the things that make a redneck a redneck.
> ...




AR-15s, involved in less than 32 deaths in 2018........

Cars over 38,000 in 2017......

Truck used in france killed 86 people in one attack....

Cars are far deadlier than AR-15 rifles...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with this argument is that Americans have _always_ had the right to keep and bear arms and have been doing so from the beginning, long before the first mass shooting.
> ...




No, doofus.....gun ownership was not rare in the colonies, it was an essential tool to the colonists....you moron.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 14, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You should read your own link.  It wasn't because the vaccination itself was dangerous, it was because the vaccines were mishandled and were not properly refrigerated.  Sorry, but food can become dangerous if left un refrigerated [sic] for a couple of hours.  If you don't believe that, then at your next BBQ, leave the potato salad made with mayo out in the sun for a couple of hours before eating.  Guarantee it will at a minimum make you sick.  If it's bad enough, it can kill you.
> ...



Wrong.  If you make something with mayonnaise and leave it out in a warm place for too long, that isn't the fault of the maker of the mayo, it's your fault for not following the directions for safe handling.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 14, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > And then, by the logic that we're seeing in this thread from those on the left *wrong*, you should be able to sue the manufacturer of that mayonnaise.
> ...



  The manufacturer of the mayonnaise is every bit as responsible for the results of misusing that product, as the manufacturer of a gun is for the results of any misuse of that product.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, Remington didn't put that rifle anywhere but on the store shelf. The mom put it in the home. Secondly, Remington has no way of knowing if a particular customer will use their product irresponsibly and they are not obligated to know. They and all other gun manufacturers don't sell their product to the customer, they sell it to the dealers and the dealers are duly licensed to do so.



Guy, you really think that the gun manufacturers - in fact any manufacturer - don't spend millions on marketing, merchandising and customer demographics.  

They know exactly who they are selling to, and they made a decision a long time ago that Crazy Nancy and little Zombie Adam were key markets, with her taking little Adam to the shooting range with his Jr. NRA member card.  

They should be obligated to know who they are selling to... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It doesn't negate the fact that the 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms...". I



It also says, "Well regulated militias..."  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It also doesn't negate the fact that some citizens did have guns and they wanted to make sure they would always have the right to own them.



Some citizens owned slaves, and wanted to make sure they would always have the right to own them.  Didn't make it a good idea.  

So let's boil it down to practicalities...  just because you want a gun... doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to have one.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> Now, Nancy Lanza, who you decry as crazy without any evidence. By all accounts was a law abiding citizen, who had broken no laws, and was in fact the first victim on that horrific day. But you have to blame someone, so blame a gun owner who was killed and had their weapons stolen.



Nope. Nancy was crazy as batshit.... and she raised a kid to be crazy who should have been in an institution.  And Remington designed and marketed weapons with her in mind.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I challenge you to produce, from any credible source, any genuine quote from President Trump where he told anyone to _“blame the darkies”_ for anything.



How about when he called countries immigrants come from "Shitholes"... or when he called Mexicans "Rapists" and "Murderers"...   Or when he called for the execution of four innocent black men.   

But it's okay, Mormon Bob... being in a cult is a normal thing for you. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I do think that much of the population is getting fed up with the faggots, especially now that they are openly going after children. I think you will live to find that it is the faggots, trannies, child molesters and other degenerate sexual perverts—and those who openly side with them—who are on the wrong side of history.



Nope... not really... End of the day, people will look back at homophobes like you with the same contempt and shame we look back at the Klan...  

So one more time-  Other than "You think it's icky" and "God says it's bad", do you have any valid arguments against homosexuality?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You reveal your ignorance about the average middle class conservative.



Up until 2008, I was a middle class conservative... Then I realized that the Hispanic Lesbian was really in the same boat I was in, and the rich were trying to sink it.  

I always put the turning point in my life as that day when my Boss screwed me over and proudly announced, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union."  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If there exists anything like the Angry White Male you describe, he is angry not because he's no longer affluent; he never was affluent.



Actually, he isn't, but his fathers were. My dad belong to one of those awful unions. It meant he could make enough to support a family, own vacation property and a few creature luxuries...  You are totally making my point.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He's angry because he works to provide for his family, pays for his and their health insurance, puts a roof over their heads, puts food on the table and pays his taxes and then the government wants to indiscriminately allow people to cross our border illegally and give them everything he's had to work for.



See, I knew it was only a matter of time before the racism came out.    Let's get real.  We have a 20 Trillion dollar economy.  How much do you think we are actually spending on "Illegals"?  That White Conservative should be more upset about the Corporate welfare he paid for.  All the banks got bailouts in 2008, he got a pink slip.  

So he's angry that some undocumented immigrant is taking a job he'd never want to do?  Or is he angry because the rich have gotten very good at playing at his racial, religious and sexual fears... 

The question answers itself.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 14, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Anyone who is not hopelessly and unimaginably ignorant about firearms would know that having a fully-automatic mode makes the M-16, for all intents and purposes, a completely different weapon than an otherwise similar weapon that does not have fully-automatic capability.
> 
> Your statement is about like saying that a Yugo is the same car as a Bugatti.



First, I was in the Army for 11 years, and my MOS was 76Y.  Which means I've taken apart literally hundreds of M16's.  

No, except for the inability to fire full auto (which most infantrymen never use.  Even when I was in, they replaced the Automatic gunner's M16 with the M-249 mini-machine gun.)  It has the same range, accuracy, and projectile velocity as the AR-15.   



2aguy said:


> No, doofus.....gun ownership was not rare in the colonies, it was an essential tool to the colonists....you moron.



No, it really wasn't.   It costs a skilled laborer a month's salary... it just wasn't that essential.  

Here's a big hint.  When the Revolutionary War started, we had to get guns from the French because we didn't have that many.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge you to produce, from any credible source, any genuine quote from President Trump where he told anyone to _“blame the darkies”_ for anything.
> ...



  I guess you do not understand some things, that are obvious to sane people.

  Terrorist is not a race.

  Invading foreign criminal is not a race.

  Rapist is not a race.

  Murderer is not a race.

  There is nothing the least bit racists about wanting this country and its people to be protected from them.  Nothing about any of them that justifies yoru absurd, false accusation that he told anyone to _“blame the darkies”_.  That's just you projecting your own abject racism and bigotry.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Now, Nancy Lanza, who you decry as crazy without any evidence. By all accounts was a law abiding citizen, who had broken no laws, and was in fact the first victim on that horrific day. But you have to blame someone, so blame a gun owner who was killed and had their weapons stolen.
> ...



I see you are all in on the Scapegoating of the first victim. https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5852ad44e4b016e9c118ac57?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACCv-AWJSyeZQ3qh_CqvwXxGJdiMI80INsObW2Ua29lP0ZNFDfxwjHZ9XXU8jCZRtwpnw-2ZyxM2r-Jwz5HPDGfxZJSaNHLqAbibkMNO0cBf-SuMF9EO8nE4pv4N32iTU1j3PG6PPCgIL2J3oPjS6IUUPBjI2Zb6ZO-eAgm_bsCs

I don’t know why. It does not help your case to do so. But we shall see. Why do you think Nancy Lanza was crazy?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, Remington didn't put that rifle anywhere but on the store shelf. The mom put it in the home. Secondly, Remington has no way of knowing if a particular customer will use their product irresponsibly and they are not obligated to know. They and all other gun manufacturers don't sell their product to the customer, they sell it to the dealers and the dealers are duly licensed to do so.
> ...




Moron....18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....less than 5 used for mass public shootings in 2018.....total killed, 93.

You have no sane, or rational case for your point of view........

320 million people, 18 million of these rifles in private hands, less than 5 in 2018 used for mass public shootings....

Meanwhile, cars killed over 38,000 people....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is not hopelessly and unimaginably ignorant about firearms would know that having a fully-automatic mode makes the M-16, for all intents and purposes, a completely different weapon than an otherwise similar weapon that does not have fully-automatic capability.
> ...




Moron...every home had a rifle.......because of Indian attacks, and for hunting, you doofus.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, Remington didn't put that rifle anywhere but on the store shelf. The mom put it in the home. Secondly, Remington has no way of knowing if a particular customer will use their product irresponsibly and they are not obligated to know. They and all other gun manufacturers don't sell their product to the customer, they sell it to the dealers and the dealers are duly licensed to do so.
> ...



That they spend a lot on marketing was never up for debate.



> They know exactly who they are selling to, and they made a decision a long time ago that Crazy Nancy and little Zombie Adam were key markets, with her taking little Adam to the shooting range with his Jr. NRA member card.



Don't be an idiot.



> They should be obligated to know who they are selling to...



No more than car manufacturers. Besides, selling and purchasing firearms is legal in this country and murder is illegal. They are not obligated to know any more than that.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It doesn't negate the fact that the 2nd Amendment says "...the right to keep and bear arms...". I





> It also says, "Well regulated militias..."



Yes, it does. And?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It also doesn't negate the fact that some citizens did have guns and they wanted to make sure they would always have the right to own them.





> Some citizens owned slaves, and wanted to make sure they would always have the right to own them.  Didn't make it a good idea.



One is in the Constitution and the other is not. Tough shit.



> So let's boil it down to practicalities...  just because you want a gun... doesn't mean it's a good idea for you to have one.



And most times it's perfectly okay.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You reveal your ignorance about the average middle class conservative.
> ...



So you were a middle class conservative at one time and as soon as you changed your political affiliation you deemed middle class conservatives as racist angry white men? WTF?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If there exists anything like the Angry White Male you describe, he is angry not because he's no longer affluent; he never was affluent.





> Actually, he isn't, but his fathers were.



All of them?



> My dad belong to one of those awful unions. It meant he could make enough to support a family, own vacation property and a few creature luxuries...  You are totally making my point.



How can I make your point when I never said anything about unions? What does any of this have to do with unions?   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He's angry because he works to provide for his family, pays for his and their health insurance, puts a roof over their heads, puts food on the table and pays his taxes and then the government wants to indiscriminately allow people to cross our border illegally and give them everything he's had to work for.





> See, I knew it was only a matter of time before the racism came out.



See, I knew it was only a matter of time before you brought race into it. Even though I never mentioned "darkies" or "little brown people" or brought up race at all in any context. 

Is this why you brought up "angry white men" in the first place, so you could get another opportunity to bring up race? 



> Let's get real.  We have a 20 Trillion dollar economy.  How much do you think we are actually spending on "Illegals"?  That White Conservative should be more upset about the Corporate welfare he paid for.  All the banks got bailouts in 2008, he got a pink slip.



Whatever the economy is, we have a national debt that, at this point, is probably beyond recovery. Besides, just throwing money at your moral props doesn't solve anything and does not make you some kind of saint.



> So he's angry that some undocumented immigrant is taking a job he'd never want to do?



Not what I said. I never mentioned jobs.



> Or is he angry because the rich have gotten very good at playing at his racial, religious and sexual fears...
> 
> The question answers itself.



You're the one who keeps bringing up race. You've been the first to bring up race in every discussion we've ever had.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> guess you do not understand some things, that are obvious to sane people.
> 
> Terrorist is not a race.
> 
> ...



No, but associating these bad things to one race- IS RACIST.  

Sorry you don't get this.  But then again, you belong to a cult that believes that dark skin is a curse from God and supported slavery.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> There is nothing the least bit racists about wanting this country and its people to be protected from them. Nothing about any of them that justifies yoru absurd, false accusation that he told anyone to _“blame the darkies”_. That's just you projecting your own abject racism and bigotry.



Again, I don't belong to a racist cult like you do... 

People are most likely to be murdered or raped by people they know.  Usually people of the same race.  To say, "We are going to build walls to keep them out" is racist.  

Sorry you are too dumb to see that, but you think a Kiddy Diddler named Joseph Smith was talking to God, so there's that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> No more than car manufacturers. Besides, selling and purchasing firearms is legal in this country and murder is illegal. They are not obligated to know any more than that.



Car Manufacturers are only obligated to sell to licensed drivers... Most states also require car owners to have insurance as well. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> One is in the Constitution and the other is not. Tough shit.



The constitution never mentions the word "Guns".   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you were a middle class conservative at one time and as soon as you changed your political affiliation you deemed middle class conservatives as racist angry white men? WTF?



No, what changed my mind was realizing the rich guy in the corner office had no problem screwing with my livlihood because he could.  And to be fair, it took a couple of cases of that happening before I wised up to the game.  The rich are very good at keeping stupid white people in line by playing on their racial, religious and sexual fears.  I just stopped playing the game. You clearly are too dumb to stop playing.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> See, I knew it was only a matter of time before you brought race into it. Even though I never mentioned "darkies" or "little brown people" or brought up race at all in any context.
> 
> Is this why you brought up "angry white men" in the first place, so you could get another opportunity to bring up race?



If it were white folks crossing the southern border, you wouldn't be shitting yourself.  

We have a shitload of undocumented immigrants from Poland... never hear you guys whining about them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever the economy is, we have a national debt that, at this point, is probably beyond recovery. Besides, just throwing money at your moral props doesn't solve anything and does not make you some kind of saint.



Actually, we were well on our way to solving the National Debt in the late 1990's.  Then Bush gave huge tax cuts to rich people and put a war on a credit card.  

Here's how you get out of debt.  You control spending on bullshit like weapons and corporate welfare, and you make the rich pay their fair share.  That's how you get out of debt.  

You don't get out of debt yanking food out of the mouths of children in Non-Fetus form (you know, the point you stop caring about them.)  That just reminds people you are mean spirited assholes.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're the one who keeps bringing up race. You've been the first to bring up race in every discussion we've ever had.



Only because if the Modern Conservative Movement didn't have racism, it would die..  Even the stupidest, angriest white person wouldn't vote for, "I want you to work harder for less money and less rights at work."


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> I see you are all in on the Scapegoating of the first victim.
> 
> I don’t know why. It does not help your case to do so. But we shall see. Why do you think Nancy Lanza was crazy?



She was a prepper. 

She stockpiled a shitload of guns and ammunition.  

She was nuts.  

No one counts her as a victim, it's why they list 26 victims of Sandy Hook, not 27.  She was an enabler.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > I see you are all in on the Scapegoating of the first victim.
> ...


She was a pepper? 
IF you don't prepare for bad times that make you a nut.
Define a stockpile of guns and ammo and after you do that give your authoritative citations of your training and experience where you can even give an opinion on what a person needs in self-defense


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > No more than car manufacturers. Besides, selling and purchasing firearms is legal in this country and murder is illegal. They are not obligated to know any more than that.
> ...


I realize people who didn't work while Bush was president didn't get that 600.00  tax refund back but that's your fault


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> She was a pepper?
> IF you don't prepare for bad times that make you a nut.
> Define a stockpile of guns and ammo and after you do that give your authoritative citations of your training and experience where you can even give an opinion on what a person needs in self-defense



Well.  Let see. Since you can only fire one gun at a time.... if you have more than one, you are probably a nut.  

She had 1700 rounds of ammunition and at least 10 guns.   

What was she "prepared" for, the Zombie Apocalypse?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I realize people who didn't work while Bush was president didn't get that 600.00 tax refund back but that's your fault



I worked most of the Bush years....  but he still had two recessions that cost me more than $600.00.  

On the other hand, I wasn't unemployed a single day that Obama was president, and my income doubled. (Although that had more to do with me starting my own business and getting better paying jobs than anything he did.)


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > I see you are all in on the Scapegoating of the first victim.
> ...




She wasn't an enabler you moron....she was murdered in her sleep.  She was the first victim, you heartless asshole.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 15, 2019)

2aguy said:


> She wasn't an enabler you moron....she was murdered in her sleep. She was the first victim, you heartless asshole.



Again, if you gun nuts were just killing each other... I wouldn't have as much trouble..  you'd eventually weed yourselves out of the gene pool.  

But she was an enabler. 

She gave him access to guns, took him to the range and showed him how to use them. 
She let him play violent video games all day...  

And when she no longer could control the monster she created, she looked to get him institutionalized, and he turned on her.  

There's a reason no one counts that bitch as a "victim".  The victims were the 6 teachers and 20 kids he did kill.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I realize people who didn't work while Bush was president didn't get that 600.00 tax refund back but that's your fault
> ...


SMH


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > She was a pepper?
> ...


I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.


----------



## flack (Nov 15, 2019)

Crazy


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > No more than car manufacturers. Besides, selling and purchasing firearms is legal in this country and murder is illegal. They are not obligated to know any more than that.
> ...



The manufacturers sell their vehicles to dealerships, not to drivers. Ergo, they are not obligated to sell to licensed and insured drivers, the dealerships are.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> One is in the Constitution and the other is not. Tough shit.





> The constitution never mentions the word "Guns".



And? When they said "...arms...", did you think they were talking about pitchforks?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you were a middle class conservative at one time and as soon as you changed your political affiliation you deemed middle class conservatives as racist angry white men? WTF?





> No, what changed my mind was realizing the rich guy in the corner office had no problem screwing with my livlihood because he could.  And to be fair, it took a couple of cases of that happening before I wised up to the game.  The rich are very good at keeping stupid white people in line by playing on their racial, religious and sexual fears.  I just stopped playing the game. You clearly are too dumb to stop playing.



Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> See, I knew it was only a matter of time before you brought race into it. Even though I never mentioned "darkies" or "little brown people" or brought up race at all in any context.
> 
> Is this why you brought up "angry white men" in the first place, so you could get another opportunity to bring up race?





> If it were white folks crossing the southern border, you wouldn't be shitting yourself.



This is an assumption based on absolutely nothing. And if it were white, Catholic rich folks, you would be shitting yourself.



> We have a shitload of undocumented immigrants from Poland... never hear you guys whining about them.



Neither do we hear you guys offering them free health care and housing.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever the economy is, we have a national debt that, at this point, is probably beyond recovery. Besides, just throwing money at your moral props doesn't solve anything and does not make you some kind of saint.





> Actually, we were well on our way to solving the National Debt in the late 1990's.  Then Bush gave huge tax cuts to rich people and put a war on a credit card.



Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.



> Here's how you get out of debt.  You control spending on bullshit like weapons and corporate welfare, and you make the rich pay their fair share.  That's how you get out of debt.



When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.

You want to punish the rich for being rich because a couple of rich douchebags did you wrong.



> You don't get out of debt yanking food out of the mouths of children in Non-Fetus form (you know, the point you stop caring about them.)  That just reminds people you are mean spirited assholes.



You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're the one who keeps bringing up race. You've been the first to bring up race in every discussion we've ever had.





> Only because if the Modern Conservative Movement didn't have racism, it would die..



Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control _which this discussion is about_.



> Even the stupidest, angriest white person wouldn't vote for, "I want you to work harder for less money and less rights at work."



Is this another union tangent?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > She was a pepper?
> ...



Can you sit in two chairs at the same time? If not, why do you have more than one?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 15, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush [sic] animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.



  It's worth noting, of course, that we only ever hear small, random bits of JoeB131's side of the story, about how employers, rich people, white people, Mormons, Catholics, other religious people, conservatives, etc., screwed him over.  I have absolutely know doubt that if we knew the real story behind his whining, it'd be something very, very different than what he's making it out to be.

  What we hear from JoeB131 is very similar to what I have heard from a few other people; people that I've had the misfortune to have to work with.  I've come to pretty much know that when I hear such things from someone I'm going to be working with, that I'm going to end up doing all the work, and on top of that, fixing problems created by him as well.  Of course, such people don't usually last long on the job, and I have no doubt they'll be telling their coworkers at the next job all the same crap about their previous employer—the same employer that I never had any trouble with—that they were telling me about the ones that had before they _“worked”_ with me.

JoeB131's tales of woe tell to me a story of someone who manages to find all sorts of ways to crew up his own life, and then to blame others for the results rather than taking any responsibility for his own behavior.

  He's left with a deep, deep hatred, a deep bigotry, toward several large categories of people, based on his perception of how a few members of these categories are responsible for the mess that he's made of his own life.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 15, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush [sic] animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.
> ...



I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 16, 2019)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.



Just because she wasn't as nutty as you are... doesn't mean she wasn't nuts.  

This is your argument, really?  "Not as crazy as you are".  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The manufacturers sell their vehicles to dealerships, not to drivers. Ergo, they are not obligated to sell to licensed and insured drivers, the dealerships are.



Authroized Dealerships... you are making my point.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.



No, I hate them because they did all of wrong. This country was pretty awesome for white working folks in the 1960's.  Then the rich woke up, realized that they weren't happy having half the money, they wanted ALL the money.  

And they got stupid people like you clinging to your guns and your bibles, hating the darkies and queers.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.



Sure it is.  Stop giving tax giveaways to the rich. Restore the Estate Tax. Stop wasting money on bloated military programs.  Problem solved.  

But they have you all upset about the darkies, so you go with that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.



Nope, they should pay confiscatory taxes... Then we should harvest them for transplant organs for working class folks. That would be "Fair" in my mind, but some would consider that Harsh, so higher taxes it is. 








Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.



Quite the contrary, publicly funded abortions would be a massive savings...  a $300.00 abortion instead of a lifetime of paying for an underachiever?  

It's a bargain! 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control _which this discussion is about_.



Gun control has always been about race.  It was about race when a "proper gentleman" was expected to be armed to keep his slaves under control, and it is now when the NRA tells dumb white people they need them some guns to fight the Darkies.  

YOu worry so much about some darkie swiping your big screen you didn't notice the rich stole your middle class. Classic Misdirection. 







Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is this another union tangent?



No, it describes how the rich put one over on you.  If they ran on "We are going to break up your union, remove all your rights at work, making your job "At Will" employment, get rid of all the workplace safety rules,", even the dumbest, most inbred angry white trash would say, "Hey.... wait a minute".  

but you tell him some darkie is coming here to take a job he wouldn't take even in the worst recession, and the government is giving them something, they totally vote for that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.
> ...


However, that's irrelevant you negated to give your qualifying authority.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 16, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It's worth noting, of course, that we only ever hear small, random bits of JoeB131's side of the story, about how employers, rich people, white people, Mormons, Catholics, other religious people, conservatives, etc., screwed him over. I have absolutely know doubt that if we knew the real story behind his whining, it'd be something very, very different than what he's making it out to be.



No, actually, it's just called living... something you probably aren't allowed to do outside of your cult.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131's tales of woe tell to me a story of someone who manages to find all sorts of ways to crew up his own life, and then to blame others for the results rather than taking any responsibility for his own behavior.



Except that I'm pretty well off, own a lot of property, and make a pretty good living... but clearly, the fact that I don't worship greed means there's something wrong with me.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> He's left with a deep, deep hatred, a deep bigotry, toward several large categories of people, based on his perception of how a few members of these categories are responsible for the mess that he's made of his own life.



Nope, you miss the point. I divide the oppossition in this country into two groups. 

The Rich- who are fucking it up for the rest of us. 
The Rubes- who go along with it because the Rich are very good at keeping dumb people like you angry about it. 

Now- The Rich ALWAYS get what they want.  They get their tax breaks, they get their union busting, they get their de-regulation and they get their huge taxpayer funded bailouts when they fuck it up and crash the economy.  

The Rubes, on the other hand, never get what they want.   Abortion is still legal. Gay Marriage is still legal.  They haven't forced religion and prayer back into the schools...  Those things are still legal because we have to keep dumb people like you angry about something.   

So enjoy being a Rube.  They are counting on it.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.



Except I'm white and most of my relatives are still practicing Catholics...  

One more time, read the above.  If the Rich didn't have the Rube issues to keep you clinging to your guns and your bibles, the conservative movement would die.  

Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"



They will be out of business, really.     Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans.    Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts.   Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 16, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> They will be out of business, really. Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans. Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts. Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.



You are stretching....  

More likely.. the gun industry will stop marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world and support strict gun control.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > They will be out of business, really. Small underground manufacturers will be providing for the self defense needs of Americans. Police departments will have to pay out of their noses for their own armaments, as the prices will have to be enough to cover the possible verdicts. Police officers have been known to improperly shoot people like that police officer in Chicago and the maker of his weapon would have to have enough money to pay verdicts to the family and it would have to be factored into the price.
> ...




Remington didn't sell any weapons to Nancy Lanza- who bought them from a retailer.

And she wasn't a bad actor at all ,  it isn't her fault that the weapons were stolen.

"Strict gun control" would not have made a difference.  And the financial precedent of a legal case would indicate a new cost that would have to be factored into new purchases.   A $700 weapon would have to increase in price to $7000 or more.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 16, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> Remington didn't sell any weapons to Nancy Lanza- who bought them from a retailer.
> 
> And she wasn't a bad actor at all , it isn't her fault that the weapons were stolen.



She raised Adam. She taught him that Guns solve problems. She took him to the range and taught him how to use them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > I stock up for the next gun and ammo run I have way more than that. Certain firearms have specific purposes. However that's irrelevant you negated to give your quialfying authority.
> ...



Authorized to sell the car to the customer. Your point is not made.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sounds to me like you became an angry white man (if you were not already). The only difference in your case is that your broadbrush animosity is not against an ethnic minority. You now hate all rich people because a couple of them did you wrong.





> No, I hate them because they did all of wrong. This country was pretty awesome for white working folks in the 1960's.  Then the rich woke up, realized that they weren't happy having half the money, they wanted ALL the money.



Hate all little brown people/hate all rich people. Same prejudice, different flavor.



> And they got stupid people like you clinging to your guns and your bibles, hating the darkies and queers.



Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already. I don't know how you expect to conduct an open and productive debate if you either can't remember or simply ignore the things I say. You have your "Cling to your Bible and hate darkies and queers" narrative and you're going to stick to that no matter what I say. It might throw a monkey wrench into your argument and you're either too full of hate, too lazy or just too fucking stupid to concoct a new narrative to adjust.

I've never had any problem with gays or "darkies". In fact, I'm in favor of gay marriage and gay couples adopting and I've lived and worked in two Latin American countries. I made many friends there and found them to be open and caring and fun-loving. Americans have a lot to learn from Hispanic cultures on how to just be happy and enjoy life. I think you could learn a thing or two from them yourself so you won't just view them as hapless victim props in your morality play.

That prejudice of yours is making _you_ look stupid.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe, maybe not. The fact remains that at this point in time, it is probably beyond recovery. Therefore, I don't feel we should be throwing money at people who come here illegally.





> Sure it is.  Stop giving tax giveaways to the rich. Restore the Estate Tax. Stop wasting money on bloated military programs.  Problem solved.



You may be right on all counts. Problem is, your heart is now poisoned against rich people and that compels you to want to punish all rich people to a point that goes way beyond "fair share".



> But they have you all upset about the darkies, so you go with that.



You're the who keeps bringing up "darkies", not me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> When you and others say "fair share" in regards to corporations and the rich, what you really mean is you want them to pay proportionately more than everyone else by simple virtue of their being rich. Fair share means fair share, which in turn means that if everyone else is paying, say, ten percent, corporations and the rich should not be made to pay more than that.





> Nope, they should pay confiscatory taxes... Then we should harvest them for transplant organs for working class folks. That would be "Fair" in my mind, but some would consider that Harsh, so higher taxes it is.



In other words, proportionately more.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don't get out of debt by giving money to people to yank children from their wombs before they're born either.





> Quite the contrary, publicly funded abortions would be a massive savings...  a $300.00 abortion instead of a lifetime of paying for an underachiever?
> 
> It's a bargain!



Underachievers are always going to be underachievers if you just keep throwing money at them. And throwing money at women to pay for their mistakes just enables them to continue making their mistakes. Why stop when you know the government's going to pay for it anyway? Besides, I thought giving money to underachievers was your thing.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well that was a stupid goddamn thing to say considering all the angry rhetoric flying around between conservatives and liberals on just about everything, including the matter of gun control _which this discussion is about_.





> Gun control has always been about race.  It was about race when a "proper gentleman" was expected to be armed to keep his slaves under control, and it is now when the NRA tells dumb white people they need them some guns to fight the Darkies.



Again you reveal your ignorance. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates who feel threatened do not feel threatened by "darkies", they feel threatened by the government. The "darkies" are not the ones threatening to take their firearms.



> YOu worry so much about some darkie swiping your big screen you didn't notice the rich stole your middle class. Classic Misdirection.



You brought it up, not me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is this another union tangent?





> No, it describes how the rich put one over on you.  If they ran on "We are going to break up your union, remove all your rights at work, making your job "At Will" employment, get rid of all the workplace safety rules,", even the dumbest, most inbred angry white trash would say, "Hey.... wait a minute".



Unions tried to move into the industry I'm in a couple of times over the last thirty years and while I am not staunchly anti-union, I couldn't help but ask why they were trying so hard. The only answer to that is: $.

I found it hard to believe they were going to all this trouble because they were simply concerned with my workplace rights. If the union moves in, I lose income through union dues and the union gets richer. As for workplace rights, we already have an organization that looks out for our interests and they do a pretty good job of it. They fight for workplace rights and advocate for new and stricter safety rules, among other things. And the best part? We don't have to pay them anything.



> but you tell him some darkie is coming here to take a job he wouldn't take even in the worst recession, and the government is giving them something, they totally vote for that.



What is this fixation you have with "darkies"?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 16, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know one thing for sure after all my interactions with him: He has a deep and abiding contempt for white people, white males, conservatives, rich people, Christians and Catholics or any of various combinations thereof.





> Except I'm white and most of my relatives are still practicing Catholics...



I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?



> One more time, read the above.  If the Rich didn't have the Rube issues to keep you clinging to your guns and your bibles, the conservative movement would die.



Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be. 



> Mark my words, once Remington and other gun manufacturers start paying for the carnage they are inflicting on the world, they are going to be a lot less keen about your "Second Amendment Rights"



The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued."  "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."
> 
> This all is a direct appeal to those civilians who would be violent, including a sick identification of this weapon with masculinity. There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society, and, when it is used for its intended purpose, it is lethal. There are other, less powerful guns that can be used for hunting or defending one's home against any invasion.


You were doing fine until “There is no legitimate use of this type of weapon in civilian U.S. society…”

That doesn’t have anything to do with the liability claim of the suit, which concerns solely the marketing of the carbine, not whether it has a ‘legitimate use.’

A manufacturer of AR 15s who markets its product in a responsible manner – absent references to combat, militarism, or ‘manliness’ – shouldn’t be subject to similar legal action.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued."  "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."
> ...




What do you mean absent references to "Combat, militarism or maniness?"   They shouldn't have been sued over this, and the courts should have sent them packing....this is nothing more than LAWFARE against a gun maker in the hope of opening up fake lawsuits to sue them out of existence.....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 16, 2019)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



There are only three possible reasons to sue a manufacturer.....

design flaw, but guns work as designed...


production flaw, ....put together wrong, or broken....also not the case


or marketing flaw...a claim that it does something that it doesn't do.


None apply.....one more black mark against the vaunted agency called the Supreme Court.



As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.


There is no valid lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 16, 2019)

This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.

This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.





"...marketed a product that was dangerous ..."

Even a product such as one you are in dire need of, an encyclopedia,could be dangerous if it fell on you, you dunce.

There are only three possible reasons to sue a manufacturer.....

design flaw, but guns work as designed...


production flaw, ....put together wrong, or broken....also not the case


or marketing flaw...a claim that it does something that it doesn't do.


None apply.....one more black mark against the vaunted agency called the Supreme Court.


----------



## flack (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.


BS!


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.





Of course there is a legitimate use for this kind of product.   Suppose someone is attacked by a terrorist cell or a criminal street gang.  Rapid fire becomes very essential.

If you look at the WH under Obama- his body guards had a full range weaponry so they would be ready for threats.  It was easy for Obama to tell other "you don't need proper self defense", because he had it and he could give a shit less about you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.



  That there are millions of these guns in circulation, and the overwhelming vast majority of them are only ever used for legitimate uses, puts the lie to your absurd statement.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.



What it's intended for is irrelevant. Until someone uses it to kill, it won't kill anyone. The atom bomb was made to kill people but it hasn't killed anyone in seventy four years.



> The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.



These kinds of firearms are marketed to men who think it makes them more of a man. That's it.



> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.



If it's legitimate - and it is - then someone has a use for it.

You and people like you don't have a problem with the gun, you have a problem with the type of people who buy them.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 16, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> ...



Exactly what are these "legitimate" uses?


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Self defense is a very legitimate use for a so-called "assault weapon".

Some people need that kind of firepower.   When Obama was in the WH, he had trained, heavily armed bodyguards on duty with assault weapons. 

Sort of hypocritical to complain about the needs of others.


Let me recommend the film Death Wish 3 to you.

Bronson is faced with a large gang of vicious criminals, a revolver just would not have been that useful in East New York


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 16, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended.
> ...



A product is judged by analysis of whether it is safe when it is used for its intended purpose. The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Again with the gun is a penis mental illness that you anti-gunners seem to be afflicted with............


18 million AR-15s in private hands in the U.S.....

Total number of people killed with AR-15s and Ak-47 civilian models in 2018?   39.

Total number of people killed by cars in 2017......  over 38,000

So....the sexual needs of car owners apparently kill more people than these rifles...and it isn't even close...so the sexual needs of car owners are being catered to and they are killing over 38,000 people a year........

Boy, you sure are stupid.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




Self defense, hunting and competition.......18 million AR-15s in private hands.

Total number of people killed in mass public shootings with AR-15 rifles in 2018?...less than 39.

Total number of people killed by cars in 2017?  over 38,000.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 16, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




They were already judged by the Supreme Court ........Heller v D.C, and the follow up Caetano v Massachusetts.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

*First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

*

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
*





https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Nothing in that bans weapons by type........

Next...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. _Miller_ (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......over 8 million of them in private hands and semi auto rifles there are over 16 million of them in private hands if not more......


And then, because lying judges on the 4th Circuit tried to use this argument to ban stun guns in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had to  slap them with the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling...

This also re addresses the point about these weapons not existing when the Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
*Opinion of the Court[edit]*

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing _District of Columbia v. Heller_[8] and _McDonald v. City of Chicago_,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] 

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1] 

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted _Heller'_s conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] 

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with _Heller_.[11] 


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that _Heller_ rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

*----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). *

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

*Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.*


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. 


*But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.*


I*nstead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use. *


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
*In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable. *


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 17, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.




There are over 18 million AR-15s in private hands in the U.S.....

Number of people killed with AR-15s in mass public shootings in 2018?  Less than 39.

Knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every single year.....

Number of people killed by cars in 2017...... over 38,000.

Do you know if the shooter actually saw any of the advertising by Remington?  You dope.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the marketing slogans used by Remington, good for the Supreme Court to deny cert. "Consider your man card reissued."  "the Sandy Hook families say Remington "published promotional materials that promised 'military-proven performance' for a 'mission-adaptable' shooter in need of the 'ultimate combat weapons system.' " "They also accuse the company of fostering a "lone gunman" narrative as it promoted the Bushmaster, citing an ad that proclaimed, "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered."
> ...


Show me where I can find this legitimate use clause in the constitution?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> 
> This lawsuit aside, it is a fact that there is no legitimate use of this product.


So when the litigation against Alcohol manufacturers start?
What is your authoritative qualification in self-defense to say what is and is not a legitimate use?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


Where is that legitimate use clause in the Constitution?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 17, 2019)

FYI this is the ad that caused all the fuss





“Papa Says It’s Safe”: 20 Astounding Gun Ads


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Authorized to sell the car to the customer. Your point is not made.



Which means- following all the rules that they put down to sell their products...  Point made.  Remington doesn't do that... It markets to the most crazy people they can find. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hate all little brown people/hate all rich people. Same prejudice, different flavor.



Well, no, the rich kind of deserve the contempt towards them...  they fucked it up for the rest of us. 

You see, pre-Reagan- we had it pretty fucking good.  but the rich got too greedy. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already.



Whatever... you still throw in with the nuts. You probably think you are putting one over on them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You may be right on all counts. Problem is, your heart is now poisoned against rich people and that compels you to want to punish all rich people to a point that goes way beyond "fair share".



Well, no.  I think harvesting them for transplant organs would actually be harsh.  Making them pay a fair tax rate, like they did before Reagan fucked it up... Um. Yeah.

You see, funny thing.  Before Reagan, the rich paid their fair share.  We had two world wars, built massive infrastructure, established a social welfare state AND put men on the moon...  and our whole national debt was less than a trillion dollars after 200 years. 

Then Ronnie Reagan came along. He started out with the Supply Side Bullshit that tax cuts would raise revenues, but that didn't happen, and today we are at 20 TRILLION in debt, we have bridges that are falling apart, etc. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> n other words, proportionately more.



THeir fair share.   Like they paid before Reagan.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Underachievers are always going to be underachievers if you just keep throwing money at them. And throwing money at women to pay for their mistakes just enables them to continue making their mistakes. Why stop when you know the government's going to pay for it anyway? Besides, I thought giving money to underachievers was your thing.



But you see, that's the problem. The government pays for the mistake by giving 20 years of assistance..  when a one time abortion is much cheaper.

Of course, the right wing is all for saving the fetus, but when they turn into a welfare recipiant, they are a leech and a parasite.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again you reveal your ignorance. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates who feel threatened do not feel threatened by "darkies", they feel threatened by the government. The "darkies" are not the ones threatening to take their firearms.



Again, talk to some of your fellow "Second Amendment Advocates" on this board....



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Unions tried to move into the industry I'm in a couple of times over the last thirty years and while I am not staunchly anti-union, I couldn't help but ask why they were trying so hard. The only answer to that is: $.
> 
> I found it hard to believe they were going to all this trouble because they were simply concerned with my workplace rights. If the union moves in, I lose income through union dues and the union gets richer. As for workplace rights, we already have an organization that looks out for our interests and they do a pretty good job of it. They fight for workplace rights and advocate for new and stricter safety rules, among other things. And the best part? We don't have to pay them anything.



Yeah, I used to think like that.. .Then I busted up my knee and it was amazing how fast my "organization" stopped looking out for my interests.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?



They know what a miserable experience my grammar school was.  They generally avoid the subject.  My favorite was when a nun who inflicted all sorts of abuse had the fucking nerve to say at my mom's funeral "God had to have a good reason". She was lucky I didn't punch her in the face.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.



no, they really are pinheads...  Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.  

The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population.  Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.



No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.  

Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies.  Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"  

Ironically, the worst thing to happen to the gun industry was Trump getting elected...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?
> ...


Lol
Actually gun sales have stabilized since Trump was elected, no peaks and valleys in sales like the Obama years.
You come across as just another progressive pussy… Yelling at people on the computer from your moms basement.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...



Judged by who? It's irrelevant anyway. Whatever the manufacturer's intent (and it's not for murder), if it's never used to kill, it will never kill.



> The high degree of danger to the public posed by this product far outweighs the supposed importance of catering to the sexual "needs" of a small number of people with psychological problems.



A firearm is only as dangerous as the intent of the owner. And manufacturers are not liable for customers choosing to break the law with their product.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Authorized to sell the car to the customer. Your point is not made.
> ...



The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.

Your opinion on the culpability of the manufacturer is irrelevant. The law is the law and by law, only the dealer is ultimately responsible to sell the product responsibly direct to the customer.



> It markets to the most crazy people they can find.



You're going to have to provide evidence that they market to crazy people. Otherwise this is just your overwrought sensibilities talking.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hate all little brown people/hate all rich people. Same prejudice, different flavor.





> Well, no, the rich kind of deserve the contempt towards them...  they fucked it up for the rest of us.
> 
> You see, pre-Reagan- we had it pretty fucking good.  but the rich got too greedy.



They didn't fuck up anything for me. Besides, they can't fuck people any more than the people allow them to.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, I don't own a Bible and I told you this already.





> Whatever... you still throw in with the nuts. You probably think you are putting one over on them.



I had to tell you twice that I don't own a Bible because you don't pay attention to what you read and you have this insane mantra repeating in your head: "Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns...". So forgive me if I don't respond to this idiocy.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You may be right on all counts. Problem is, your heart is now poisoned against rich people and that compels you to want to punish all rich people to a point that goes way beyond "fair share".





> Well, no.  I think harvesting them for transplant organs would actually be harsh.  Making them pay a fair tax rate, like they did before Reagan fucked it up... Um. Yeah.
> 
> You see, funny thing.  Before Reagan, the rich paid their fair share.  We had two world wars, built massive infrastructure, established a social welfare state AND put men on the moon...  and our whole national debt was less than a trillion dollars after 200 years.
> 
> Then Ronnie Reagan came along. He started out with the Supply Side Bullshit that tax cuts would raise revenues, but that didn't happen, and today we are at 20 TRILLION in debt, we have bridges that are falling apart, etc.



So, what, you hate rich people because someone else told them they didn't have to pay that much anymore? If the government changed the tax laws to where every person who hates rich people (meaning you) would pay less in taxes, you wouldn't jump on it?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> n other words, proportionately more.



THeir fair share.   Like they paid before Reagan.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Underachievers are always going to be underachievers if you just keep throwing money at them. And throwing money at women to pay for their mistakes just enables them to continue making their mistakes. Why stop when you know the government's going to pay for it anyway? Besides, I thought giving money to underachievers was your thing.





> But you see, that's the problem. The government pays for the mistake by giving 20 years of assistance..  when a one time abortion is much cheaper.



The government pays for the mistakes because the government pays for the mistakes. In other words, by continuing to pay for the mistakes, the cycle just continues and they keep making the mistakes. If the government stops paying for the mistakes, we wouldn't see as many mistakes.



> Of course, the right wing is all for saving the fetus, but when they turn into a welfare recipiant, they are a leech and a parasite.



If they suckle off the government teat their entire lives without any real effort to improve their situation, then they ARE leeches and parasites. And they don't become leeches and parasites because they weren't aborted. Besides, the right wing does not suggest killing them for being leeches and parasites. The left wing however, just kills them before they're born so they won't become leeches and parasites. If they're not aborted and are allowed to live, they succeed or fail by their own hand and their own choices and no lives are snuffed out.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again you reveal your ignorance. Pro-2nd Amendment advocates who feel threatened do not feel threatened by "darkies", they feel threatened by the government. The "darkies" are not the ones threatening to take their firearms.





> Again, talk to some of your fellow "Second Amendment Advocates" on this board....



Quotes and links, please.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Unions tried to move into the industry I'm in a couple of times over the last thirty years and while I am not staunchly anti-union, I couldn't help but ask why they were trying so hard. The only answer to that is: $.
> 
> I found it hard to believe they were going to all this trouble because they were simply concerned with my workplace rights. If the union moves in, I lose income through union dues and the union gets richer. As for workplace rights, we already have an organization that looks out for our interests and they do a pretty good job of it. They fight for workplace rights and advocate for new and stricter safety rules, among other things. And the best part? We don't have to pay them anything.





> Yeah, I used to think like that.. .Then I busted up my knee and it was amazing how fast my "organization" stopped looking out for my interests.



So every organization would drop me if I got injured? Prejudice much? And when you say "organization", do you mean your employer?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I know you're white. You're not the first white person I've seen to express contempt for his own race. Also, do your relatives know about your "Catholic bastards" remarks?
> ...



Your personal experiences are irrelevant to the issue of Sandmann and his classmates. The actions of this bitch nun do not make Sandmann and his classmates "Catholic bastards." 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your ignorance is beyond scope. If you think Bibles and guns are all that conservatives are about then you are just as pinheaded as the pinheads you claim them to be.





> no, they really are pinheads...  Trust me, the dumb ass in the trailer park who clings to his gun and his bibles has no stake in "Capital Gains Tax Cuts", but he just don't cotton to them queers and them darkies.



"Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns..."



> The GOP economic agenda maybe, maybe benefits 20% of the population.  Without the social agenda of playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears, they'd lose every election.



Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say _you're_ the one with religious fears.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The 2nd Amendment is what helps keep them in business dumbass.





> No, what keeps them in business is marketing to a mentally unstable part of the population.



If that's true, why haven't _you_ bought one already?  



> Their key Demographic is not the guy who bought a gun back in the 1990's, stuck it in his closet and forgot about it. It's the hard core nut who thinks that he needs him more guns to fights the gummit and the darkies.  Man, those people went nuts when Obama got elected, it was all their fears in one, and the Gun Manufacturers went out and screamed "OBAMA'S GOING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!"



Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




Joe Biden, the leading democrat Presidential candidate just stated he doesn't think people should own military pistols, like 9mms......

Speaking at the ‘House of Amazon,’ Joe Biden gently raises company’s role in middle-class job losses

While saying he supports the Second Amendment, Biden called the absolutist arguments of some gun-rights supporters “bizarre.” Noting people can’t own machine guns or bazookas, Biden said, “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9-mm bullets and can hold 10 or more rounds?”

Now it is "absolutist' to own a semi-automatic pistol.....the most common type of pistol in the country.......


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



And there you have it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.
> 
> Your opinion on the culpability of the manufacturer is irrelevant. The law is the law and by law, only the dealer is ultimately responsible to sell the product responsibly direct to the customer.



One more time- when you put a military grade weapon on the civilian market and link it's ownership to "Manliness", you are making a statement about the kind of person you want to get it.  When you are selling not a hunting weapons but a military weapon based on the fears of a Nancy Lanza (who again, was nuts) you are making a decision.  

The Jury will look at those crime scene photos, and that will be pretty much the end of that case.  Personally, I wish every time an NRA stooge gets on TV, they split screen him with those crime scene photos...



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I had to tell you twice that I don't own a Bible because you don't pay attention to what you read and you have this insane mantra repeating in your head: "Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns...". So forgive me if I don't respond to this idiocy.



Whatever, I've made my point.  Without fear, the GOP would have nothing.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say _you're_ the one with religious fears.



Yes, I do worry you guys will try to impose a theocracy on the rest of us.... like when Mike Pence threw that poor Indian woman in prison after she had a miscarriage.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.



You talk like this is a bad thing.  I can't think of a good reason why your average citizen should own a gun, must less one like the AR-15, which was designed for battlefields.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.
> ...



The AR-15 is not military grade, it only looks like it is. That's why people buy them. Also, they can market the damn thing any way they want, provided it's not false advertising.

The AR-15 is no different from any other semiautomatic rifle such as .22s, M1As, M14s and the like. Each of these rifles can fire just as fast and do just as much damage, if not more, as the AR. But they don't look like military weapons so you ignore them.



> When you are selling not a hunting weapons but a military weapon based on the fears of a Nancy Lanza (who again, was nuts) you are making a decision.



Nuts or no, Nancy Lanza's not the one who killed people with it.

You make much of Nancy Lanza's supposed craziness and you've vilified everyone except the one person who pulled the trigger. Why is that? Why do you have this irrational need to condemn the entire village for the acts of the town drunk? It's what you did with rich people, you did it with Sandmann and Catholics and you're doing it now.



> The Jury will look at those crime scene photos, and that will be pretty much the end of that case.  Personally, I wish every time an NRA stooge gets on TV, they split screen him with those crime scene photos...



Of course you do.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I had to tell you twice that I don't own a Bible because you don't pay attention to what you read and you have this insane mantra repeating in your head: "Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns, queers and darkies. Bibles, guns...". So forgive me if I don't respond to this idiocy.





> Whatever, I've made my point.



Um, no, you haven't. The only point you've made is that you hate rich people so much you'll blame them for anything and everything.



> Without fear, the GOP would have nothing.



Look who's talking. You're afraid of a gun that just looks like a military weapon.

This from a guy who blames entire groups of people for the acts of a few. You peddle so much fear and hate that the KKK would probably love to hire you for public relations and propaganda. You're a hate group all by yourself.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Given your hatred of Catholics, I'd say _you're_ the one with religious fears.





> Yes, I do worry you guys will try to impose a theocracy on the rest of us....



Who's "you guys"? As I told you twice already, I'm an atheist. The last thing I want is a theocracy. Just can't let that narrative go, can you?



> like when Mike Pence threw that poor Indian woman in prison after she had a miscarriage.



She had the miscarriage because she tried to abort her own child. Dumbass.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Isn't that precisely what pro-gun control advocates are after? I don't know what Obama had to say on the matter but it's well known by everyone that candidates like O'Rourke want to take AR-15 type firearms. And you and I both know that if that happens, handguns are next; "Well, we've come this far, might as well take the next step." Once they get their foot in the door they won't stop. You know this as well as I do.





> You talk like this is a bad thing.  I can't think of a good reason why your average citizen should own a gun, must less one like the AR-15, which was designed for battlefields.



No one asked you to come up with a reason so, nothing ventured, nothing gained.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The AR-15 is not military grade, it only looks like it is. That's why people buy them. Also, they can market the damn thing any way they want, provided it's not false advertising.
> 
> The AR-15 is no different from any other semiautomatic rifle such as .22s, M1As, M14s and the like. Each of these rifles can fire just as fast and do just as much damage, if not more, as the AR. But they don't look like military weapons so you ignore them.



Dude, it's the same weapon as the M16 with a stop to keep it firing full auto.   Same ammo, same range, same firepower. 



> When you are selling not a hunting weapons but a military weapon based on the fears of a Nancy Lanza (who again, was nuts) you are making a decision.





Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nuts or no, Nancy Lanza's not the one who killed people with it.
> 
> You make much of Nancy Lanza's supposed craziness and you've vilified everyone except the one person who pulled the trigger. Why is that? Why do you have this irrational need to condemn the entire village for the acts of the town drunk? It's what you did with rich people, you did it with Sandmann and Catholics and you're doing it now.



Sandmann is a little smirking Catholic Bastard. If I disrespected a vet the way he did, my WWII vet Dad would have slapped my ass into a new zip code.  

$6000 a year apparently doesn't buy good manners when it comes to promoting your whacko religious agenda.  

But back to the point about Crazy Nancy.  She gave him birth. She raised him. She exposed him to daily crazy, showed him how to use guns, let him play violent video games all day... and then surprise, surprise, he turned out to be what she spent 20 years making.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Look who's talking. You're afraid of a gun that just looks like a military weapon.



I carried an M16 for 11 years... not afraid of it. I'm afraid of people like Adam Lanza having access to them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This from a guy who blames entire groups of people for the acts of a few. You peddle so much fear and hate that the KKK would probably love to hire you for public relations and propaganda. You're a hate group all by yourself.



The rich have shown they are good with killing the whole fucking planet as long as they can make a short term profit.  I consider hate for them to be a survival instinct.  

[


Ghost of a Rider said:


> She had the miscarriage because she tried to abort her own child. Dumbass.



Which she had every legal right to do. Pence and the religious nutters tried to make it a crime.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one asked you to come up with a reason so, nothing ventured, nothing gained.



Doesn't matter. You guys could tighten up who has guns and keep them out of the hands of the crazies, you just refuse to do so.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no, you haven't. The only point you've made is that you hate rich people so much you'll blame them for anything and everything.·
> ·
> ·​This from a guy who blames entire groups of people for the acts of a few. You peddle so much fear and hate that the KKK would probably love to hire you for public relations and propaganda. You're a hate group all by yourself.



  It's like I said before.

  We've only directly heard bits and pieces of his side of he story, but it's clear enough where JoeB131 is coming from.  He thinks someone who's wealthy wronged him, so he hates all wealthy people.  He thinks a Catholic wronged him, so he hates all Catholics.  He thinks a Mormon wronged him, so he hates all Mormons.  He thinks a conservative wronged him, so he hates all conservatives.

  Pretty much, he hates all of humanity, because he perceives that some small subset of humanity has wronged him.  He's wallowed so deeply in it, that hatred and evil and madness are all that he knows.

  I have no doubt that if we knew the whole story, we'd see that whatever wrongs he thinks he's suffered have been the result of his own bad choices, but the idea of taking responsibility for himself is anathema to him.

  The sort of stuff we hear from him is no different from what I have heard from a few other people, to which I've had the misfortune of being close enough to have a better view of their true situations, and of their own role in creating the problems for themselves that they blame on others.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The AR-15 is not military grade, it only looks like it is. That's why people buy them. Also, they can market the damn thing any way they want, provided it's not false advertising.
> ...



But not the same fire rate. The fire rate of an AR-15 is no faster than a Berretta 9mm pistol.



> When you are selling not a hunting weapons but a military weapon based on the fears of a Nancy Lanza (who again, was nuts) you are making a decision.





Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nuts or no, Nancy Lanza's not the one who killed people with it.
> 
> You make much of Nancy Lanza's supposed craziness and you've vilified everyone except the one person who pulled the trigger. Why is that? Why do you have this irrational need to condemn the entire village for the acts of the town drunk? It's what you did with rich people, you did it with Sandmann and Catholics and you're doing it now.





> Sandmann is a little smirking Catholic Bastard. If I disrespected a vet the way he did, my WWII vet Dad would have slapped my ass into a new zip code.
> 
> $6000 a year apparently doesn't buy good manners when it comes to promoting your whacko religious agenda.



So what is it you hate the most about Sandmann: Being white? Being Catholic? Being conservative? Being pro-life? Being affluent? Or all of the above? I just don't buy that a smirk alone - especially when Phillips is the one who approached him in the first place - brought on this level of contempt.



> But back to the point about Crazy Nancy.  She gave him birth. She raised him. She exposed him to daily crazy, showed him how to use guns, let him play violent video games all day... and then surprise, surprise, he turned out to be what she spent 20 years making.



Blah blah blah. You have no fucking clue what went on in that house between them.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Look who's talking. You're afraid of a gun that just looks like a military weapon.





> I carried an M16 for 11 years... not afraid of it. I'm afraid of people like Adam Lanza having access to them.



I'm afraid of certain people having driver's licenses. So what?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This from a guy who blames entire groups of people for the acts of a few. You peddle so much fear and hate that the KKK would probably love to hire you for public relations and propaganda. You're a hate group all by yourself.





> The rich have shown they are good with killing the whole fucking planet as long as they can make a short term profit.  I consider hate for them to be a survival instinct.



Is hating Catholic kids a survival tool?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> She had the miscarriage because she tried to abort her own child. Dumbass.





> Which she had every legal right to do. Pence and the religious nutters tried to make it a crime.



And Lanza had every legal right to own an AR-15. You and the other anti-gun nutters are trying to make it a crime.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one asked you to come up with a reason so, nothing ventured, nothing gained.





> Doesn't matter. You guys could tighten up who has guns and keep them out of the hands of the crazies, you just refuse to do so.



And you could tighten up and recognize people are responsible for their own actions but you refuse to do so.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 17, 2019)

Lysistrata said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...


The point is this: laws ‘banning’ AR 15s simply won’t work; just as useless is the notion of ‘mandatory buy backs’ – such measures are fundamentally bad law, represent unwarranted government excess and overreach, and are likely un-Constitutional.

The use of tort law is also misguided; even if the suit against Remington is successful, it won’t do anything to eliminate rifles and carbines already in possession of gunowners, and other manufacturers will continue to sell AR 15s.

This doesn’t mean we’re helpless to address the problem of gun crime and violence, it’s simply a matter of fact that ‘banning’ or ‘confiscating’ AR 15s is not a solution.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 18, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It's like I said before.
> 
> We've only directly heard bits and pieces of his side of he story, but it's clear enough where JoeB131 is coming from. He thinks someone who's wealthy wronged him, so he hates all wealthy people. He thinks a Catholic wronged him, so he hates all Catholics. He thinks a Mormon wronged him, so he hates all Mormons. He thinks a conservative wronged him, so he hates all conservatives.



I do love how I live in your head, Mormon Bob, but you have it all wrong.  

Naw, some Mormons did wrong me, but that's fine.... I really didn't know much about your fucked up cult and the fucked up things they believe and their fucked up history of child abuse.  When I found out, though, it explained why those guys had no moral core.  

As for Catholics, I grew up Catholic.  I saw all the fucked up hypocrisy throughout my childhood.  You know, how the Bible says "No Graven Images" and they have Churches full of statues to their imaginary saints.  Also, all the priests were as creepy as hell and you never wanted to be in a room alone with one. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I have no doubt that if we knew the whole story, we'd see that whatever wrongs he thinks he's suffered have been the result of his own bad choices, but the idea of taking responsibility for himself is anathema to him.



No, guy.  You see, the thing is, you assume that there must be "more to the story" because I hurt your wittle feelings pointing out stuff about your cult you don't like.  You really don't ever dispute things I say about your fucked up little cult. I mean, you get angry when I point out that Joseph Smith fucked more children than Roman Polanski did, but you can't really dispute it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 18, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> But not the same fire rate. The fire rate of an AR-15 is no faster than a Berretta 9mm pistol.



It's fire rate was fast enough where Adam Lanza could slaughter 26 people in less than a few minutes. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So what is it you hate the most about Sandmann: Being white? Being Catholic? Being conservative? Being pro-life? Being affluent? Or all of the above? I just don't buy that a smirk alone - especially when Phillips is the one who approached him in the first place - brought on this level of contempt.



Well, yeah, being smirking little bastard who disrespected a vet and wants to impose draconian rules on women.. that makes him worthy of contempt.   But instead of actually owning up and saying, "Yeah, my behavior was bad", his douchebag parents immediately hired PR people and lawyers to make him look like the victim.  Punk.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Blah blah blah. You have no fucking clue what went on in that house between them.



Um, yeah, we know quite a lot about what was going on in that house, from her Ex, from neighbors, etc. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is hating Catholic kids a survival tool?



When the smirking little bastards want to impose theocracy on us, yeah!  You see, again, the Rich couldn't pull off what they pull off without the dumb assholes who want to impose their backwards superstition on the rest of us. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Lanza had every legal right to own an AR-15. You and the other anti-gun nutters are trying to make it a crime.



Yes, I want to make it a crime to own a weapon of mass killing.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And you could tighten up and recognize people are responsible for their own actions but you refuse to do so.



Actually, I doubt Adam would have been found guilty had he lived. He was so mentally retarded he might have gotten off on a diminished capacity defense.  The fact that he had access to this weapon (thanks to Crazy Mom) was the problem. 

More to the point, I look at what we all have to put up with because of your Gun Fetish.  Active Shooter Drills.  Metal Detectors. Trigger happy Cops armed like soldiers.  Kids having to have clear backpacks to go to school to make sure little Timmy isn't packing.  270 BILLION in economic losses every year.  33,000 deaths.  70,000 injuries.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The manufacturer's rules pertain only to how to sell the product to garner sales. It is not within the purview of the manufacturer to dictate who to sell to anyway. That responsibility falls to the state or federal government. It is understood by both the seller and the manufacturer that the seller will abide by state and federal law and conduct the proper background checks and whatnot. Once again, point not made.
> ...




One more time the AR-15 is not a military grade, military anything, weapon.   It is no different from any other civilian, semi-automatic rifle.  

Yes..... playing on the emotions of a jury to get a payout from someone who did not commit a crime is a classic trick of shysters around the country.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > But not the same fire rate. The fire rate of an AR-15 is no faster than a Berretta 9mm pistol.
> ...



Number of people in the country.....over 320 million people.

 Number of AR-15 rifles in the country in private hands..... over 18 million.

Number of mass public shootings in 2018...... 12.  Total killed....93.  Number killed with AR-15 rifles in mass public shootings, under 39.

Total killed by cars in 2017..... over 38,000.

Total killed by knives in 2018.... 1,515.

Total killed by clubs.... 443

And you include suicides in your number because if you don't, you can't get a number high enough to make people even think about caring.......

actual number of gun murder in 2018.... 10,265.....the majority of these victims are criminals not normal people.  

Suicide by gun in 2017?  Over 20,000.

Meanwhile.....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives......according to the Centers for Disease Control......

And the lives saved?   And the money saved?  By armed citizens?

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


 that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.




==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what _are_ the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
*Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.*
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
*When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”*
*Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> No, guy.  You see, the thing is, you assume that there must be "more to the story" because I hurt your wittle feelings pointing out stuff about your cult you don't like.  You really don't ever dispute things I say about your fucked up little cult. I mean, you get angry when I point out that Joseph Smith fucked more children than Roman Polanski did, but you can't really dispute it.



  Among all your other issues, you have a rather extreme, extravagantly-exaggerated sense of your own significance.  You somehow imagine that by repeatedly reciting a few absurd lies, that no sane person will ever believe, that you can hurt me or make me angry.

  You have no idea just how pathetic and insignificant you are, have always been, and will always be.

_“Thou hast not half the power to do me harm 
As I have to be hurt. O gull! O dolt 
As ignorant as dirt! thou hast done a deed…“_

—Shakespeare - Othello​


----------



## flack (Nov 18, 2019)

I can't read his drivel anymore. Might as well have a parrot in a cage.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > But not the same fire rate. The fire rate of an AR-15 is no faster than a Berretta 9mm pistol.
> ...



It’s still no faster than a Berretta.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So what is it you hate the most about Sandmann: Being white? Being Catholic? Being conservative? Being pro-life? Being affluent? Or all of the above? I just don't buy that a smirk alone - especially when Phillips is the one who approached him in the first place - brought on this level of contempt.





> Well, yeah, being smirking little bastard who disrespected a vet and wants to impose draconian rules on women.. that makes him worthy of contempt.   But instead of actually owning up and saying, "Yeah, my behavior was bad", his douchebag parents immediately hired PR people and lawyers to make him look like the victim.  Punk.



First, Phillips approached Sandmann. If you saw the video then you know this which makes you a hypocrite. Second, Sandmann had no way of knowing Phillips was a vet. You know this too.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Blah blah blah. You have no fucking clue what went on in that house between them.





> Um, yeah, we know quite a lot about what was going on in that house, from her Ex, from neighbors, etc.



Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But YOU don’t know and in any case, you’re biased because he did what he did with an AR-15.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is hating Catholic kids a survival tool?





> When the smirking little bastards want to impose theocracy on us, yeah!  You see, again, the Rich couldn't pull off what they pull off without the dumb assholes who want to impose their backwards superstition on the rest of us.



Just how many smirking Catholics bastards are there?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Lanza had every legal right to own an AR-15. You and the other anti-gun nutters are trying to make it a crime.





> Yes, I want to make it a crime to own a weapon of mass killing.



And Pence wants to make it a crime to kill your own child. So what?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And you could tighten up and recognize people are responsible for their own actions but you refuse to do so.





> Actually, I doubt Adam would have been found guilty had he lived. He was so mentally retarded he might have gotten off on a diminished capacity defense.  The fact that he had access to this weapon (thanks to Crazy Mom) was the problem.



Get back to me when you properly blame Phillips for initiating the confrontation with Sandmann.



> More to the point, I look at what we all have to put up with because of your Gun Fetish.  Active Shooter Drills.  Metal Detectors. Trigger happy Cops armed like soldiers.  Kids having to have clear backpacks to go to school to make sure little Timmy isn't packing.  270 BILLION in economic losses every year.  33,000 deaths.  70,000 injuries.



I don’t own an AR-15 and I have one handgun and three hunting rifles that I haven’t used in about thirteen years. Hardly a fetish.

Your motor vehicle fetish does more damage and takes far more lives.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 18, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, yeah, being smirking little bastard who disrespected a vet and wants to impose draconian rules on women.. that makes him worthy of contempt.
> ...



  Didn't Mr. Phillips' claim to be a veteran turn out to be a lie, or at least a significant exaggeration?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > But not the same fire rate. The fire rate of an AR-15 is no faster than a Berretta 9mm pistol.
> ...



It's fire rate was fast enough where Adam Lanza could slaughter 26 people in less than a few minutes.

Moron, he picked the smallest children as targets so he could have used a bolt action rifle and killed just as many children.... he could have used a pump action shotgun you moron...

The shooter at the Russian Polytechnik school shooting used a pump action, 5 shot, tube fed shotgun to kill 20 adults and injure 40 others.....so this same gun would have been able to kill even more helpless children....you moron.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 18, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I think he implied that he was a Vietnam vet. He served at that time but never went there.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 18, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't Mr. Phillips' claim to be a veteran turn out to be a lie, or at least a significant exaggeration?
> ...



Here we go…

_In reality, Phillips served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, a service spokeswoman, Yvonne Carlock, said Wednesday. He spent much of his enlistment in California, did not deploy and left the service as a private after disciplinary issues. From October 1972 to February 1973, he was classified as an antitank missileman, a kind of infantryman, Carlock said. He then became a refrigerator technician for the majority of his service._​
  So he never went to war, never went to Vietnam, served as a refrigerator repairman, until he was kicked out after four years, for disciplinary reasons.  Never achieved any higher rank than Private.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 18, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Among all your other issues, you have a rather extreme, extravagantly-exaggerated sense of your own significance. You somehow imagine that by repeatedly reciting a few absurd lies, that no sane person will ever believe, that you can hurt me or make me angry.



Dude, you come pre-angry... the world rejects your superstitions, and you are clearly angry about it.   

But I do enjoy living in your head, rent free... you can always find lots of space in a Mormon's head, the Brainwashing scrubs out everything.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 18, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Here we go…
> 
> _In reality, Phillips served from June 1972 to May 1976 in the Marine Corps Reserve, a service spokeswoman, Yvonne Carlock, said Wednesday. He spent much of his enlistment in California, did not deploy and left the service as a private after disciplinary issues. From October 1972 to February 1973, he was classified as an antitank missileman, a kind of infantryman, Carlock said. He then became a refrigerator technician for the majority of his service._
> So he never went to war, never went to Vietnam, served as a refrigerator repairman, until he was kicked out after four years, for disciplinary reasons. Never achieved any higher rank than Private.



And.... so what?  Here's the thing.  He was drafted by a country that essentially put his people in a concentration camp, and still served.   

Meanwhile, all the fat, affluent rich kids like Cheney, Limbaugh, Bush, Quayle, Trump found ways to avoid military service. 

YOu see, I have this great plan for peace.  We have a universal draft, no exceptions...  And then we take the children of the rich and the politicians and put them in an elite airborne unit that is the first deployed to any war zone.  

Peace in our Time.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 18, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First, Phillips approached Sandmann. If you saw the video then you know this which makes you a hypocrite. Second, Sandmann had no way of knowing Phillips was a vet. You know this too.



Yes, how dare that darkie walk towards a privileged white LCB!!!  Doesn't he know his place.  

I saw the video. WHat I saw was a smirking little Catholic bastard disrespecting a vet.   



Bob Blaylock said:


> Didn't Mr. Phillips' claim to be a veteran turn out to be a lie, or at least a significant exaggeration?



Nope... he had a DD214.  That makes him a vet.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Pence wants to make it a crime to kill your own child. So what?



fetuses aren't children....  Once we start giving civil rights to spooge, we are going to have all sorts of problems. 

Essentially, a non-viable fetus will have more rights than the woman it is inside. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Get back to me when you properly blame Phillips for initiating the confrontation with Sandmann.



Philip's Group had reserved the area for their event.  The LCB's walked over from their event, (where they were bravely telling women what to do with their own bodies) and started harrassing them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But YOU don’t know and in any case, you’re biased because he did what he did with an AR-15.



Hey. let's take your logic to it's extreme.   I personally didn't witness World War II.  Therefore, it must not have happened.  I mean, just because I heard about it from other people who were there didn't mean it happened. 

We had a boatload of witnesses that saw Crazy Nancy's behavior, and worse, her teaching her kid to be what he became.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First, Phillips approached Sandmann. If you saw the video then you know this which makes you a hypocrite. Second, Sandmann had no way of knowing Phillips was a vet. You know this too.
> ...



“Darkies” have nothing to do with this.



> I saw the video. WHat I saw was a smirking little Catholic bastard disrespecting a vet.



1.) Sandmann didn’t know phillips was a vet and had no way of knowing. You know this.
2.) Being a vet doesn’t give you license to get in someone’s face unprovoked.
3.) Sandmann wasn’t smirking (smiling) until Phillips got in his face.



Bob Blaylock said:


> Didn't Mr. Phillips' claim to be a veteran turn out to be a lie, or at least a significant exaggeration?





> Nope... he had a DD214.  That makes him a vet.



Did Phillips present his DD214 to Sandmann so that Sandmann would know that Phillips had the right to beat his drum in his face?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Pence wants to make it a crime to kill your own child. So what?





> fetuses aren't children....  Once we start giving civil rights to spooge, we are going to have all sorts of problems.



Don’t we have all sorts of problems already?



> Essentially, a non-viable fetus will have more rights than the woman it is inside.



Phillips and Sandmann were both “non-viable” fetuses at one time. Then they were both born and now Phillips has the right to get in someone’s face unprovoked but Sandmann doesn’t have right to smile about it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Get back to me when you properly blame Phillips for initiating the confrontation with Sandmann.





> Philip's Group had reserved the area for their event.  The LCB's walked over from their event, (where they were bravely telling women what to do with their own bodies) and started harrassing them.



1) Some of the Covington kids (Sandmann wasn’t even with this group) wandered over to hear what the Black Israelites were ranting about and never even interacted with Phillips and his group. 
2) The Covington group that had wandered over had already returned to the main group when Phillips approached them.
3) No one has suggested Phillips and his group had no right to be there. 
4) The Covington kids were saying nothing about abortion. They went to their pro-life seminar and had come back to wait for their bus. Having seen the video, you know this too which makes you a liar.
5) The reason for the Covington kids being in D.C. is irrelevant.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe they do and maybe they don’t. But YOU don’t know and in any case, you’re biased because he did what he did with an AR-15.





> Hey. let's take your logic to it's extreme.   I personally didn't witness World War II.  Therefore, it must not have happened.  I mean, just because I heard about it from other people who were there didn't mean it happened.



You’ve heard from people that were at the Lincoln memorial and personally watched the video that clearly showed Phillips approaching and initiating the confrontation with Sandmann but you chose to ignore all of it. So no, I’m not buying your interpretation of the Lanzas’ relationship.



> We had a boatload of witnesses that saw Crazy Nancy's behavior, and worse, her teaching her kid to be what he became.



You’ve proven yourself incapable or unwilling to interpret videos accurately so I am viewing pretty much everything you have to say on the matter with a healthy dose of skepticism.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > This manufacturer deliberately marketed a product that was dangerous when used as intended. The violence implied in its marketing campaign serves to highlight this fact.
> ...






*"Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer*
November 15th, 2019






WASHINGTON, D.C.—Acme Forks & Knives was trying to block a lawsuit brought against them by the obese community. The lawsuit suggested that the company's utensils were deadly tools that caused people to become overweight.


The Supreme Court has blocked the company's attempt to block the lawsuit, paving the way for victims of heart disease and other diet-related ailments to sue Acme.

"Finally---the big forks and knives lobby will be held accountable for contributing to heart disease and obesity, the leading causes of death among American adults," said a spokesperson for the oppressed obese community. "No human action leads to these deaths. It is entirely on the sentient utensils used to carry out the mass eating events."

"Blood is on their hands!" protesters cried. "Fight the corporate fork and knife lobby!"

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in these lawsuits have presented evidence that Acme Forks & Knives have marketed their utensils to the obese, specifically encouraging them to shovel a bunch of food in their mouths. They also said it was dangerous and irresponsible for the company to market a "fully automatic assault spork" that can shove "300 rounds of chili" into your face in under 10 seconds.

"Nobody needs that kind of forkpower," said one lawyer. "We will get justice for the obvious cause of this epidemic of deaths: the guys who make the utensils."
Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 19, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Lysistrata said:
> ...




PoliticalChic....stirring it up again....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 19, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




Some will ask why you engage joe...since he is obviously hate filled, ill informed and has no wisdom...

For me, I still engage him because I find a lot of information when I go looking for ways to show what a fool he is.....he is a sad person, I feel sorry for him, and I actually do wish him the best, may he one day learn enough to know the truth.

Also....just like a boxer punches a bag filled with sand to improve his skills, that is what it is like debating joe......you improve your skills, but sadly, it remains just a bag of sand....


----------



## Wapasha (Nov 19, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


I guess they need to make rifles that jam a lot. Or maybe design triggers that can sense crazy, and refuse to operate.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 19, 2019)

2aguy said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...






We really need give credit to the Babylon Bee, pointing out the absurdity of the Supreme Court allowing the suit against a gun manufacturer.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 19, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I must confess that I enjoy the shit out of it. I love turning his own arguments back on him and every time he says “Darkies” or “Little Catholic bastards”, he just reveals his own prejudices.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> 1.) Sandmann didn’t know phillips was a vet and had no way of knowing. You know this.
> 2.) Being a vet doesn’t give you license to get in someone’s face unprovoked.
> 3.) Sandmann wasn’t smirking (smiling) until Phillips got in his face.



It was a demonstration by a Native American Veterans group and they had reserved the space.  LCB should have known. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t we have all sorts of problems already?



Not the kind we'd have if you turn America into the Live Action version of "_A Handmaid's Tale_", no.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> 4) The Covington kids were saying nothing about abortion. They went to their pro-life seminar and had come back to wait for their bus. Having seen the video, you know this too which makes you a liar.



Um, they were there to protest Roe v. Wade.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Phillips and Sandmann were both “non-viable” fetuses at one time. Then they were both born and now Phillips has the right to get in someone’s face unprovoked but Sandmann doesn’t have right to smile about it.



Sure, he has the right to smile about it... just keep in mind, he looks like a little entitled asshole when he does. That's what he's upset about, that when he sat their smirking like a little entitled asshole, he looked bad on national TV.  "Mommy, Daddy, let's call the PR guys and lawyers to make me look less like an asshole!"  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’ve heard from people that were at the Lincoln memorial and personally watched the video that clearly showed Phillips approaching and initiating the confrontation with Sandmann but you chose to ignore all of it. So no, I’m not buying your interpretation of the Lanzas’ relationship.



Uh, what I saw were a bunch of Little Entitled Catholic Bastards harassing a veteran.. That's why he walked over.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’ve proven yourself incapable or unwilling to interpret videos accurately so I am viewing pretty much everything you have to say on the matter with a healthy dose of skepticism.



Yeah... here's the thing... Crazy Nancy left her guns out in the open and her kid took them and shot her with them.. so that was the nature of their relationship.  

She raised a monster and it turned on her.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer*
> November 15th, 2019



Were they designed to get people to overeat and marketed to people with eating disorders?  




If the Utensil companies acted like the Gun Industry..  

Here's the real problem you guys have...  Most of the rest of us are sick and tired of living with your fetish....  

We're tired of metal detectors, security guards, active shooter drills, security doors and all the other crap we deal with because we never know when one of you go off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I must confess that I enjoy the shit out of it. I love turning his own arguments back on him and every time he says “Darkies” or “Little Catholic bastards”, he just reveals his own prejudices.



Really, I always consider it a victory when you guys whine about me, instead of discussing the issue...  We have you, DickTinyGuy and Mormon Bob all whining in this thread about what a meany I am because I don't accept a few assholes getting rich inflicting carnage.  

Let the gun manufacturers pay out a few big settlements, you'll be amazed how fast they take a sharpie to the Second Amendment.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer*
> ...




The over reaction by asshats like you to one of the most rare forms of gun violence is what is sickening.....you scare children to get power...you are sick....

600 million guns in private hands.....over 18.6 million people carrying guns legally in this country.....

Number of mass public shootings in 2018?  12.

Total killed....93.

Total killed on bicycles.... 345.

total killed by cars?  over 38,000.

Total killed by lawn mowers....75 every year....


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Some will ask why you engage joe...since he is obviously hate filled, ill informed and has no wisdom...
> 
> For me, I still engage him because I find a lot of information when I go looking for ways to show what a fool he is.....he is a sad person, I feel sorry for him, and I actually do wish him the best, may he one day learn enough to know the truth.
> 
> Also....just like a boxer punches a bag filled with sand to improve his skills, that is what it is like debating joe......you improve your skills, but sadly, it remains just a bag of sand....



Really, again, you spend so much time whining about me, and when cornered, you just flood the pages with NRA Talking Points and numbers that are absurd, like more people drowning than getting shot.  

It would seem to me that if you were GOOD at this, you'd provide accurate numbers to bolster your points, instead of obvious bullshit.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Some will ask why you engage joe...since he is obviously hate filled, ill informed and has no wisdom...
> ...




Lying again....

Nothing I post is from the NRA, you know that, but you say it anyway......

Actual numbers from the Centers for Disease Control show you are wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> The over reaction by asshats like you to one of the most rare forms of gun violence is what is sickening.....you scare children to get power...you are sick....
> 
> 600 million guns in private hands.....over 18.6 million people carrying guns legally in this country.....
> 
> ...



See, you just proved my fucking point.  

LAWNMOWERS?  

Children should be horrified.  

There have been 45 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS this year. Just shootings in Schools. 

School shootings list 2019 - CNN

Here's the thing.  Toro and Craftsman aren't marketing lawnmowers to crazy people.  

Someone at Remington looked at Crazy Nancy Lanza and said, "Yup, that lady totally needs enough guns to fight off the Zombies."


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Lying again....
> 
> Nothing I post is from the NRA, you know that, but you say it anyway......
> 
> Actual numbers from the Centers for Disease Control show you are wrong, and you don't know what you are talking about.



Look, guy, you can flood the page with NRA Spooge all day, but most sensible people look at the carnage in this country and say "enough".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Supreme Court Allows Victims Of Heart Disease, Obesity To Sue Utensil Manufacturer*
> ...






There are only three possible reasons to sue a manufacturer.....

design flaw, but guns work as designed...


production flaw, ....put together wrong, or broken....also not the case


or marketing flaw...a claim that it does something that it doesn't do.


None apply.....one more black mark against the vaunted agency called the Supreme Court.



As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.


There is no valid lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing.  Toro and Craftsman aren't marketing lawnmowers to crazy people.
> 
> Someone at Remington looked at Crazy Nancy Lanza and said, "Yup, that lady totally needs enough guns to fight off the Zombies."




Remington and other gunsmiths aren't marketing to crazy people either.  There are no ads  for firearms in Psychology Today, Remington has never sponsored Homosexual Rights fairs,  and even on things like Facebook and Google.   If you start shopping for Haldol and straight jackets, gun ads will NOT start popping up.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > 1.) Sandmann didn’t know phillips was a vet and had no way of knowing. You know this.
> ...



There’s no reason to think Sandmann’s group should have known this. They were waiting for their bus and they were not demonstrating and had not petitioned to demonstrate. So they would have had no idea who these people were. They likely did not even know who the group of ranting black guys were.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t we have all sorts of problems already?





> Not the kind we'd have if you turn America into the Live Action version of "_A Handmaid's Tale_", no.



No, you just want a society built on eugenics and where unwanted children are discarded.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> 4) The Covington kids were saying nothing about abortion. They went to their pro-life seminar and had come back to wait for their bus. Having seen the video, you know this too which makes you a liar.





> Um, they were there to protest Roe v. Wade.



Um, no, not at the Lincoln Memorial they were not. The March For Life rally took place on the National Mall at least a full mile from the Lincoln Memorial. The boys were at the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus AFTER the march.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Phillips and Sandmann were both “non-viable” fetuses at one time. Then they were both born and now Phillips has the right to get in someone’s face unprovoked but Sandmann doesn’t have right to smile about it.





> Sure, he has the right to smile about it... just keep in mind, he looks like a little entitled asshole when he does. That's what he's upset about, that when he sat their smirking like a little entitled asshole, he looked bad on national TV.  "Mommy, Daddy, let's call the PR guys and lawyers to make me look less like an asshole!"



You already had a deep hatred for “Little Catholic bastards” so your objectivity was compromised from the start.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’ve heard from people that were at the Lincoln memorial and personally watched the video that clearly showed Phillips approaching and initiating the confrontation with Sandmann but you chose to ignore all of it. So no, I’m not buying your interpretation of the Lanzas’ relationship.





> Uh, what I saw were a bunch of Little Entitled Catholic Bastards harassing a veteran.. That's why he walked over.



Uh, no, you did not and that is not the reason he walked over. 

Phillips himself said that the reason he walked over was to de-escalate what he saw as a brewing confrontation between them and the Black Israelites. He later contradicted himself and said he was trying to get up the memorial steps, which is clear from the video that he had plenty of space to do so. So even though most of what he said was horseshit, at no time did he ever say or even imply that the Covington kids approached or harassed him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’ve proven yourself incapable or unwilling to interpret videos accurately so I am viewing pretty much everything you have to say on the matter with a healthy dose of skepticism.





> Yeah... here's the thing... Crazy Nancy left her guns out in the open and her kid took them and shot her with them.. so that was the nature of their relationship.
> 
> She raised a monster and it turned on her.



The boy had mental problems and there is no indication that Nancy was crazy. 

I did some looking around and read about six or seven articles on the incident and nowhere did I see any neighbor testimony that Nancy Lanza was a nutcase.

You’re going to have to provide links to back this up, otherwise I’m chalking it up to your bias and hatred against gun owners.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I must confess that I enjoy the shit out of it. I love turning his own arguments back on him and every time he says “Darkies” or “Little Catholic bastards”, he just reveals his own prejudices.
> ...



You’ve done nothing but whine about rich people, Catholics and gun owners since you got here. And talking about not discussing the issue, you’re the one who brought up the totally unrelated topics of unions, rich people, Catholics and Nick Sandmann.

And how did you know I have a tiny dick?



> Let the gun manufacturers pay out a few big settlements, you'll be amazed how fast they take a sharpie to the Second Amendment.



Think about this: Why would gun manufacturers want to change the one thing that guarantees them sales?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The over reaction by asshats like you to one of the most rare forms of gun violence is what is sickening.....you scare children to get power...you are sick....
> ...




There have not been 45 school shootings you lying sack of crap.  Total number of mass public shootings to date....2019.... 8......none of them have been schools.

US mass shootings, 1982-2019: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Total 2018.....12... two school shootings.

You lying asshats on the anti-gun side show with every post that you can't be trusted with our Rights.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Lying again....
> ...




You focus on the guns, not the democrats who let known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of prison over and over again....these are the actual gun killers racking up 10,265 deaths a year....after they have already been captured for previous felonies and gun offenses...then your asshats let them out on bond and out of prison with insanely light prison sentences.....that is our problem......not mass public shootings.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> 
> 
> There is no valid lawsuit against the gun manufacturers.



26 Families in Sandy Hook would disagree.   

Slap those autopsy and crime scene photos down in front of a jury, let's see how it plays. 



2aguy said:


> You focus on the guns, not the democrats who let known, repeat, violent gun offenders out of prison over and over again....these are the actual gun killers racking up 10,265 deaths a year....after they have already been captured for previous felonies and gun offenses...then your asshats let them out on bond and out of prison with insanely light prison sentences.....that is our problem......not mass public shootings.



Again, we already lock up 2 million people.... locking people up isn't a deterrent.. 

Funny thing.  Japan only locks up 69,000 people out of a population of 120 million.  Beccause they can't get guns, they don't have to worry about these things.  

Oh, wait. Someone threw a grenade 10 years ago... you go with that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’ve done nothing but whine about rich people, Catholics and gun owners since you got here. And talking about not discussing the issue, you’re the one who brought up the totally unrelated topics of unions, rich people, Catholics and Nick Sandmann.
> 
> And how did you know I have a tiny dick?



All gun nuts have tiny dicks.. 

It's all kind of related, guy...  if the Rich actually ran on their actual agenda, which is to cheat you out of the little money you make for doing the hard work, even the dumbest MAGA Nazi wouldn't vote for that.  

But you go on about guns, god, abortion, gays and all the other bullshit that has nothing to do with their economic well-being, and MAN, do you guys go on and on.  

"Hey, they just moved my job to China!" 

"Never mind that, there's some dude in a dress!!!!"  

40 years, you dumbasses have been falling for this...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> There’s no reason to think Sandmann’s group should have known this. They were waiting for their bus and they were not demonstrating and had not petitioned to demonstrate. So they would have had no idea who these people were. They likely did not even know who the group of ranting black guys were.



Hey, funny thing... If I don't know who people are or why they are there, I don't engage them...  Not these LCB's... they started getting into taunting arguments.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no, not at the Lincoln Memorial they were not. The March For Life rally took place on the National Mall at least a full mile from the Lincoln Memorial. The boys were at the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus AFTER the march.



Oh, they took some time off from being Misogynistic Assholes... that makes it okay, then.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The boy had mental problems and there is no indication that Nancy was crazy.
> 
> I did some looking around and read about six or seven articles on the incident and nowhere did I see any neighbor testimony that Nancy Lanza was a nutcase.



Then you aren't reading the right articles... 

Adam Lanza’s Mother Was a Gun Enthusiast, Friends Say

Ms. Lanza’s fascination with guns became an important focus of attention on Saturday as investigators tried to determine what caused Mr. Lanza to carry out one of the worst massacres in the nation’s history.

Ms. Lanza, 52, had gone through a divorce in 2008 and was described by friends as social and generous to strangers, but also high-strung, as if she were holding herself together.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> ...



Slap those autopsy and crime scene photos down in front of a jury, let's see how it plays.

Yes....let's allow emotion to over ride truth and justice....since Remington didn't shoot anyone and do anything wrong...but sure let's take their money simply because you can manipulate families.....typical left wing asshat.

Again, we already lock up 2 million people.... locking people up isn't a deterrent.. 

Moron, it isn't the locking up that is the issue, it is democrats letting them back out that is the issue....the revolving door policy they have that let's known, repeat gun offenders back on the streets, those are the ones doing all of the gun crime and murder in this country.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You’ve done nothing but whine about rich people, Catholics and gun owners since you got here. And talking about not discussing the issue, you’re the one who brought up the totally unrelated topics of unions, rich people, Catholics and Nick Sandmann.
> ...



All gun nuts have tiny dicks.. 


And here we have the problem......that statement is called Projection....

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

*Psychological projection* is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1]


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Yes....let's allow emotion to over ride truth and justice....since Remington didn't shoot anyone and do anything wrong...but sure let's take their money simply because you can manipulate families.....typical left wing asshat.



Uh, they did do something wrong. They marketed a very dangerous product to a mentally unstable woman.  Tragedy ensued. 

Let's see their internal marketing documents...  kind of like they did when they sued the tobacco industry, and they figured out that when they used cartoon characters to sell cigarettes, they really were marketing to kids.  



2aguy said:


> Moron, it isn't the locking up that is the issue, it is democrats letting them back out that is the issue....the revolving door policy they have that let's known, repeat gun offenders back on the streets, those are the ones doing all of the gun crime and murder in this country.



Actually, most gun deaths are domestic violence... not "crime".


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes....let's allow emotion to over ride truth and justice....since Remington didn't shoot anyone and do anything wrong...but sure let's take their money simply because you can manipulate families.....typical left wing asshat.
> ...



most gun deaths are domestic violence... not "crime"


Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other.   The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes....let's allow emotion to over ride truth and justice....since Remington didn't shoot anyone and do anything wrong...but sure let's take their money simply because you can manipulate families.....typical left wing asshat.
> ...



Hey....dumb ass...where exactly did the shooter see Remington advertising?  Did he even see any advertising for any guns?  You moron........I follow guns and I have never seen any Remington advertising, you dumb ass...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other. The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.



Well, let's start with the obvious, that 2/3rd of gun deaths are suicides... .  

but for the one third that remain. 







32% of murder victims are family, and 51% are known to their murderers.  Only 5% are some stranger shooting you. 

The problem is, some person who uses a gun for sport is going to have a bad day and shoot his spouse over an argument. 

Oh, here's a great local story.. 

Man Who Killed Wife Over Coffee Pot Fight Gets 16 Years

BARRINGTON, IL — A 69-year-old Barrington man who fatally shot his wife after a "stupid argument" over a coffee pot being left on has been sentenced to 16 years in prison. Larry Lotz was convicted in August of second-degree murder in connection with the Jan. 14, 2016, shooting of his wife, Karen Lotz.

Lake County prosecutors said Lotz shot his wife after the two got into a fight. The fight, prosecutors said, was sparked after Karen Lotz began nagging her husband for leaving the coffee maker on. In a recorded interrogation, Lotz told Barrington police officers that he tried to hide from his wife in his office above the garage, but she followed him there and unlocked the door.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Hey....dumb ass...where exactly did the shooter see Remington advertising? Did he even see any advertising for any guns? You moron........I follow guns and I have never seen any Remington advertising, you dumb ass...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other. The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.
> ...




Moron....the "Known" category includes rival gang members who shoot gang members from other gangs....you doofus......

And that story....doesn't say anything about the people involved or their history, you doofus......

In domestic murder drugs, alcohol and previous criminal activity are the problem, not the gun, you moron.

The Criminology of Firearms


In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

*Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.*

*While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies. Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."*




-------------------------

Zimring has nevertheless remained a firm advocate of gun bans. But actual research has produced an unbroken record of recantations by criminologists who once agreed with Zimring. In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. 

*The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available.* *There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)*


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... *The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)*


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....dumb ass...where exactly did the shooter see Remington advertising? Did he even see any advertising for any guns? You moron........I follow guns and I have never seen any Remington advertising, you dumb ass...
> ...




Hmmmm...where does it say, "Take this gun and murder people..." you stupid asshat.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other. The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.
> ...




Moron...

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6) 

*That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.*


(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)


 Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

*Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low*.(11,19)



 Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other. The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.
> ...




Moron...

Most murder victims in big cities have criminal record - WND

A review of murder statistics across America shows that in many large cities, up to 90 percent of the _victims_ have criminal records.
-------
The report concludes that “of the 2011 homicide victims, 77 percent (66) had a least one prior arrest and of the known 2011 homicide suspects 90 percent (74) had at least one prior arrest.”
----------


In early 2012, after pressure put on the police by murder victims’ families in New Orleans, the police department stopped revealing whether or not the murder victim had a prior record.

---------------

Though data is no longer published in Baltimore, USA Today reported in 2007 that 91 percent of the then-205 murder victims in the city between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2007, had criminal records.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, asshat.....first, link to that statistic, and second, those who kill their spouse are majority criminals as a career or lifestyle, normal people do not kill each other. The problem that we have isn't normal people who own guns for self defense, hunting and sport, but democrats who continue to let repeat gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again who then go out and commit gun crimes and murder...that is our problem, and when you asshats focus on law abiding people, you allow the democrats to keep letting the real gun criminals out of jail and prison.
> ...




Moron.....you have no idea what you are talking about...

Public Health Pot Shots

this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...




These and other studies funded by the CDC focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Indeed, the CDC's Rosenberg claims in the journal_Educational Horizons_ that murderers are "ourselves--ordinary citizens, professionals, even health care workers": people who kill only because a gun happens to be available. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homicide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants whose life histories include drug abuse, serious accidents, felonies, and irrational violence. 



*Unlike "ourselves," roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have significant criminal records, averaging an adult criminal career of six or more years with four major felonies.*

Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In _Murder in America_ (1994), the criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children, siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

*Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership, the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique.*



 According to a 1993 article in the _Journal of Trauma_, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or criminal history."

 A 1994 article in _The New England Journal of Medicine_reported that 71 percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.



-------As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon. Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "ince the early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the numbers of homicides."


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> ...



Japanese crime stats have more to do with Japanese culture. Are you saying you wish to adapt the American Culture to more closely resemble the Japanese Gaijin?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron....the "Known" category includes rival gang members who shoot gang members from other gangs....you doofus......
> 
> And that story....doesn't say anything about the people involved or their history, you doofus......



Actually, they sounded like an old retired couple... and they live in Barrington.  Even I'm barely white enough to live in Barrington. 



2aguy said:


> In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.



You can always tell when DickTiny is stuck, it's when he starts spooging the thread with NRA Propaganda. 

Let's actually TRY gun restrictions before we say how they work. 

Because every other industrialized country did that and they work, just fine.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron.....you have no idea what you are talking about...
> 
> Public Health Pot Shots
> 
> this article goes at kellerman extensively and his crap research.....and here is some work on who actually kills people...



I didn't even bring up Kellerman and how you are 43 times more likely to be killed by a gun in your home than to kill a bad guy with that gun.  

But it still is there.  A gun in the home is more dangerous than you than the bad guys...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> Japanese crime stats have more to do with Japanese culture. Are you saying you wish to adapt the American Culture to more closely resemble the Japanese Gaijin?



I'd love us to be more like Japan..






But anyway... um, no, the thing is, Japan has the good sense to not let average citizens have guns.. because they don't need them. 

So while we have 14,500 gun homicides a year, they have... four.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Japanese crime stats have more to do with Japanese culture. Are you saying you wish to adapt the American Culture to more closely resemble the Japanese Gaijin?
> ...



it is not the absence of guns that has led to the low crime rate. It is the cultural norm. Obedience. Subservience. Arriving at work two hours early and staying late off the clock is the norm. Shame is real. And used. To insure that people comply with the norms. 

Use your Mobile Phone on a train. Many people will come forward to tell you to stop as one example. 

The attitude towards those who commit a crime is not the same either. It is not that Johnny made a mistake. Johnny did not fall in with a bad crowd. Johnny shamed the entire family. The entire family deals with Johnny being bad. 

And tolerance for Homosexuality is not what the official line will say. https://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00253/sexual-minorities-in-japan-the-myth-of-tolerance.html

It is not the absence of guns that leads to the low level of incarceration. It is the cultural standards. You can not simply pick out one thing and announce this is the key. It is a much bigger picture. The long history of restricting weapons from the peasants goes back to the Shogunate. When a peasant even touching a weapon was the cause for immediate death. 

You can not just pick one thing. You want to be like Japan you need to take it all. Because like any item which requires assembly, you need all the parts to make it work. Not just a few.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 21, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> it is not the absence of guns that has led to the low crime rate. It is the cultural norm. Obedience. Subservience. Arriving at work two hours early and staying late off the clock is the norm. Shame is real. And used. To insure that people comply with the norms.
> 
> Use your Mobile Phone on a train. Many people will come forward to tell you to stop as one example.
> 
> The attitude towards those who commit a crime is not the same either. It is not that Johnny made a mistake. Johnny did not fall in with a bad crowd. Johnny shamed the entire family. The entire family deals with Johnny being bad.



Yeah, I'm going with lack of guns...  Frankly, with that kind of societal pressure, they'd probably have a lot of people going full Lanza if they had lots of guns....


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > it is not the absence of guns that has led to the low crime rate. It is the cultural norm. Obedience. Subservience. Arriving at work two hours early and staying late off the clock is the norm. Shame is real. And used. To insure that people comply with the norms.
> ...



Lanza was an oddity. Most of our nuts are tired of being invisible or picked on. In Japan acting out like that would likely lose your family their jobs and be shunned. You would speak to the grocer and he would stare straight ahead as if not hearing you. Or would talk to the person next to you about how awful your family was.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You’ve done nothing but whine about rich people, Catholics and gun owners since you got here. And talking about not discussing the issue, you’re the one who brought up the totally unrelated topics of unions, rich people, Catholics and Nick Sandmann.
> ...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> All gun nuts have tiny dicks.



  Even if that were true, you wouldn't know it anyway.

  But in any event, your creepy obsession with other men's genitalia, and your pathetic projection of your own perceived sexual inadequacies on others, really isn't relevant to this discussion, other than as proof of the truth of a statement of unknown provenance, commonly misattributed to Freud, about a fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual development.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said before about the mutterings of this _august_ body, the judicial decisions of the Supreme Court should be treated the same way Red and Green lights are treated in Rome....as merely a suggestion.
> ...




"26 Families in Sandy Hook would disagree."


Here's the difference: I'm never wrong.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > There’s no reason to think Sandmann’s group should have known this. They were waiting for their bus and they were not demonstrating and had not petitioned to demonstrate. So they would have had no idea who these people were. They likely did not even know who the group of ranting black guys were.
> ...



1) Any taunting done by Covington kids was with the Black Israelites, not Phillips and his group.
2) Sandmann was not with the group interacting with the Black Israelites.
3) Neither Sandmann or any of the Covington kids engaged Phillips; Phillips engaged them. The video proves this which means you know this.
4) Phillips didn’t know who they were any more than they knew he was or what group he was with. All he knew was that some were wearing MAGA hats. So by your own criteria, Phillips should not have engaged them. Thank you for finally acknowledging this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no, not at the Lincoln Memorial they were not. The March For Life rally took place on the National Mall at least a full mile from the Lincoln Memorial. The boys were at the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus AFTER the march.





> Oh, they took some time off from being Misogynistic Assholes... that makes it okay, then.



1) Makes what okay?
2) It is irrelevant anyway. The fact remains that you were wrong; they were not protesting. This being the case, they did not and could not know who Phillips was.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The boy had mental problems and there is no indication that Nancy was crazy.
> 
> I did some looking around and read about six or seven articles on the incident and nowhere did I see any neighbor testimony that Nancy Lanza was a nutcase.





> Then you aren't reading the right articles...
> 
> Adam Lanza’s Mother Was a Gun Enthusiast, Friends Say
> 
> ...



From the same article:

_“She...had struggled to help him (Adam) cope with a developmental disorder that often left him reserved and withdrawn, according to relatives, friends and former classmates.”

“His mother (Nancy Lanza) was always nice to me; she was a kind, typical suburban mom as far as I remember.”

“She was really kind and warm,” Mr. Leff said, “but she always seemed a little bit high-strung.”

“He declined to elaborate, but in a post on his personal Web site, he said he felt a distance from her that was explained when he heard, after the shootings, *“how difficult her troubled son, was making things for her”
*_
By no means does this article suggest that neighbors saw Ms. Lanza as crazy, nuts or mentally or emotionally unstable. On the contrary, overall neighbor testimony paints a picture of a devoted but stressed mother struggling to care for an autistic child with learning and developmental disorders that she had had to deal with for twenty years, the last four by herself and with little help from the boy’s father.

You’re going to have to do better than this. Get back with me after you’ve spent some time raising an autistic child.

Any parent will tell you that raising children is the greatest challenge in life. Any parent of an autistic child will tell you that the usual child-raising challenges are magnified tenfold with an autistic child, with about a hundred other challenges thrown in.

You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about here and your biases, prejudices, misconstructions and misconceptions make you the last person in the world qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.....you have no idea what you are talking about...
> ...




Moron, you have been shown that kellerman was lying, over and over again.


----------



## martybegan (Nov 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



He holds onto Kellerman like a baby clutches their pacifier.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Japan has a police state, and a culture that punishes law breaking and norm breaking...

https://www.asiatimes.com/2017/12/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

-----

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”



--A police officer in Osaka’s Organized Crime Control Division, speaking on background noted, “In the de facto world of law enforcement, when a yakuza fires a gun, we’re almost always going to charge them with attempted murder—which is a very heavy crime and serious time in ‘the pig-house’ (jail). Guns kill people, so if you use one, intent to kill is right there. Toy guns? Not so much.”

He added, “Unless you’re an old gangster and wanting to stay in jail until you die because you got nowhere else to go, you don’t use a gun. The crime isn’t worth the time in jail.”

-------


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > it is not the absence of guns that has led to the low crime rate. It is the cultural norm. Obedience. Subservience. Arriving at work two hours early and staying late off the clock is the norm. Shame is real. And used. To insure that people comply with the norms.
> ...




Wrong, long prison sentences and a conformist culture....

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

*J**apan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.*



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%. 
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2019)

martybegan said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




And he does so after being shown that kellerman changed that number because his methods were exposed as dumb....and even then he still used flawed methods........and that idiot clings to him because it is all he has...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

SavannahMann said:


> Lanza was an oddity. Most of our nuts are tired of being invisible or picked on. In Japan acting out like that would likely lose your family their jobs and be shunned. You would speak to the grocer and he would stare straight ahead as if not hearing you. Or would talk to the person next to you about how awful your family was.



yeah, I'm sure you read that somewhere... 

Reality- Japan doesn't have these problems because they can't get guns... this isn't fucking complicated. 



2aguy said:


> Wrong, long prison sentences and a conformist culture....



Japan only locks up 69,000 people.  We lock up 2 million.  If Prisons were the answer, we'd have the lowest crime rates in the Industrialized world, not the highest.  



2aguy said:


> Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics?



Yes.  Yes, we do.  No Guns. No crime.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Japan has a police state, and a culture that punishes law breaking and norm breaking...



Really?  

They lock up 69,000 People.  Their cops not only don't shoot supsects, even taking their guns out of their holsters is a rarity.  

We lock up 2 million people and our cops shoot 1200 people a year.  And unless they get caught on tape shooting someone in the back or while he's lying on the ground, they usually get away with it.  

I'd take their "Police State" over ours any day.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> And he does so after being shown that kellerman changed that number because his methods were exposed as dumb....and even then he still used flawed methods........and that idiot clings to him because it is all he has...



Kellerman got it right...it's why you guys banned the CDC from doing any more gun studies...  Not because he got it wrong, but because any other studies would have found the same result.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> By no means does this article suggest that neighbors saw Ms. Lanza as crazy, nuts or mentally or emotionally unstable. On the contrary, overall neighbor testimony paints a picture of a devoted but stressed mother struggling to care for an autistic child with learning and developmental disorders that she had had to deal with for twenty years, the last four by herself and with little help from the boy’s father.



Okay, buddy, I realize that you think weird obession with guns is normal... but to most people, stocking up on guns like the Zombies are coming is crazy. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Any parent will tell you that raising children is the greatest challenge in life. Any parent of an autistic child will tell you that the usual child-raising challenges are magnified tenfold with an autistic child, with about a hundred other challenges thrown in.



Any parent would tell you, you don't leave A FUCKING MACHINE GUN lying around the house when you have a kid that disturbed... except Crazy Nancy, she thought that was fine.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Lanza was an oddity. Most of our nuts are tired of being invisible or picked on. In Japan acting out like that would likely lose your family their jobs and be shunned. You would speak to the grocer and he would stare straight ahead as if not hearing you. Or would talk to the person next to you about how awful your family was.
> ...




Their criminals can get guns.......moron.

The Great Japanese Gang Wars



The season for pineapples (yakuza slang for hand grenades) may finally be over. Jake Adelstein and Nathalie-Kyoko Stucky on the bloody, seven-year battle between the Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai.



In Southern Japan, the brutal pineapple season may finally be over; pineapple is yakuza slang for “hand grenade”—one of the many weapons utilized in a seven-year gang war between the Dojin-kai (1,000 members) and the splinter group the Kyushu Seido-kei (500 members).

----
---
The Gangs That Couldn’t Shoot Straight
The Dojin-kai and the Seido-kai are Kyushu-based yakuza gangs, once part of the same faction founded in 1971 in Kurume, Fukuoka Prefecture, by Isoji Koga. When the second generation Dojin-kai boss Seijiro Matsuo retired in May 2006, there was a fight over succession, and the group split into two factions, sparking a bloody gang war—where escalation seemed a matter of course. 

*It started with shootings and bombs being thrown, and before it ended, the two gangs were lobbing grenades and Molotov cocktails, shooting machine guns, and sometimes attacking their own men.*
*-----*
In May, a 9-year-old child found a hand grenade in a rice field in Iizuka, Fukuoka Prefecture, and took it home, to the astonishment of his father, who handed it over to the local police. According to the police, there were no yakuza headquarters where the grenade was found.

The numbers of grenades used and seized in the war became so problematic that by April 2012, the Fukuoka Prefecture Police became the first in Japan to offer cash rewards to anyone who reported finding a hand grenade.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And he does so after being shown that kellerman changed that number because his methods were exposed as dumb....and even then he still used flawed methods........and that idiot clings to him because it is all he has...
> ...




Kellerman changed his number and did the research over, you doofus.  You were shown this over and over again...........the CDC was never banned from doing research, you have been shown this over and over again......

You keep lying because the facts, truth and reality are not on your side.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > By no means does this article suggest that neighbors saw Ms. Lanza as crazy, nuts or mentally or emotionally unstable. On the contrary, overall neighbor testimony paints a picture of a devoted but stressed mother struggling to care for an autistic child with learning and developmental disorders that she had had to deal with for twenty years, the last four by herself and with little help from the boy’s father.
> ...




She didn't, they were locked up, he killed her to get access to the rifles and shotguns.   And none of them were machine guys you lying asshat.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > By no means does this article suggest that neighbors saw Ms. Lanza as crazy, nuts or mentally or emotionally unstable. On the contrary, overall neighbor testimony paints a picture of a devoted but stressed mother struggling to care for an autistic child with learning and developmental disorders that she had had to deal with for twenty years, the last four by herself and with little help from the boy’s father.
> ...



You don’t know that she was “stocking up“ for anything and the neighbors never alluded to this. All they said was that she was a gun enthusiast.

There are lots of gun enthusiasts out there and her neighbors specifically mentioned in the article that YOU linked that there were many gun enthusiasts in that area.
Your typical gun enthusiast is merely interested in things like ballistics, range, accuracy and they do nothing more than shoot them for sport. Which is precisely what Nancy Lanza did with hers.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Any parent will tell you that raising children is the greatest challenge in life. Any parent of an autistic child will tell you that the usual child-raising challenges are magnified tenfold with an autistic child, with about a hundred other challenges thrown in.





> Any parent would tell you, you don't leave A FUCKING MACHINE GUN lying around the house when you have a kid that disturbed... except Crazy Nancy, she thought that was fine.



Irrelevant. The fact remains that the neighbors did not say or imply in any way that she was crazy and your own article proved that. She was clearly stressed at having to deal with her autistic son and nothing more. Your hatred of gun owners is such that you couldn’t even bring yourself to allow for that possibility, even knowing the boy was autistic.

At most we can fault Nancy Lanza for poor judgment. But nothing about this case indicates that she herself was crazy or unbalanced.

You’ve made some rather Olympian leaps in assumptions to arrive at your conclusions and opinions and as a result, you’ve been wrong about pretty much everything you’ve said in this discussion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Their criminals can get guns.......moron.



I'm sure they can. So fucking what. 

I'm not worried about "the criminals".  The criminals are mostly rational.  They only kill each other if they kill at all, and they know killing will bring undue attention on them.  

I worry about the disaffected nut who shoots up a theater or a mall or a school.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don’t know that she was “stocking up“ for anything and the neighbors never alluded to this. All they said was that she was a gun enthusiast.



Gun Enthusiast = nut. 

This thread kind of proves that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The fact remains that the neighbors did not say or imply in any way that she was crazy and your own article proved that. She was clearly stressed at having to deal with her autistic son and nothing more. Your hatred of gun owners is such that you couldn’t even bring yourself to allow for that possibility, even knowing the boy was autistic.



Sorry, I realize that she was the Gun-Nut Pinup Girl of 2012, but the bitch really was nuts.  

Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns, food as part of 'prepper' movement, says sister-in-law

Nancy Lanza's sister-in-law, Marsha, said the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a gun-hoarding survivalist who had been stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.

Nancy Lanza was a "prepper"

Connecticut school shooting: Preparing for the end of the world


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> She didn't, they were locked up, he killed her to get access to the rifles and shotguns. And none of them were machine guys you lying asshat.



Actually, they were out in the open... Sorry, locked up with a key anyone can take... isn't locked up. 

He shot her when she was in bed. That means he had THE GUN BEFORE HE KILLED HER.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Kellerman changed his number



No, he didn't...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You don’t know that she was “stocking up“ for anything and the neighbors never alluded to this. All they said was that she was a gun enthusiast.
> ...



Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?

In any case, that is no more than your opinion.



> This thread kind of proves that.



I don’t see how.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The fact remains that the neighbors did not say or imply in any way that she was crazy and your own article proved that. She was clearly stressed at having to deal with her autistic son and nothing more. Your hatred of gun owners is such that you couldn’t even bring yourself to allow for that possibility, even knowing the boy was autistic.





> Sorry, I realize that she was the Gun-Nut Pinup Girl of 2012, but the bitch really was nuts.
> 
> Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns, food as part of 'prepper' movement, says sister-in-law
> 
> ...



I can’t find the video or article that directly quotes Marsha Lanza as having said this. What reporter, TV station, newspaper or website did she say this to?

Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.

Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.

The video factually proves that Phillips initiated the confrontation and that neither Sandmann nor any of the other Covington kids interacted with him at all before this. Yet you claim they harassed him.

The video also provides no basis whatsoever to assume that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet or that he should have known.Yet you assume this anyway.

The video factually proves that the Black Israelites were the ones haranguing people, including the Covington kids, all afternoon with racial taunts and insults. Yet you say nothing of this.

Your interpretations and conclusions about the events in D.C. in 2018 are not supported by facts and thus are simply not rational.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?
> 
> In any case, that is no more than your opinion.



When you stock up guns and food because you think the world is about to end, that makes you a nut. Sorry. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.



No, you see, two people seeing the same video and having two different opinions on it, really doens't mean that much.  

Someone who stocks up on food and ammo like the Zombies are coming, and gets killed by her strung out kid she left alone for days at a time... that's nuts. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.



Because he was a little smirking punk who disrespected a vet...  

Little punk needs a good slapping...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Their criminals can get guns.......moron.
> ...




Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....

2018, mass public shootings ....12.... 12 deranged people out of over 320 million.  Total killed....93.

Criminals murdered 10,265 in 2018.   Criminals do kill mostly other criminals you doofus....but your desire to ban guns over 93 deaths vs. the criminals who kill 10,265 but are continuosly released by democrat judges, politicians and prosecutors shows how irrational you are......you don't care about actual gun murder, you just hate normal gun owners....you are insane.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Kellerman changed his number
> ...




Yes...he did.......you have been shown this over and over again...you moron...

First...

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership. 

Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, *as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon. *

Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed.



The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," _New England Journal of Medicine_, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

*Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.*
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," _Time_, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Kellerman changed his number
> ...




The first link is to the research he did after he was called out on his bad research techniques......the new number was 2.7

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3] 

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold. 

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.*


*-----*


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. 

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8*

*In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 *

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. 

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. 

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. 

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.*

*For example, *

*53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, *

*31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and *

*17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. *
*Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....



Nope, most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.  

We've been over this. 



2aguy said:


> The first link is to the research he did after he was called out on his bad research techniques......the new number was 2.7



He researched a completely different subject...  overall gun violence, not just gun ownership.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Those criminals with guns do all of the actual killing you moron....
> ...




Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron.   Lying isn't going to help your case....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Why didn’t you just say that from the beginning? Why all the nonsense about neighbor testimony when the neighbors never said anything remotely like this?
> ...


When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if she was a prepper, this is still no indication that she was “nuts”. Besides, if being a prepper makes one irrational, it is no more irrational than interpreting a video to the point that every one of your conclusions runs completely counter to what the video actually reveals.





> No, you see, two people seeing the same video and having two different opinions on it, really doens't mean that much.


It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?


> Someone who stocks up on food and ammo like the Zombies are coming, and gets killed by her strung out kid she left alone for days at a time... that's nuts.


No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your biases and prejudices against conservatives and Catholics aside, I am at a complete loss as to how you see Sandmann as the villain in that case.





> Because he was a little smirking punk who disrespected a vet...


You have yet to show how Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet.


> Little punk needs a good slapping...


I know of another little punk that could use some education on critical thinking...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....



Where did he specifically say, "I got it totally wrong the first time!"


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....
> ...




When he did a new paper and changed the number from 43 to 2.7 you nimrod....right there in the post.....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron...... I just gave you his corrected paper at the first link you moron. Lying isn't going to help your case....
> ...



And yes......most gun deaths are suicides....a mental health issue.  Suicide doesn't count since Japan, China and South Korea have extreme gun control and higher suicide rates...as do Canada and many countries in Europe...



http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

*Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.*


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

*Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.*


*-----*


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming* "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8*

*In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5*

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

*He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.*

*For example,*

*53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,*

*31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and*

*17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.*
*Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.*

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

*Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.*

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

*It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.*

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

*Any vote for any democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendme*


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.



Oh, did I hurt your widdle feelings?

More importantly, do you really think you are being clever... because you aren't. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
> Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?



Hey, here's how I know my interpretation is correct.   The little fucking entitled bastard is suing everyone and his brother for making him look bad.   You know, instead of manning up, admitting he was wrong, and apologizing to anyone who was offended by his behavior.  

Oh, yeah, and the archdiocese apologized for their conduct before the wingnuts started pressuring them, anyway.  

Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life




2aguy said:


> When he did a new paper and changed the number from 43 to 2.7 you nimrod....right there in the post.....



Here's my standard... Video of Kellerman saying, "I was totally wrong. Guns are wonderful.  2AGuy has a huge dick, don't let anyone tell you differently."   

When you come back with that... let me know.  Not two pages of spooge of other people interpreting his results with whataboutisms.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
> Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?



It was in one of the articles I posted, I'm not doing anymore research for you. 

I'm sorry, I missed the economic collapse where people were having to defend their houses from people roaming around looking for food...  I mean, 2008 kind of sucked... but we still had no problem with food distribution.  

Bitch was fucking nuts...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.
> ...



Wow....did you ever find a sex therapist to help you with your "Dick" fixation?...cause, really, you need help....fast.

I gave you his follow up study...and the change......you got caught, you are unable to cope....so you go to your "Dick" fixation....where you seem to find comfort for some reason...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > When you stock up on prejudicial slurs like “darkies”, “Little Catholic bastards” and “gun nuts” and think this makes your case and puts you on the moral high ground, that makes you a nut. Sorry.
> ...



Not me. I’m having too much fun anyway. 

Were you hoping you had?



> More importantly, do you really think you are being clever... because you aren't.



That you’re asking the question tells me that maybe you think it is.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does if one’s conclusions are entirely baseless and incorrect.
> Let me ask you a question: Knowing what we know about the Covington kids not being there at the Lincoln Memorial to protest and that neither Sandmann or any of the other kids had interacted with Phillips before the confrontation, on what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?





> Hey, here's how I know my interpretation is correct.   The little fucking entitled bastard is suing everyone and his brother for making him look bad.   You know, instead of manning up, admitting he was wrong, and apologizing to anyone who was offended by his behavior.



I understand that it is disconcerting to you when Little Catholic Bastards defend themselves against unjustified vilification but that doesn’t answer the question: On what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?



> Oh, yeah, and the archdiocese apologized for their conduct before the wingnuts started pressuring them, anyway.
> 
> Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life



The archdiocese apologized and condemned their actions the day after the first, shorter video came out and at that time, no one, including the archdiocese, knew what really happened.

Roger Foys, the bishop of the Covington archdiocese and the one who wrote the condemnation said later he felt “bullied and pressured to issue a statement prematurely”.

When the longer video came out they removed their initial statement from the website and issued a new statement saying they would investigate the matter.

The archdiocese then commissioned an investigative firm out of Cincinnati to look into the matter and after spending a total of 240 hours reviewing the video and speaking to witnesses, the firm’s report completely exonerated sandmann and the Covington boys.

Diocese probe finds no evidence of ‘racist or offensive statements’ by Covington Catholic students during Mall incident

Oh, and the article you linked also erroneously claimed that Phillips served in Vietnam, which we all now know to be untrue. If you’re going to cite bullshit articles, at least find one where the bullshit is a little more subtle and harder to spot.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one but you has used the word “zombies”. Her sister in law mentioned that Lanza spoke of a possible economic collapse. You know, the sort of thing that’s HAPPENED BEFORE.
> Also, I’ve read nowhere that she left Adam alone for days at a time. What is your source for this claim?





> It was in one of the articles I posted, I'm not doing anymore research for you.



Was this someone who knew her or another conservative-hating bitter reactionary like yourself?

And you didn’t answer the question: What is your source for the claim that she left Adam alone for days at a time?



> I'm sorry, I missed the economic collapse where people were having to defend their houses from people roaming around looking for food...  I mean, 2008 kind of sucked... but we still had no problem with food distribution.



No one, including Lanza, ever said there had been an economic collapse.



> Bitch was fucking nuts...



A rather astute analysis from someone who is too fucking lazy to find and cite a currently relevant article.

One other thing: The longer video shows that the Black Israelites were shouting at members of the Indigenous Peoples’ March, of which Phillips was a participant. If you saw the video, you know this too.

This begs the question as to why Phillips chose to approach the Covington boys rather than the BIs. It also begs the question as to why you chose to ignore it.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 23, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, *as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.*



  This part really needs to be restated and emphasized, for it truly exposes the deceit involved in Kellerman's hoax.

  He counted, as a _“gun in the home”_, a gun that was brought into the home by the criminal, and used by that criminal to murder an occupant of the home.

  436 times, a criminal brought a gun into someone else's home, and used it there to commit a murder.

  Now, I don't know if there's any control to which to make a comparison, but it does seem very likely that if a criminal breaks into your home, carrying a gun, that that _“gun in your home”_ is indeed more likely to be used to murder you or a member of your family, than to defend you or otherwise prevent a crime.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2AGuy has a huge dick, don't let anyone tell you differently.



  Why are you so obsessed with other guy's dicks, and what makes you think you know anything about the size of any of them?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I understand that it is disconcerting to you when Little Catholic Bastards defend themselves against unjustified vilification but that doesn’t answer the question: On what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?



He was at a veterans event with a lot of other vets, all wearing vet stuff like campaign hats..



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The archdiocese apologized and condemned their actions the day after the first, shorter video came out and at that time, no one, including the archdiocese, knew what really happened.



So what?  YOu mean the parents of the LCB's complained, and they knuckled under...  Ah, not the kind of Catholic School I went to.. they'd have knocked some sense into those little bastards. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one, including Lanza, ever said there had been an economic collapse.



You just did. you said it happened before.   Oh, stockpiling guns and food because you expect the world to end...that's kind of crazy. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This begs the question as to why Phillips chose to approach the Covington boys rather than the BIs. It also begs the question as to why you chose to ignore it.



Because they were smug little bastards disrupting their event... that's why.  They were the larger group, who apparently couldn't take a few taunts.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Why are you so obsessed with other guy's dicks, and what makes you think you know anything about the size of any of them?



Whole long response, and that's what you focused on... maybe you have the obsession with dick, Mormon Bob.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 23, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> This part really needs to be restated and emphasized, for it truly exposes the deceit involved in Kellerman's hoax.
> 
> He counted, as a _“gun in the home”_, a gun that was brought into the home by the criminal, and used by that criminal to murder an occupant of the home.
> 
> ...



Actually, most of the deaths were suicides... the few that were homicides were the gun belonged to someone in the house, not that the gun was brought in.  But since most gun deaths are domestic violence, that's what you'd expect.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that it is disconcerting to you when Little Catholic Bastards defend themselves against unjustified vilification but that doesn’t answer the question: On what basis do you claim that Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet?
> ...



No, he was not. He annually leads a ceremony that honors Native American Veterans at Arlington Cemetery shortly after Veteran’s Day in November but in D.C. on that day he was with the Indigenous Peoples’ March. Below is a link to an article that has a picture of him and the group on that day:

Nathan Phillips Is Tired: The Native American Advocate Talks Responsibility & That Viral Video

As you can see from the photo, he is wearing absolutely nothing to indicate he’s a veteran and the crowd behind him are men and women of all ages. In other words, not veterans.

How about that, is that clever enough for ya?

Most of what you think you know about this incident is completely wrong and I’ve been telling you this all along.

You condemned this kid and reviled him as a punk ass disrespectful little Catholic bastard all this time because you mistakenly thought Phillips was there for an entirely different reason than he actually was. Jesus. I have no words to describe this level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The archdiocese apologized and condemned their actions the day after the first, shorter video came out and at that time, no one, including the archdiocese, knew what really happened.





> So what?  YOu mean the parents of the LCB's complained, and they knuckled under...  Ah, not the kind of Catholic School I went to.. they'd have knocked some sense into those little bastards.



Do you mean to say that the parents of the Covington kids complained so the bishop condemned the kids’ actions? Your comment doesn’t jibe with the quoted paragraph.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one, including Lanza, ever said there had been an economic collapse.





> You just did. you said it happened before.   Oh, stockpiling guns and food because you expect the world to end...that's kind of crazy.



I was talking about the Great Depression dumbass.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This begs the question as to why Phillips chose to approach the Covington boys rather than the BIs. It also begs the question as to why you chose to ignore it.





> Because they were smug little bastards disrupting their event... that's why.  They were the larger group,



Their being the larger group is irrelevant. It was the BIs disrupting their event and you know this. 



> who apparently couldn’t take a few taunts.



If it had been the kids doing the taunting you would have condemned them for it. You have already condemned them for much less. Simply being Catholic being one reason.

I’ll tell you what I think: Phillips approached the Covington kids not because they had harassed his group or disrupted their event - the BIs were doing all the harassing and taunting that day and they were taunting everybody, including the NAs - he approached them because they were wearing MAGA hats. That’s it.

I couldn’t help but notice you left out everything else I told you about the bishop taking down the condemnation and the results of the investigation.

And once again: What is your source for the claim that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 24, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> As you can see from the photo, he is wearing absolutely nothing to indicate he’s a veteran and the crowd behind him are men and women of all ages. In other words, not veterans.



That's your story.. I don't buy it... but I'm sure you'll show a lot of out of context pictures to "prove" your point.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You condemned this kid and reviled him as a punk ass disrespectful little Catholic bastard all this time because you mistakenly thought Phillips was there for an entirely different reason than he actually was. Jesus. I have no words to describe this level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness.



Actually, I revile him because he's a smirking little entitled bastard...   I'm sure he'll be involved in a campus rape in his future. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you mean to say that the parents of the Covington kids complained so the bishop condemned the kids’ actions? Your comment doesn’t jibe with the quoted paragraph.



Hey, got to keep that money flowing in, and Bishop McFeelly has altar boys to pay off.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I was talking about the Great Depression dumbass.



Didn't have looting mobs then, either.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If it had been the kids doing the taunting you would have condemned them for it. You have already condemned them for much less. Simply being Catholic being one reason.



Actually, I wouldn't have gotten in their faces about it...  but never mind.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I couldn’t help but notice you left out everything else I told you about the bishop taking down the condemnation and the results of the investigation.



Because honestly, I don't really give a crap that some pedophile bishop (and yes, all the Clergy of the Catholic Church ARE pedos) knuckled under to the right wing.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And once again: What is your source for the claim that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time?



Again, not doing your research for you, it was in one of the articles I previously posted and I'm not posting it again. 

The bitch was fucking nuts...  and produced a monster.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 24, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I have no words to describe this level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness.



  I've got the perfect word to describe that level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness:  _“JoeB131”_


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 24, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I've got the perfect word to describe that level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness: _”_



Joseph Smith?  Now, that was a lazy and dishonest fuck.  They ran him out of four states before we finally caught up to him in Illinois and shot him like a dog..






Still fucking hilarious.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see from the photo, he is wearing absolutely nothing to indicate he’s a veteran and the crowd behind him are men and women of all ages. In other words, not veterans.
> ...



It’s not my “story”, it happens to be the truth. The simple fact is, Phillips was not there with a veterans’ group that day. Ergo, Sandmann had no way of knowing Phillips was a veteran. Also, if you saw the video then you know by now that the jacket he's wearing in the picture matches the jacket he's wearing in the video. And it's not just the jacket that matches either; the shirt he's wearing under the jacket matches the one in the video.

Did you even look at the article?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You condemned this kid and reviled him as a punk ass disrespectful little Catholic bastard all this time because you mistakenly thought Phillips was there for an entirely different reason than he actually was. Jesus. I have no words to describe this level of intellectual dishonesty and laziness.





> Actually, I revile him because he's a smirking little entitled bastard...   I'm sure he'll be involved in a campus rape in his future.



By who, you? Given your obsession with dick sizes, I can believe that.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you mean to say that the parents of the Covington kids complained so the bishop condemned the kids’ actions? Your comment doesn’t jibe with the quoted paragraph.





> Hey, got to keep that money flowing in, and Bishop McFeelly has altar boys to pay off.



When all else fails, insult Catholics. Pathetic.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I was talking about the Great Depression dumbass.





> Didn't have looting mobs then, either.



No, we didn’t. What’s your point?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If it had been the kids doing the taunting you would have condemned them for it. You have already condemned them for much less. Simply being Catholic being one reason.





> Actually, I wouldn't have gotten in their faces about it...  but never mind.



No, you would have just blamed someone else like rich people.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I couldn’t help but notice you left out everything else I told you about the bishop taking down the condemnation and the results of the investigation.





> Because honestly, I don't really give a crap that some pedophile bishop (and yes, all the Clergy of the Catholic Church ARE pedos) knuckled under to the right wing.



I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The bishop knuckled under pressure to issue the initial statement condemning the boys’ actions. They took that statement down after the longer video came out casting doubt on liberal claims and outrage that the boys were at fault.

Whether he knuckled under to right wing pressure or not is irrelevant anyway. The investigation exonerated the boys.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And once again: What is your source for the claim that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time?





> Again, not doing your research for you, it was in one of the articles I previously posted and I'm not posting it again.



Below is every link you've cited in our discussion. I've reviewed every one for a second time to verify your claim and nowhere in any of these articles is it said or implied that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time.

Adam Lanza’s Mother Was a Gun Enthusiast, Friends Say

Nancy Lanza stockpiling guns, food as part of 'prepper' movement, says sister-in-law

Nancy Lanza was a "prepper"

Connecticut school shooting: Preparing for the end of the world

Covington Catholic High Apologizes for Students Who Mocked Native American Veteran During March for Life

So again, what is the source of your claim that she left him alone for days at a time?



> The bitch was fucking nuts...  and produced a monster.



Yeah, you've said that already like fourteen times.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 24, 2019)

[


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Did you even look at the article?




Nope, I don't look at any article provided by a wingnut. 

Here's how we know that Slappy McPunkbitch was in the wrong-- All the money his parents are spending trying to rehabilitate his image.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, we didn’t. What’s your point?



That anyone who stocks up on Guns and canned foods because the economy might go bad IS A FUCKING NUT!!!!  

I'm sorry you have the attention span of a five year old. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The bishop knuckled under pressure to issue the initial statement condemning the boys’ actions. They took that statement down after the longer video came out casting doubt on liberal claims and outrage that the boys were at fault.



I pay attention perfectly well.  The Catholic Scam is abut makingmoney.  Period. When they realized doing the right thing might actually cost them money, Bishop McFeely or whatever his name was backed off.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Below is every link you've cited in our discussion. I've reviewed every one for a second time to verify your claim and nowhere in any of these articles is it said or implied that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time.



Wow, you are pathetic....  

Nancy Lanza's final few days of relief

_Adam, 20, had "disabilities" and "some sort of autism" but they were dealing with it, and Nancy was proud of his accomplishments.

In fact, the New Hampshire sojourn was an "experiment" to give him run of the house for a few days._



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Yeah, you've said that already like fourteen times.



And it's still true. THe problem is, they let people like that own guns.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> [
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...



Meaning “I don’t look at any article that might wreck my case.”



> Here's how we know that Slappy McPunkbitch was in the wrong-- All the money his parents are spending trying to rehabilitate his image.



Irrelevant. The investigation cleared them, dumbass. And “Slappy McPunkbitch”? What are you, thirteen? I suppose you think_ that_ is clever.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, we didn’t. What’s your point?





> That anyone who stocks up on Guns and canned foods because the economy might go bad IS A FUCKING NUT!!!!



pfft, no more than you are. Wait, let me properly emphasize in the JoeB manner: NO MORE THAN YOU ARE!!! There, that should get my point across. If it doesn’t, also in JoeB style, I’ll try to divert you from the fact that I don’t have a case and lure you into an irrelevant tangent by using insulting hyperbole meant to trigger you such as Little Catholic Bastards.



> I'm sorry you have the attention span of a five year old.



I’m sorry you don’t have enough of an attention span to see you have no attention span.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t think you’ve been paying attention. The bishop knuckled under pressure to issue the initial statement condemning the boys’ actions. They took that statement down after the longer video came out casting doubt on liberal claims and outrage that the boys were at fault.





> I pay attention perfectly well.  The Catholic Scam is abut makingmoney.  Period. When they realized doing the right thing might actually cost them money, Bishop McFeely or whatever his name was backed off.



The right thing to do would have been to issue a statement saying they would investigate, which they did anyway

Let me ask you: Was investigating the incident the right thing to do?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Below is every link you've cited in our discussion. I've reviewed every one for a second time to verify your claim and nowhere in any of these articles is it said or implied that Nancy Lanza left Adam alone for days at a time.





> Wow, you are pathetic....
> 
> Nancy Lanza's final few days of relief
> 
> ...


_
_
You said it was in one of the articles you linked but you never linked this article.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Yeah, you've said that already like fourteen times.





> And it's still true. THe problem is, they let people like that own guns.



Doesn’t that just suck the little willy?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 24, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning “I don’t look at any article that might wreck my case.”



Nope, I just don't waste my time on Wingnut articles. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The investigation cleared them, dumbass. And “Slappy McPunkbitch”? What are you, thirteen? I suppose you think_ that_ is clever.



I think it's hysterical... he has such a slappable face.  Probably if he got a good slapping, he wouldn't be such a punk... 

The fact his parents are suing everyone for just reporting what he did is telling enough. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> pfft, no more than you are. Wait, let me properly emphasize in the JoeB manner: NO MORE THAN YOU ARE!!! There, that should get my point across. If it doesn’t, also in JoeB style, I’ll try to divert you from the fact that I don’t have a case and lure you into an irrelevant tangent by using insulting hyperbole meant to trigger you such as Little Catholic Bastards.



Yawn, guy, I'm already living in your head.    But some bitch who stocks up on guns and can food because she thinks the world is coming to an end... um, yeah.  That's nuts.  Thinking some entitled little punk is an entitled little punk... not so much. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The right thing to do would have been to issue a statement saying they would investigate, which they did anyway
> 
> Let me ask you: Was investigating the incident the right thing to do?



Naw, what they should have done is what the old school Christian Brothers would have done to my generation of Little Catholic Bastards... got us into a room and slapped the shit out of us for embarrasing the school.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You said it was in one of the articles you linked but you never linked this article.



Yes, I did. That you couldn't find it.. that's your problem.  Point was, she left little Crazy McTardo alone for a couple of days getting a booty call up in NH, and he freaked out and shot her when she got back.  

And then he shot up 26 other people... which is where it became a lot less funny. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Doesn’t that just suck the little willy?



20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers.  Um, yeah. That sucks.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning “I don’t look at any article that might wreck my case.”
> ...



How would you know it’s a wingnut article if you don’t look at it?

The website is Bustle.com and their readership is 75% female. The article itself was an interview with Phillips.

I don’t even know if the site is liberal or conservative. I only linked the article because it had the best picture of Phillips from that particular day. In fact, I _told_ you that the article had the picture. I didn’t care if you read the article or not.

So once again you demonstrate how close-minded you are.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The investigation cleared them, dumbass. And “Slappy McPunkbitch”? What are you, thirteen? I suppose you think_ that_ is clever.





> I think it's hysterical... he has such a slappable face.  Probably if he got a good slapping, he wouldn't be such a punk...



Meaning: I’ve run out of arguments so I’m falling back on the tried and true tactic of insulting and offensive remarks about the person’s appearance.



> The fact his parents are suing everyone for just reporting what he did is telling enough.



Irrelevant. The investigation cleared him.

What is it that bothers you so much about that, that they tried to clear his name or that they had the money to do so? Is it because you think they’re rich?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> pfft, no more than you are. Wait, let me properly emphasize in the JoeB manner: NO MORE THAN YOU ARE!!! There, that should get my point across. If it doesn’t, also in JoeB style, I’ll try to divert you from the fact that I don’t have a case and lure you into an irrelevant tangent by using insulting hyperbole meant to trigger you such as Little Catholic Bastards.





> Yawn, guy, I'm already living in your head.



This may have escaped your attention but for every post of mine addressed to you, there is a corresponding post from you to me. Did you miss this particular factoid?



> But some bitch who stocks up on guns and can food because she thinks the world is coming to an end... um, yeah.  That's nuts.  Thinking some entitled little punk is an entitled little punk... not so much.



Blah blah blah...bitch is fucking nuts...blah blah...kid looks like a punk...blah blah blah...zombies...entitled...little Catholic bastard...wingnut...Bibles, guns, darkies and queers...blah blah blah...ad nauseum.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The right thing to do would have been to issue a statement saying they would investigate, which they did anyway
> 
> Let me ask you: Was investigating the incident the right thing to do?





> Naw, what they should have done is what the old school Christian Brothers would have done to my generation of Little Catholic Bastards... got us into a room and slapped the shit out of us for embarrasing the school.



I’ll just bet that the irony of this has totally escaped you; that this sort of thing is precisely why you hate Catholics.

It would be hysterical if it weren’t so fucking pathetic.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You said it was in one of the articles you linked but you never linked this article.





> Yes, I did. That you couldn't find it.. that's your problem.



No, you did not. I went back to when you and I first started sparring and scrolled though every page to find all the links you cited to me and this was not one of them.



> Point was, she left little Crazy McTardo alone for a couple of days getting a booty call up in NH, and he freaked out and shot her when she got back.



He didn’t have Downs Syndrome, he was autistic you idiot.

And just to be clear, she didn’t leave him home alone for “days at a time”, she left him alone the one time and she did so thinking it might help him to be independent for a short time.

In addition, the boy had been withdrawing further and further already so it’s likely he would have killed her and gone on a rampage anyway whether she left or not.



> And then he shot up 26 other people... which is where it became a lot less funny.



Would it have still been funny if it had been a Catholic school?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Doesn’t that just suck the little willy?





> 20 dead kids and 6 dead teachers.  Um, yeah. That sucks.



Too bad they weren’t Catholics or rich people, huh?


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 26, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> How would you know it’s a wingnut article if you don’t look at it?



You posted it.  Next. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> rrelevant. The investigation cleared him.
> 
> What is it that bothers you so much about that, that they tried to clear his name or that they had the money to do so? Is it because you think they’re rich?



$6000 a year to go to school at Religious Asshole Academy? Um.. yeah.  

The point was, they got lawyers and PR guys and got him booked on all the news shows and taught him how to emote in front of the camera like, Boo, hoo, I was just standing there being a misogynistic piece of shit when the mean old Native Man played a tamborine in front of me..... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He didn’t have Downs Syndrome, he was autistic you idiot.
> 
> And just to be clear, she didn’t leave him home alone for “days at a time”, she left him alone the one time and she did so thinking it might help him to be independent for a short time.



A Tard's a Tard...   Yeah, that worked out well....  

She spent 20 years raising a nutcase... and then left him to his own devices... again, if it was just her, it would almost be funny.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > How would you know it’s a wingnut article if you don’t look at it?
> ...



If you think I’m a wingnut, why are you bothering to debate me? And I couldn’t help but notice you left out the part where I explained what the site actually was and what the article was about.

I think you in fact did take a look at the article to see if I was wrong or lying so you could lord it over me.You saw it was the truth and now “wingnut” insults is all you have.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> rrelevant. The investigation cleared him.
> 
> What is it that bothers you so much about that, that they tried to clear his name or that they had the money to do so? Is it because you think they’re rich?





> $6000 a year to go to school at Religious Asshole Academy? Um.. yeah.



So you hate them for being rich?



> The point was, they got lawyers and PR guys and got him booked on all the news shows and taught him how to emote in front of the camera like, Boo, hoo, I was just standing there being a misogynistic piece of shit when the mean old Native Man played a tamborine in front of me.....



Why is this such a problem for you?

You know, Phillips did the exact same thing with the exception of the PR firm. He did multiple interviews and TV appearances to tell his story. He also boo hooed and he did so over shit that never happened.

Below is a link to an interview with Phillips by CNN; one of your own non-wingnut entities so you have no excuse for not looking.

Native American elder Nathan Phillips, in his own words

Here are some quotes by Phillips directly from that interview that are false, misconceptions or outright lies followed by facts that contradict his claims. The first quote is probably the only thing he said in the interview that was actually true and contradicts what you said about Phillips being there with a veterans group:

“_We were finishing up with Indigenous Peoples March and rally...”_

So there you are, straight from horse’s mouth.

“_Then there was this young group of young students that came there and were offended by their (_Black Israelites) _speech, and it escalated into an ugly situation that I found myself in the middle of.”
_
Fact: The Black Israelites were between Phillips and the Covington kids. Phillips didn’t “find himself” in the middle of anything and when he was in the middle later on, he had deliberately placed himself there.

_“It looked like these young men _(Covington kids)_were going to attack these guys _(Black Israelites).”

Fact: The Covington kids had no intention of attacking anybody and they were doing their school cheer to drown out the racist rhetoric coming from the Black Israelites.

_“They were going to hurt them. They were going to hurt them because they didn't like the color of their skin.”
_
Fact: There is no basis whatsoever for this claim. He had no way of knowing the Covington kids were going to attack the BIs and no way of knowing they were doing what they did because of the color of the BIs’ skin.

“_To be honest, they looked like they were going to lynch them _(the BIs_).”
_
Fact: Another assumption and overblown melodrama to boot.

“_I realized I had put myself in a really dangerous situation.”
_
Fact: This contradicts what he said earlier about “finding” himself in the middle. It also confirms that _he_ approached _them_.

“ ..._this young fellow _(Sandmann) _put himself in front of me and wouldn't move.”
_
Fact: Sandmann was in the same spot the whole time and Phillips approached him directly.

_“Why did they need 200 people there other than it's hate and racism?”_

Fact: They were waiting for their bus.

“_It was just, ‘Build the wall’_”

Fact: They never said “Build the wall”.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He didn’t have Downs Syndrome, he was autistic you idiot.
> 
> And just to be clear, she didn’t leave him home alone for “days at a time”, she left him alone the one time and she did so thinking it might help him to be independent for a short time.





> A Tard's a Tard...



I guess you’d be the one to know.



> She spent 20 years raising a nutcase... and then left him to his own devices... again, if it was just her, it would almost be funny.



Given your grade school remarks and insults, I think you find the whole thing funny as hell.

You’re not bothered in the least by the deaths of these kids. You have used this entire thing as an excuse to malign what you call “gun nuts”. This massacre was nothing but a tool for you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > He didn’t have Downs Syndrome, he was *autistic* you idiot.
> ...



  Being autistic is not the same as being retarded.  In fact, some forms of autism often go along with exceptionally high levels of intelligence.  There are some who have credibly speculated, for example, that such great minds as Einstein, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and several others, may have been autistic.

  I have never been officially diagnosed as such, but I very strongly suspect that I may have some form of high-functioning autism; I also have a measured IQ of 138, which puts me within a few points of the top 1%.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 26, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...



Didn’t authorities show up at their house once because Adam hacked into some government agency or something?

It doesn’t matter though. JoeB is not one to let facts and important distinctions get in the way of his “Bibles, guns, darkies and queers” narrative.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you think I’m a wingnut, why are you bothering to debate me?



Humor value... fun to watch you spin. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why is this such a problem for you?
> 
> You know, Phillips did the exact same thing with the exception of the PR firm. He did multiple interviews and TV appearances to tell his story. He also boo hooed and he did so over shit that never happened.



No, it wasn't the same thing at all. He didn't get an army of lawyers and some PR guys. He just did interviews.  

Here's why I have a problem. If when I went to a Catholic School in the 1980's, if I had disrespected a vet, my Dad who proudly had his Campaign Map from WWII listed the battles he was in from Normandy to VE Day, would have slapped my ass into a new Zip Code.   LECB has parents who think, "My poor little baby, they made him look bad by showing what he did on TV. We need to get lawyers and PR Guys and send a very nasty letter to the Bishop saying our little angels were in the right." 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’re not bothered in the least by the deaths of these kids. You have used this entire thing as an excuse to malign what you call “gun nuts”. This massacre was nothing but a tool for you.



No, I'm very bothered by it because it was 100% preventable.  Or as the Onion puts it every time we have a mass shooting. 





Now a jury is going to get to decide the culpability of the gun industry in causing these tragedies.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Didn’t authorities show up at their house once because Adam hacked into some government agency or something?
> 
> It doesn’t matter though. JoeB is not one to let facts and important distinctions get in the way of his “Bibles, guns, darkies and queers” narrative.



Well, the ONLY source we have for this is a claim by his mother told to her friends that he had done this.  Given the woman was a paranoid loon, you should take it with a grain of salt. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Being autistic is not the same as being retarded. In fact, some forms of autism often go along with exceptionally high levels of intelligence. There are some who have credibly speculated, for example, that such great minds as Einstein, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, and several others, may have been autistic.
> 
> I have never been officially diagnosed as such, but I very strongly suspect that I may have some form of high-functioning autism; I also have a measured IQ of 138, which puts me within a few points of the top 1%.



Bob... you are worse than Retarded.  You're a Mormon.  That's what happens when you turn Retard into a religion.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 27, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > If you think I’m a wingnut, why are you bothering to debate me?
> ...



Alright then, why not click the links for a few more chuckles?

You don’t click the links because you’re not interested in the truth, only maintaining your narrative.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why is this such a problem for you?
> 
> You know, Phillips did the exact same thing with the exception of the PR firm. He did multiple interviews and TV appearances to tell his story. He also boo hooed and he did so over shit that never happened.





> No, it wasn't the same thing at all. He didn't get an army of lawyers and some PR guys. He just did interviews.



Yeah, just like Sandmann. And most of the things Phillips said in his interviews were horseshit. Half of what he said was assumption and conjecture, the other half was just not true. On top of that, half of what he said contradicted the other half.

About the only thing that was true in his testimony was that he was with the Indigenous Peoples March.



> Here's why I have a problem. If when I went to a Catholic School in the 1980's, if I had disrespected a vet, my Dad who proudly had his Campaign Map from WWII listed the battles he was in from Normandy to VE Day, would have slapped my ass into a new Zip Code.   LECB has parents who think, "My poor little baby, they made him look bad by showing what he did on TV. We need to get lawyers and PR Guys and send a very nasty letter to the Bishop saying our little angels were in the right."



It was already proven to you that Phillips was not with a veterans group and was wearing nothing to indicate that he was a veteran. Therefore, Sandmann did not know he was a veteran.

Try again.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’re not bothered in the least by the deaths of these kids. You have used this entire thing as an excuse to malign what you call “gun nuts”. This massacre was nothing but a tool for you.





> No, I'm very bothered by it because it was 100% preventable.  Or as the Onion puts it every time we have a mass shooting.



Every death is preventable, barring those from certain diseases or otherwise out of our control. Even some of those are preventable or controllable through diet and exercise.
Car accidents; (by which many more people are killed than by firearms.) Accidents of all sorts: home, workplace, vacations, motorcycles, four wheelers, taking selfies, etc.
Then there are the many other types of murders and manslaughters: by hammer, hands, knives and other sharp instruments (#3 on list of murder weapons), hands, feet, etc., etc.

You don’t give two shits about the victims. You’re not interested in preventing deaths, you’re only interested in letting everyone know what douchebags you think gun owners are. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Downs Syndrome and autism is evidence of that.

I know damn well that you are not so stupid as to not understand the difference between the two. But to do so would complicate the discussion and divert you from what you really want to say: Gun owners are fucking nut douchebags.



> Now a jury is going to get to decide the culpability of the gun industry in causing these tragedies.



Uh huh.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 27, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > This part really needs to be restated and emphasized, for it truly exposes the deceit involved in Kellerman's hoax.
> ...



lol.....s0n, you make about 100 posts a week about banning guns and in every one of them, your head is exploding with angst, misery and frustration.....for years now! Yet the needle on gun control hasnt moved an inch. So at some point, most people recognize that it's a waste of time when nobody is concurring with a fringe point of view. But not you....!!! Youd be more successful getting buck naked and walking down Main Street shaking a bananna at people screaming about the end of times!

Nobody cares about banning guns.....d0y....c'mon now.....Beto said it and crashed and burned in historic fashion.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 27, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Didn’t authorities show up at their house once because Adam hacked into some government agency or something?
> ...



Nope. This was told to the FBI by a neighbor.

He actually wasn’t able to hack all the way in. He was stopped by the third level of security.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




lol....this Joe guy thinks his thinking is mainstream! Its fascinating!! On a board of 25,000 members, he has about 7 allies!!

Let's see the DUM nominee show up in Milwaukee next summer and make banning guns a central theme of the platform!! Only Joe would think it possible!!


----------



## CWayne (Nov 27, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Brain357 said:
> ...


Simply because you repeat a debunked talking point, does not mean you are stating reality.  They do not sell mass-killing weapons, they exercise a Constitutional right.

Mass killing weapons are things like automobiles and political parties.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Yeah, just like Sandmann. And most of the things Phillips said in his interviews were horseshit. Half of what he said was assumption and conjecture, the other half was just not true. On top of that, half of what he said contradicted the other half.


 
Did the scary red man scare you, too? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. This was told to the FBI by a neighbor.
> 
> He actually wasn’t able to hack all the way in. He was stopped by the third level of security.



According to his crazy mom, who didn't know if it was the CIA or the FBI or the voices in her head.  I'm going with the voices in her head. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don’t give two shits about the victims. You’re not interested in preventing deaths, you’re only interested in letting everyone know what douchebags you think gun owners are. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Downs Syndrome and autism is evidence of that.



Not every retard has Downs... Oh, wait, we can't say "Retard" anymore, we have to say, 'Special Needs"... until that gets un PC and they come up with something else. 

But back to my point.  I actually would be perfectly fine with banning privately owned guns altogether.  the UK does this, they have less than 50 gun homicides a year.  Japan has almost no homicides.  Being a realist, I'm for a comprimise.. we could have a law like Germany has, where you can own a gun, but ONLY after you've undergone strict scrutiny. Germany has 600 gun homicides a year... because they largely keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them. 

The thing is, and why it's good they are suing Remington...  is that the gun industry decided that the people who shouldn't have guns are the market they wanted to go for.  Because they would cause enough violence where other people would want them, too.  

I can't wait for the discovery phase of this case.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, just like Sandmann. And most of the things Phillips said in his interviews were horseshit. Half of what he said was assumption and conjecture, the other half was just not true. On top of that, half of what he said contradicted the other half.
> ...



What does his being red have to do with anything?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. This was told to the FBI by a neighbor.
> 
> He actually wasn’t able to hack all the way in. He was stopped by the third level of security.





> According to his crazy mom, who didn't know if it was the CIA or the FBI or the voices in her head.  I'm going with the voices in her head.



I think you’re going with the voices in _your_ head and have for quite some time.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don’t give two shits about the victims. You’re not interested in preventing deaths, you’re only interested in letting everyone know what douchebags you think gun owners are. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the distinction between Downs Syndrome and autism is evidence of that.





> Not every retard has Downs... Oh, wait, we can't say "Retard" anymore, we have to say, 'Special Needs"... until that gets un PC and they come up with something else.



Do you think that after all this time I’m actually bothered by this puerile drivel?

One of the neighbors also testified that Adam had hacked a government site. However, it doesn’t matter whether you believe he did or not, by all accounts he was very intelligent and not mentally retarded by any definition of the word.

He was diagnosed with Asperger’s which is a milder form of autism and one of the hallmarks of Asperger’s is high intelligence.

But if it helps you maintain and nurture your hate for gun owners then by all means, call him retarded.



> But back to my point.  I actually would be perfectly fine with banning privately owned guns altogether.  the UK does this, they have less than 50 gun homicides a year.  Japan has almost no homicides.  Being a realist, I'm for a comprimise.. we could have a law like Germany has, where you can own a gun, but ONLY after you've undergone strict scrutiny. Germany has 600 gun homicides a year... because they largely keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them.



You have ignored all the facts regarding the Sandmann and Lanza cases. Of all the words we could use to define your character, realist is not of them.



> The thing is, and why it's good they are suing Remington...  is that the gun industry decided that the people who shouldn't have guns are the market they wanted to go for.  Because they would cause enough violence where other people would want them, too.



Don’t be an idiot.



> I can't wait for the discovery phase of this case.



Why, so you can look at the photos of the victims?

As I said before, you don’t give two shits about the victims.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, just like Sandmann. And most of the things Phillips said in his interviews were horseshit. Half of what he said was assumption and conjecture, the other half was just not true. On top of that, half of what he said contradicted the other half.
> ...




Britiain is more violent than the U.S. and becoming more and more violent every day.....fatherless homes and the welfare state creating young males with violence issues.....and the British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country...nothing you say about Britain and gun violence is going to be true for very long......and they had low gun murder rates before they banned guns....and the same level after.....which means normal people owning guns didn't drive their gun murder rate...you doofus.

You have been shown over and over that Japan has a low crime rate in all categories....and their criminals used bombs and fully automatic weapons when they wanted to use them.   That the police state and their culture keeps them crime free, not their gun control laws...which again, didn't stop their criminals from getting guns.

European criminals prefer fully automatic military weapons...as you have been shown over and over again....culture, not gun control, has kept their gun murder rates low....you freaking doofus....as Sweden shows with their increasing violence....Sweden of all places you moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I think you’re going with the voices in _your_ head and have for quite some time.



I'm not the one who had a kid steal my Anti-Zombie Arsenal and slaughter a bunch of kids... That would be your pinup girl, Crazy Nancy...  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you think that after all this time I’m actually bothered by this puerile drivel?



Yes, Yes, I think I am living in your head rent free.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> One of the neighbors also testified that Adam had hacked a government site. However, it doesn’t matter whether you believe he did or not, by all accounts he was very intelligent and not mentally retarded by any definition of the word.



No, the neighbor said that her little tard did that... he didn't see him do it.  I'm sure that Crazy Nancy was totally in denial about what she was raising. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was diagnosed with Asperger’s which is a milder form of autism and one of the hallmarks of Asperger’s is high intelligence.



Adam Lanze was a tard.... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why, so you can look at the photos of the victims?
> 
> As I said before, you don’t give two shits about the victims.



Frankly, I would love to see pictures of the victims split screened with whatever NRA Asshole talking about "Founding Fathers".  I think if we all got to see the pictures of victims, we'd tell the NRA to shut the fuck up. 

Instead, we hide these pictures, and we have characters like DaleSmith get on these boards and say it was all a hoax. 

But, no, no, the reason why I look forward to discovery in this case is so we can finally see the internal marketing documents of Remington...  How they knowingly marketed to the craziest gun owners.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Britiain is more violent than the U.S. and becoming more and more violent every day.....fatherless homes and the welfare state creating young males with violence issues.....and the British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country...nothing you say about Britain and gun violence is going to be true for very long......and they had low gun murder rates before they banned guns....and the same level after.....which means normal people owning guns didn't drive their gun murder rate...you doofus.



Yes, yes, yes, you got all the talking points down, buddy... but the fact is.

No Guns- Few murders
Lots of Guns- lots of murders

This isn't complicated.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Britiain is more violent than the U.S. and becoming more and more violent every day.....fatherless homes and the welfare state creating young males with violence issues.....and the British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country...nothing you say about Britain and gun violence is going to be true for very long......and they had low gun murder rates before they banned guns....and the same level after.....which means normal people owning guns didn't drive their gun murder rate...you doofus.
> ...




Moron..... guns owned and carried by normal people don't kill anyone...you doofus.......guns in the hands of criminals who were released by democrat party judges, prosecutors and polticians kill people....

Over 18.6 million people in the U.S. now carry guns for self defense and the gun murder rate went down, not up......

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and* over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...*


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


*The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....*
*

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.*

Actual Result:

*In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72% 

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....*

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
*More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change?   That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------*

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron..... guns owned and carried by normal people don't kill anyone...you doofus.......guns in the hands of criminals who were released by democrat party judges, prosecutors and polticians kill people....



Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.... which are normal people who just had a very bad day.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron..... guns owned and carried by normal people don't kill anyone...you doofus.......guns in the hands of criminals who were released by democrat party judges, prosecutors and polticians kill people....
> ...




Wrong, lying moron....you have been shown over and over that suicide is mental illness and domestic violence deaths are majority criminals killing people in their homes......and you lie again because they are called Acquaintance murders where criminals who know each other kill each other....you moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, lying moron....you have been shown over and over that suicide is mental illness and domestic violence deaths are majority criminals killing people in their homes......and you lie again because they are called Acquaintance murders where criminals who know each other kill each other....you moron.



Blah, blah, blah...    I've known three people who've died by gun violence... none of them were mentally ill or criminals.  

They were just people having a bad day and a gun was around.  Which made it a worse day.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, lying moron....you have been shown over and over that suicide is mental illness and domestic violence deaths are majority criminals killing people in their homes......and you lie again because they are called Acquaintance murders where criminals who know each other kill each other....you moron.
> ...




No, they were people who knew you personally.....says a lot....

I too know someone who killed himself with a gun....he was mentally ill with depression......you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No, they were people who knew you personally.....says a lot....
> 
> I too know someone who killed himself with a gun....he was mentally ill with depression......you don't know what you are talking about.



Wow... and if there wasn't a gun in the house... he probably wouldn't have killed himself. Or he'd have used a less effective means.   

So the three cases I know. 

Girl I grew up with, her dad murdered her mom during an argument... He had no criminal record and a nice middle class job. (This was before Republicans fucked it all up and we still had a middle class.)  

Second was the son of a co-worker.  Mom and Dad, nice middle class jobs. Their marriage fell apart after that.  

Third case-  My next door neighbor. He was a little more low rent, and he had chronic health issues.  Did a dry run on the suicide attempt a couple weeks before, shot out his patio window and sent a bullet across the parking lot.  Then he lied to the cops, but they didn't take his gun because, you know, second amendment.. He shot himself a few weeks later.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, they were people who knew you personally.....says a lot....
> ...




Moron.......mental health issues, all three......and the gun wasn't the issue.....considering that Japan, China, and South Korea have extreme gun control laws and higher suicide rates than we do, as does Canada, and many countries in Europe.....you moron...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......mental health issues, all three......and the gun wasn't the issue.....considering that Japan, China, and South Korea have extreme gun control laws and higher suicide rates than we do, as does Canada, and many countries in Europe.....you moron...



Japan and China, Suicide is condoned in their culture.  

Not even a nice try.   

Point is, all three of those people would be alive today if there was no gun in the house.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.......mental health issues, all three......and the gun wasn't the issue.....considering that Japan, China, and South Korea have extreme gun control laws and higher suicide rates than we do, as does Canada, and many countries in Europe.....you moron...
> ...




No, moron........you just reinforced that guns aren't the issue...you doofus..... if those 3 people wanted to kill themselves, they would have managed it without guns....you moron.

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.*  According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.:  Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000.  By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.   

*Suicide is a mental health issue.  If guns are not available other means are used.  Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%). *

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the _Post _article.  The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited.  Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows:  Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics.  According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the _Post_’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent.  Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, lying moron....you have been shown over and over that suicide is mental illness and domestic violence deaths are majority criminals killing people in their homes......and you lie again because they are called Acquaintance murders where criminals who know each other kill each other....you moron.
> ...


----------



## Rustic (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, they were people who knew you personally.....says a lot....
> ...


Lol
You being an Internet warrior in your mothers basement Gives you any credibility?

More frivolous gun control laws will not change a thing you fucking retard


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No, moron........you just reinforced that guns aren't the issue...you doofus..... if those 3 people wanted to kill themselves, they would have managed it without guns....you moron.



Or maybe they'd have sought help, or maybe someone who loved them would have stopped them.  The guy who shot his wife, maybe if he just slapped her around the cops would have been called and they could have dealt with it.  

Again, most of us are tired of the cost of your fetish.


----------



## Rustic (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron........you just reinforced that guns aren't the issue...you doofus..... if those 3 people wanted to kill themselves, they would have managed it without guns....you moron.
> ...


Lol
Mind your own business you sorry sack of shit


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron........you just reinforced that guns aren't the issue...you doofus..... if those 3 people wanted to kill themselves, they would have managed it without guns....you moron.
> ...




The 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to stop criminals and save lives each year get tired of people like you trying to make them victims......

It doesn't take a gun for a man to kill a woman, you moron.......


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron........you just reinforced that guns aren't the issue...you doofus..... if those 3 people wanted to kill themselves, they would have managed it without guns....you moron.
> ...



You obviously missed this...



Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



*There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.* According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

*Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).*

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the _Post _article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the _Post_’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I think you’re going with the voices in _your_ head and have for quite some time.
> ...



Doesn’t mean you don’t have voices in your head.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you think that after all this time I’m actually bothered by this puerile drivel?





> Yes, Yes, I think I am living in your head rent free.



And if I’m not living in your head, why do you keep responding?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> One of the neighbors also testified that Adam had hacked a government site. However, it doesn’t matter whether you believe he did or not, by all accounts he was very intelligent and not mentally retarded by any definition of the word.





> No, the neighbor said that her little tard did that... he didn't see him do it.  I'm sure that Crazy Nancy was totally in denial about what she was raising.



You liked the neighbors’ testimony well enough when you (mistakenly) thought they said she was nuts. Besides, you didn’t see anybody doing anything yourself.

Hypocrite.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was diagnosed with Asperger’s which is a milder form of autism and one of the hallmarks of Asperger’s is high intelligence.





> Adam Lanze was a tard....



Well, since you’ve repeated it multiple times in contradiction to all testimony by people who knew them, you must be right...



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why, so you can look at the photos of the victims?
> 
> As I said before, you don’t give two shits about the victims.





> Frankly, I would love to see pictures of the victims split screened with whatever NRA Asshole talking about "Founding Fathers".  I think if we all got to see the pictures of victims, we'd tell the NRA to shut the fuck up.



Like I said.



> Instead, we hide these pictures, and we have characters like DaleSmith get on these boards and say it was all a hoax.



I don’t know who DaleSmith is and I’m pretty sure it’s not a hoax. Also, authorities don’t release crime scene and autopsy photos to the public on general principle in any case. That’s not to say you wouldn’t be able to find them because they often get leaked. But I don’t know of any case where they are released.



> But, no, no, the reason why I look forward to discovery in this case is so we can finally see the internal marketing documents of Remington...  How they knowingly marketed to the craziest gun owners.



That’s your story and I don’t buy it.

For you and a lot of other pro-gun control people, this is not about the guns or even the deaths. It’s about taking something away from people you deem uneducated redneck hicks because you don’t agree with their politics, way of life, way of thinking and way of believing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

2aguy said:


> The 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to stop criminals and save lives each year get tired of people like you trying to make them victims......
> 
> It doesn't take a gun for a man to kill a woman, you moron.......



Nope... but oddly, a lot less women are murdered in countries that ban guns... how is that. 

194 Homicide victims in the UK were female.
3292 Homicide victims in the US were female... 

Why do you think that is... (Psst. Psst... it's because these bitches be getting shot!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 28, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You liked the neighbors’ testimony well enough when you (mistakenly) thought they said she was nuts. Besides, you didn’t see anybody doing anything yourself.



True.. but when the neighbors just confirm what we already know - the bitch be nuts - that's just proving the point. 

The FBI wouldn't have to ask the neighbors if Nancy had told them that the CIA or the FBI had been around because Adam Tardo had hacked them.  They'd already know they hacked them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well, since you’ve repeated it multiple times in contradiction to all testimony by people who knew them, you must be right...



20 year old, still lives with Crazy Mommy, goes on a shooting rampage because she took a weekend off for a booty call. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t know who DaleSmith is and I’m pretty sure it’s not a hoax. Also, authorities don’t release crime scene and autopsy photos to the public on general principle in any case. That’s not to say you wouldn’t be able to find them because they often get leaked. But I don’t know of any case where they are released.



Well, maybe we should.  I think if we did, that would shut these shitstains from the NRA up for good.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For you and a lot of other pro-gun control people, this is not about the guns or even the deaths. It’s about taking something away from people you deem uneducated redneck hicks because you don’t agree with their politics, way of life, way of thinking and way of believing.



No, man, it's about the deaths... and the fact we have to mold the whole rest of our society around your nuttiness. 

Just a couple of weeks ago, our whole plant went into a panic because a lady who had gotten downsized a few weeks before was wandering the halls.   Of course, she had been invited to stop by for a retirement party of another employee, and no one told facilities management. 

But because we live in a gun crazy society, yup, they even think this 60 year old grandma was a potential active shooter.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence.... which are normal people who just had a very bad day.



  And there is one of your big problems—one that is rather obvious in other contexts as well.  You have an extremely-warped view of what constitutes a _“normal”_ person.  To you, suicides and perpetrators of domestic violence are _“normal”_, along with, as has been demonstrated by your posting in other threads, homosexuals, transsexuals, child molesters, violent criminals, thieves, vandals, drug abusers, and others that genuinely-normal people view as abnormal, deviant, and harmful elements in society.  One wonders what sort of upbringing you must have had, to have such a distorted view of _“normal”_; and how it has led you to have such deep hatred toward genuinely-normal people.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Japan and China, Suicide is condoned in their culture.
> 
> Not even a nice try.
> 
> Point is, all three of those people would be alive today if there was no gun in the house.



  It's notable that you'll use culture as an explanation when it suits your purpose, and dismiss it when it does not.

  Both Japan and China re much stricter, more authoritarian, conformist societies than we are.  Criminal behavior is tolerated much less in those societies, and carries not only greater legal penalties, but greater social stigma as well.  But you dismiss that, and attribute their lower crime rates to less easy access to firearms.

  Suicide, under certain circumstances, is seen as much more acceptable in Japan, than here, and in some cases, as a matter of honor.  I do not disagree with you that in both Japan and China, a higher suicide rate is a cultural issue, having nothing to do with access to firearms.

  Whether you are talking about suicide, or about violent crimes committed against others, I think it is very clear that culture has much, much more to do with it than access to any tools which might be applied to either of these purposes.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You liked the neighbors’ testimony well enough when you (mistakenly) thought they said she was nuts. Besides, you didn’t see anybody doing anything yourself.
> ...



The neighbors never said anything about her being nuts so they didn’t prove anything you think you know.



> The FBI wouldn't have to ask the neighbors if Nancy had told them that the CIA or the FBI had been around because Adam Tardo had hacked them.  They'd already know they hacked them.



Nobody said anything about what the FBI asked or did not ask. And of course they knew who hacked them. That’s why they were there.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well, since you’ve repeated it multiple times in contradiction to all testimony by people who knew them, you must be right...





> 20 year old, still lives with Crazy Mommy, goes on a shooting rampage because she took a weekend off for a booty call.



The investigation had revealed that he was apparently planning the massacre since the year before. His mother’s trip probably had nothing to do with it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t know who DaleSmith is and I’m pretty sure it’s not a hoax. Also, authorities don’t release crime scene and autopsy photos to the public on general principle in any case. That’s not to say you wouldn’t be able to find them because they often get leaked. But I don’t know of any case where they are released.





> Well, maybe we should.  I think if we did, that would shut these shitstains from the NRA up for good.



And give you a woody, right?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For you and a lot of other pro-gun control people, this is not about the guns or even the deaths. It’s about taking something away from people you deem uneducated redneck hicks because you don’t agree with their politics, way of life, way of thinking and way of believing.





> No, man, it's about the deaths... and the fact we have to mold the whole rest of our society around your nuttiness.



Bullshit. You know how I know? Even after it was proven to you that the neighbors never said anything about Nancy being nuts, you persist with that lie anyway.
Even after it was proven to you that Phillips was not in D.C. with a veterans group so Sandmann had no way of knowing he was a veteran, you persist with with your “Punkass Little Catholic Bastard disrespected a vet” false narrative anyway.

Even if we allow the possibility that you care about the deaths, you obviously don’t give a loose shit in a high wind about any truth or facts beyond the fact of their deaths.



> Just a couple of weeks ago, our whole plant went into a panic because a lady who had gotten downsized a few weeks before was wandering the halls.   Of course, she had been invited to stop by for a retirement party of another employee, and no one told facilities management.



Was anyone in a panic about driving home at the end of the day? You are statistically more likely to die in a car accident so I think you should have been concerned about that.



> But because we live in a gun crazy society, yup, they even think this 60 year old grandma was a potential active shooter.



Did the little old lady scare you?[/quote][/QUOTE]


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to stop criminals and save lives each year get tired of people like you trying to make them victims......
> ...




You think that isn't already changing?   The welfare state has changed Britain and they are headed toward blood and violence....and it doesn't help that the 3rd world males they imported are also the ones driving their drug gang violence...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns to stop criminals and save lives each year get tired of people like you trying to make them victims......
> ...




Moron, they had low murder rates before they banned guns, after they banned guns it didn't change.....now it is changing as fatherless homes and 3rd world immigrants increase the violence there...

And if you had an accurate theory, our gun murder rate would have gone up, not down as more people own and actually carry guns....you can't explain that and hide from it whenever I post it....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and* over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...*


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

*More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.*

Actual Result:

*In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72% 

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....*

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
*More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change?   That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------*


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Nov 28, 2019)

Ridiculous bullshit.


Brain357 said:


> Great news.



Maybe we should be able to sue leftist politicians for the actions of the illegals they coddle. Makes as much sense.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And there is one of your big problems—one that is rather obvious in other contexts as well. You have an extremely-warped view of what constitutes a _“normal”_ person. To you, suicides and perpetrators of domestic violence are _“normal”_, along with, as has been demonstrated by your posting in other threads, homosexuals, transsexuals,  violent criminals, thieves, vandals, drug abusers, and others that genuinely-normal people view as abnormal, deviant, and harmful elements in society. .



First, reported for attack on family. 

Second, outside of your cult, people have fights. People have bad days....  Yes, people get depressed and commit suicide. My neighbor who killed himself was ill and suffered from nearly constant pain. Some people are gay and trans.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> It's notable that you'll use culture as an explanation when it suits your purpose, and dismiss it when it does not.
> 
> Both Japan and China re much stricter, more authoritarian, conformist societies than we are. Criminal behavior is tolerated much less in those societies, and carries not only greater legal penalties, but greater social stigma as well. But you dismiss that, and attribute their lower crime rates to less easy access to firearms.



Your argument would work well, if there was a country where they sell guns to any crazy person who wants them, and they still didn't have a high crime rate because of "culture".  That country doesn't exist.  Most of the world has the good sense to restrict gun ownership.  The only countries with higher murder rates are the ones where government has FAILED to enforce laws, like Mexico.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The neighbors never said anything about her being nuts so they didn’t prove anything you think you know.



Yes, they did... but you probably don't realize that people who stock up guns and canned goods like the Zombies are coming are nuts. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nobody said anything about what the FBI asked or did not ask. And of course they knew who hacked them. That’s why they were there.



Um, no, they were there because he just shot 26 people... They were probably never hacked... or that would have been in their report. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The investigation had revealed that he was apparently planning the massacre since the year before. His mother’s trip probably had nothing to do with it.



Really? Because all his computers were smashed up before the attack.  In fact, we really don't know a lot about what set him off... other than being in a house with a crazy woman who thought the Zombies were coming. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. You know how I know? Even after it was proven to you that the neighbors never said anything about Nancy being nuts, you persist with that lie anyway.



Again- they said she was a prepper. Preppers are all nuts.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Was anyone in a panic about driving home at the end of the day? You are statistically more likely to die in a car accident so I think you should have been concerned about that.



Oh, I agree, but the company won't get sued for an accident going home.  They do have to really worry about workplace shootings.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Did the little old lady scare you?



Not me... but apparently the building manager was in a panic...  that's the society we live in now... 

In Aurora, they had five people killed because some guy who just got fired went back to his car, killed his boss and the HR manager after he got fired.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Your argument would work well, if there was a country where they sell guns to any crazy person who wants them, and they still didn't have a high crime rate because of "culture".  That country doesn't exist.  Most of the world has the good sense to restrict gun ownership.  The only countries with higher murder rates are the ones where government has FAILED to enforce laws, like Mexico.



  Switzerland stands out as a very famous example.  All men within a certain age range are members of the army, and as such, are in possession of a true assault rifle capable of fully-automatic fire; something that our own corrupt government here in the U.S. refuses to allow us to posses.

  If easy access to guns, especially true military-grade fully-automatic-capable rifles, was the cause of murder, then Switzerland would have one of the highest murder rates in the world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Switzerland stands out as a very famous example. All men within a certain age range are members of the army, and as such, are in possession of a true assault rifle capable of fully-automatic fire; something that our own corrupt government here in the U.S. refuses to allow us to posses.



Um, you guys constantly misrepresent what Switzerland has.... it's not the gun paradise you guys imagine.  In fact, the ownership of guns by men in the reserves is strictly regulated.  They tightened down laws after some nut shot up a lot government building. 

They've tightened gun laws further to comply with EU standards. 

Tighter gun laws approved by Swiss voters despite opposition



Bob Blaylock said:


> If easy access to guns, especially true military-grade fully-automatic-capable rifles, was the cause of murder, then Switzerland would have one of the highest murder rates in the world.



Here's the thing.  Switzerland actually has what the Founding Slave Rapists envisioned, which is a "well-regulated" militia with guns.  Which means that if you are Adam Lanza, you don't get into the reserves and no gun for you.  

Furthermore, the old policy of taking your guns home has been rolled back.  

How Military Reforms in Switzerland Accidentally Prevented Gun Suicides

And this funny thing happened when they did that.. The SUICIDE RATE DECLINED!!!  

Oh, snap, Mormon Bob.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Switzerland stands out as a very famous example. All men within a certain age range are members of the army, and as such, are in possession of a true assault rifle capable of fully-automatic fire; something that our own corrupt government here in the U.S. refuses to allow us to posses.
> ...




Moron....they have possession of the guns.....you idiot...nothing stops them from taking the guns they have in their homes to a mall, school or church and shooting people....you idiot..... you have no idea what you are talking about...


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron....they have possession of the guns.....you idiot...nothing stops them from taking the guns they have in their homes to a mall, school or church and shooting people....you idiot..... you have no idea what you are talking about...



Actually, they've rolled back the 2nd Amendment Wank Dream after THIS happened. 

Swiss mass shooter declared mentally unsound


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron....they have possession of the guns.....you idiot...nothing stops them from taking the guns they have in their homes to a mall, school or church and shooting people....you idiot..... you have no idea what you are talking about...
> ...




And with all those guns they had one.....wow, you are an idiot......we have over 600 million guns in private hands and over 320 million people...we had 12, 93 killed....bicycles kill more people than mass public shooters with guns, you moron...

Meanwhile...again....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and* over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...*


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

*More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.*

Actual Result:

*In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72% 

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....*

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
*More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change?   That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------*

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The neighbors never said anything about her being nuts so they didn’t prove anything you think you know.
> ...



No, they did not. Even the article you linked to prove they said she was nuts did not quote any neighbor saying anything remotely like this.
One or two said she seemed “high strung”, that’s it. No neighbor ever said anything about her being nuts or crazy or anything like that.



> but you probably don't realize that people who stock up guns and canned goods like the Zombies are coming are nuts.



If she had stocked up for a zombie apocalypse then I would say yeah, she might have been unbalanced. But she didn’t.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nobody said anything about what the FBI asked or did not ask. And of course they knew who hacked them. That’s why they were there.





> Um, no, they were there because he just shot 26 people... They were probably never hacked... or that would have been in their report.



How the fuck would she have been able to talk to the FBI or tell her neighbors about the hacking on the day of the shooting when she was dead? Jesus.
Since she was obviously alive to tell friends and neighbors about it then logic dictates it took place some time before the shooting.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The investigation had revealed that he was apparently planning the massacre since the year before. His mother’s trip probably had nothing to do with it.





> Really? Because all his computers were smashed up before the attack.  In fact, we really don't know a lot about what set him off... other than being in a house with a crazy woman who thought the Zombies were coming.



Then how did they know this? Not only did they know he had been planning it from the year before, they even had the month: March 2011. They even discovered from his computers that he apparently had pedophilic tendencies.

Merely smashing a computer will not destroy the data on the hard drive. In addition, they have programs that can retrieve date even if you delete all the files on it.
Any computer expert will tell you that unless you have a special program for that purpose, it is impossible to completely erase data to where it is irretrievable. It was part of the reason for the whole BleachBit scandal with Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.

So apparently Lanza never used any such program or even bothered to delete the files. He only physically smashed the computers. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to learn what they did.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. You know how I know? Even after it was proven to you that the neighbors never said anything about Nancy being nuts, you persist with that lie anyway.





> Again- they said she was a prepper. Preppers are all nuts.



That’s a matter of opinion. The fact remains that you were wrong; the neighbors never said she was nuts.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Was anyone in a panic about driving home at the end of the day? You are statistically more likely to die in a car accident so I think you should have been concerned about that.





> Oh, I agree, but the company won't get sued for an accident going home.  They do have to really worry about workplace shootings.



So then, they’re concerned about lawsuits but not getting killed or employees getting killed. Is that what you’re telling me?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Did the little old lady scare you?





> ]Not me... but apparently the building manager was in a panic...  that's the society we live in now...



Apparently it’s also a society where, if one points out that a person who is either lying, mistaken or guilty of emotional embellishment and hyperbole regarding his confrontation with someone as revealed in a video, one is thought to be scared of the “red man” even though the person’s ethnicity is merely a product of circumstance and has no bearing on the case or his behavior. In other words, the society we live in now brands people as racist for merely disagreeing with a minority on a matter that has nothing to do with that person’s race or ethnicity.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, they did not. Even the article you linked to prove t



Hey, before I waste one of the few days I get off on this, are you going to come up with any new material, or are you just going to keep recycling the same stuff.  

People who hoarde guns and canned goods for the Zombie Apocalypse are nuts. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How the fuck would she have been able to talk to the FBI or tell her neighbors about the hacking on the day of the shooting when she was dead? Jesus.



That's not what the article said.  They said that her neighbors told the FBI that she told them that someone from the FBI or CIA (she didn't remember which) had visited them because he tried to access one of their databases...  That doesn't prove anyone did, and you would think she'd know if it was the CIA Or the FBI.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then how did they know this? Not only did they know he had been planning it from the year before, they even had the month: March 2011. They even discovered from his computers that he apparently had pedophilic tendencies.
> 
> Merely smashing a computer will not destroy the data on the hard drive. In addition, they have programs that can retrieve date even if you delete all the files on it.



Not that giving you links does any good. 

We May Never Know What Was on Adam Lanza's Hard Drive

_After spending several days trying to extract data from Adam Lanza's damaged hard drive, investigators say that they've come up short. It wasn't for lack of trying, either. Connecticut State Police joined forces with the FBI in an attempt to recover the data but found no clues as to why the troubled 20-year-old stormed into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 first graders and six adults before killing himself. Lanza may have wanted it that way, since he destroyed the hard drive before leaving for the school. Before recovery efforts started on the hard drive, sources said that it "appeared to have been badly damaged with a hammer or screwdriver." On Monday, one investigator floated what may seem an obvious hypothesis, "He was eliminating [investigators'] ability to figure out what websites he had gone to or who he might have been communicating with."_

Moving right along. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So then, they’re concerned about lawsuits but not getting killed or employees getting killed. Is that what you’re telling me?



I think most employer regret we have a 13th amendment.  The main reason I'm liberal today... 28 years of watching absolutely shitty behavior by employers.  

Yes, I think the few precautions they take to protect workers is a fear of lawsuits... Otherwise, they'd happily hire Shooty McCrazypants....  That case in Aurora.. if they had done their background check... they'd have realized that crazy guy who shot up five people had already been convicted in MS for stabbing a woman. But he worked cheap. 

Two jobs back.. The thing that amazed me was how they designed the building so that the managers on the Second Floor couldlock down the building if they had a mass shooter....and protect themselves. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Apparently it’s also a society where, if one points out that



Again, do you have any new material, because this "Joe is a meany" is getting a little fucking tired.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > No, they did not. Even the article you linked to prove t
> ...



I don’t know, are you going to keep recycling the false narrative that the neighbors said she was nuts? If you persist with this untrue argument, I will persist in telling you you’re wrong. Simple as that.



> People who hoarde guns and canned goods for the Zombie Apocalypse are nuts.



It would be an issue if she had.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How the fuck would she have been able to talk to the FBI or tell her neighbors about the hacking on the day of the shooting when she was dead? Jesus.





> That's not what the article said.



What article? Besides, we’re talking about her claim that authorities showed up at their home to talk about Adam hacking their system, not about what neighbors told the FBI on the day of the shooting.



> They said that her neighbors told the FBI that she told them that someone from the FBI or CIA (she didn't remember which) had visited them because he tried to access one of their databases...  That doesn't prove anyone did, and you would think she'd know if it was the CIA Or the FBI.



Neighbors saying she seemed high strung doesn’t prove that they said she was nuts either.

You have a somewhat shaky relationship with facts, truth and what constitutes proof. Neighbors saying Adam hacked a government system is not proof he did but the same neighbors saying Nancy seemed high strung somehow proves they said she was nuts. I just don’t get it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then how did they know this? Not only did they know he had been planning it from the year before, they even had the month: March 2011. They even discovered from his computers that he apparently had pedophilic tendencies.
> 
> Merely smashing a computer will not destroy the data on the hard drive. In addition, they have programs that can retrieve date even if you delete all the files on it.





> Not that giving you links does any good.



Christ you’ve got gall. This from the guy who refuses to click on any link I put up on the assumption it’s a wingnut site. What a fucking hypocrite.



> We May Never Know What Was on Adam Lanza's Hard Drive
> 
> _After spending several days trying to extract data from Adam Lanza's damaged hard drive, investigators say that they've come up short. It wasn't for lack of trying, either. Connecticut State Police joined forces with the FBI in an attempt to recover the data but found no clues as to why the troubled 20-year-old stormed into Sandy Hook Elementary School and gunned down 20 first graders and six adults before killing himself. Lanza may have wanted it that way, since he destroyed the hard drive before leaving for the school. Before recovery efforts started on the hard drive, sources said that it "appeared to have been badly damaged with a hammer or screwdriver." On Monday, one investigator floated what may seem an obvious hypothesis, "He was eliminating [investigators'] ability to figure out what websites he had gone to or who he might have been communicating with."_
> 
> Moving right along.



This article is four days after the shooting. A lot has happened since then. Below is a Rolling Stone article from December 2018, six years after the shooting:

Sandy Hook Shooter: New Documents Detail Adam Lanza's 'Scorn for Humanity'

From the article:

_"The mass of writings, records, and *computer files* were seized by detectives from Lanza’s home after the murders and were withheld from the public,..."

"Also *recovered from Lanza’s computer* was a spreadsheet produced between 2006 to 2010 which contained complex details about over 400 mass killings dating to 1786."_

While we're at it, from a USAToday article from October 2017:

Newly released FBI documents reveal disturbing details about Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza

"_Investigators also found Lanza’s deteriorating relationship with his mother was a significant stressor in the weeks and months before the attack. However, the *behavioral analysis found Lanza did not “snap,” but engaged in “careful, methodical planning and preparation” for the attack."*_

So investigators disagree with you that Nancy's "booty call", as you so eloquently put it, pushed Adam over the edge and sparked the rampage.

Moving right along.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So then, they’re concerned about lawsuits but not getting killed or employees getting killed. Is that what you’re telling me?





> I think most employer regret we have a 13th amendment.



Because they fear lawsuits. 



> The main reason I'm liberal today... 28 years of watching absolutely shitty behavior by employers.



The main reason I'm still conservative today is 28 days (give or take) of watching absolutely shitty behavior by you.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Apparently it’s also a society where, if one points out that





> Again, do you have any new material, because this "Joe is a meany" is getting a little fucking tired.



I'll come up with new material as soon as you stop contradicting yourself, violating your own stated principles and using double standards.

You're getting fucking tired because _you_ keep fucking coming back you idiot. Nobody's forcing you to engage with or debate me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Nov 29, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> don’t know, are you going to keep recycling the false narrative



So, no, you don't really have any new material, then... 

So let's see if there's anything in this post that amuses me. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So investigators disagree with you that Nancy's "booty call", as you so eloquently put it, pushed Adam over the edge and sparked the rampage.



Not really... Frankly, all they did was recover a spreadsheet.  He might have just been a true crime enthusiast.

YOu see,most mass killers don't wait for their mommies to get their guns for them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have a somewhat shaky relationship with facts, truth and what constitutes proof. Neighbors saying Adam hacked a government system is not proof he did but the same neighbors saying Nancy seemed high strung somehow proves they said she was nuts. I just don’t get it.



Well, I would go with ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE...

Her neighbors said she was nuts.
She was stocking up enough guns and Ammo to fight off the Zombies.
She really, really thought the world was coming to an end. 
And according to you, she had no idea that her son was plotting to do a mass murder...   

Got to admit, my mom had five of us to watch, and we couldn't keep secrets that good.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> _nvestigators also found Lanza’s deteriorating relationship with his mother was a significant stressor in the weeks and months before the attack. However, the *behavioral analysis found Lanza did not “snap,” but engaged in “careful, methodical planning and preparation” for the attack."*_



These would be the same FBI profilers that concluded that the UnaBomber was going to be a well-groomed trades worker. 







Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nobody's forcing you to engage with or debate me.



True, but mocking you is so much fun...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Nov 30, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > don’t know, are you going to keep recycling the false narrative
> ...



So yes, I guess you’re going to keep recycling the false narrative that the neighbors said she was nuts.



> So let's see if there's anything in this post that amuses me.



As you wish. If you do though, don’t whine to me later about getting fucking tired.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So investigators disagree with you that Nancy's "booty call", as you so eloquently put it, pushed Adam over the edge and sparked the rampage.





> Not really... Frankly, all they did was recover a spreadsheet.  He might have just been a true crime enthusiast.



But wouldn’t that mean he was fucking nuts? That’s what you said about Nancy being a gun enthusiast so...

But all seriousness aside, the article said they found a spreadsheet, they did not say it was _all_ they found. It was a newspaper article which means they’re not going to publish the entire report as it is thousands of pages long. They’re only going to hit the highlights.



> YOu see,most mass killers don't wait for their mommies to get their guns for them.



She probably already had the guns when he started planning.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have a somewhat shaky relationship with facts, truth and what constitutes proof. Neighbors saying Adam hacked a government system is not proof he did but the same neighbors saying Nancy seemed high strung somehow proves they said she was nuts. I just don’t get it.





> Well, I would go with ACCUMULATION OF EVIDENCE...



And who collected and professionally analyzed this evidence? The FBI and Connecticut authorities, not you.



> Her neighbors said she was nuts.



No, they did not. They said she seemed high strung, that’s it.

Another important detail: The neighbors did not know she was stockpiling food. This wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. And, she never expressed her concerns about an economic collapse to her neighbors, only her sister in law.

So in the final analysis, the neighbors had no clue about her prepping - they just thought she was a gun enthusiast - and no one knew about the food cache.



> She was stocking up enough guns and Ammo to fight off the Zombies.



Except she wasn’t.



> She really, really thought the world was coming to an end.



No, she didn’t. She thought there might be an economic collapse. And she may have been right.



> And according to you, she had no idea that her son was plotting to do a mass murder...



Why would she? He locked himself in his room the last three months of his life and refused to communicate or interact with anyone, including his mother. Besides, how many parents out there are willing to entertain the idea that their child is capable of or planning a mass shooting, even if he is a “tard”?



> Got to admit, my mom had five of us to watch, and we couldn't keep secrets that good.



Were any of you autistic? Excuse me, retarded?

Autistics, excuse me, retards, are very fragile and particular about their routines. Any little change in settings, surroundings or routines will cause them stress and they will withdraw even further within themselves.
Nancy saw that he was withdrawing and even mentioned it and that she was concerned about it. She probably figured the best way to deal with it was to pull back and wait for him to come around.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> _nvestigators also found Lanza’s deteriorating relationship with his mother was a significant stressor in the weeks and months before the attack. However, the *behavioral analysis found Lanza did not “snap,” but engaged in “careful, methodical planning and preparation” for the attack."*_





> These would be the same FBI profilers that concluded that the UnaBomber was going to be a well-groomed trades worker.



You don’t seriously expect me to accept your analysis over that of people who are trained for it, do you?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nobody's forcing you to engage with or debate me.





> True, but mocking you is so much fun...



How, by repeating false narratives? Making clueless unprofessional psychological analyses? Making wild assumptions based on your biases? Calling autistics “retards”, though they’re not? Linking outdated articles? Contradicting yourself? Ignoring facts? Being prejudiced? Repeating the same incorrect arguments over and over in the face of contradictory evidence and testimony and then accusing me of being repetitive?

If this is what mocking is to you then mock away. Because the more you do, the more fun _I_ have.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> But wouldn’t that mean he was fucking nuts? That’s what you said about Nancy being a gun enthusiast so...
> 
> But all seriousness aside, the article said they found a spreadsheet, they did not say it was _all_ they found. It was a newspaper article which means they’re not going to publish the entire report as it is thousands of pages long. They’re only going to hit the highlights.



Yeah, they really didn't publish much at all... probably because they didn't want to admit they dropped the ball- AGAIN - in stopping a mass shooter.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Autistics, excuse me, retards, are very fragile and particular about their routines. Any little change in settings, surroundings or routines will cause them stress and they will withdraw even further within themselves.
> Nancy saw that he was withdrawing and even mentioned it and that she was concerned about it. She probably figured the best way to deal with it was to pull back and wait for him to come around.



Or she was just a fucking nut who stockpiled guns and didn't see his behavior as all that abnormal.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How, by repeating false narratives? Making clueless unprofessional psychological analyses? Making wild assumptions based on your biases? Calling autistics “retards”, though they’re not? Linking outdated articles? Contradicting yourself? Ignoring facts? Being prejudiced? Repeating the same incorrect arguments over and over in the face of contradictory evidence and testimony and then accusing me of being repetitive?



Yes, watching you whine like a little bitch is hilarious...  man, are you a whiny little bitch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don’t seriously expect me to accept your analysis over that of people who are trained for it, do you?



Yeah, you see, funny thing...  the FBI fucks things up so often that I really can't take what they say seriously.   Waco. Ruby Ridge.  My personal favorite because it's near my vacation property,  Little Bohemia...  that was a riot. Well, not for the poor CCC workers they shot by mistake because they were looking for John Dillinger.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > But wouldn’t that mean he was fucking nuts? That’s what you said about Nancy being a gun enthusiast so...
> ...



Who, USAToday? They didn’t publish the report, they published an article _about_ the report. As for the FBI, the entire report was released.



> probably because they didn't want to admit they dropped the ball- AGAIN - in stopping a mass shooter.



Irrelevant. You said that all they found was a spreadsheet but that’s simply not true.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Autistics, excuse me, retards, are very fragile and particular about their routines. Any little change in settings, surroundings or routines will cause them stress and they will withdraw even further within themselves.
> Nancy saw that he was withdrawing and even mentioned it and that she was concerned about it. She probably figured the best way to deal with it was to pull back and wait for him to come around.





> Or she was just a fucking nut who stockpiled guns



You forgot to say “...for the zombie apocalypse.” You know, for dramatic effect like you always do.



> and didn't see his behavior as all that abnormal.



His behavior was normal for an autistic. 

His continued withdrawal was no doubt unwanted but by no means abnormal for a person with Asperger’s.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How, by repeating false narratives? Making clueless unprofessional psychological analyses? Making wild assumptions based on your biases? Calling autistics “retards”, though they’re not? Linking outdated articles? Contradicting yourself? Ignoring facts? Being prejudiced? Repeating the same incorrect arguments over and over in the face of contradictory evidence and testimony and then accusing me of being repetitive?





> Yes, watching you whine like a little bitch is hilarious...  man, are you a whiny little bitch.



Meaning: “I’m fucking tired because you keep pointing out when I’m wrong or full of shit.”


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> His behavior was normal for an autistic.
> 
> His continued withdrawal was no doubt unwanted but by no means abnormal for a person with Asperger’s.



And that shooting 26 people, that was just a cry for attention... Fuck off. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning: “I’m fucking tired because you keep pointing out when I’m wrong or full of shit.”



You are the one being sypmathetic to Crazy Nancy and her Retard Son. 

I'm sympathetic to those 20 kids and six teachers who died, needlessly because PEOPLE LIKE THAT CAN GET GUNS!


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You don’t seriously expect me to accept your analysis over that of people who are trained for it, do you?
> ...



You can’t even tell the difference between autism and Down’s Syndrome. For that matter, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “She seemed high strung” and “She was fucking nuts.” 

A few other things you got wrong or are unsupported assumptions:

• They didn’t get anything off Lanza’s computer.

• Nancy Lanza was stocking up for the zombie apocalypse.

• Adam Lanza was a retard.

• Nancy Lanza should have known Adam was planning a mass shooting even though his behavior was typical of someone with Asperger’s.

• Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet.

• Sandmann harassed and taunted Phillips and his group.

• Phillips was with a veterans group.

• Phillips’ ethnicity was a factor in my assessment of his behavior.

I’m sorry, but you simply don’t have a very good track record yourself when it comes to critical thinking and objective deductive reasoning.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > His behavior was normal for an autistic.
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > His behavior was normal for an autistic.
> ...



Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s parents didn’t suspect anything either. And they weren’t autistic. Fuck off.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning: “I’m fucking tired because you keep pointing out when I’m wrong or full of shit.”





> ]You are the one being sypmathetic to Crazy Nancy and her Retard Son.



Nope. First of all, I never said Nancy wasn’t crazy. I said the _neighbors_ did not say she was nuts. And they didn’t. Secondly, I never defended Adam either. I just said he wasn’t retarded.

Your arguments are simplistic and unrealistic because they are not based on objective assessment of the facts of the case. They are a product of your hatred for gun owners.



> I'm sympathetic to those 20 kids and six teachers who died, needlessly because PEOPLE LIKE THAT CAN GET GUNS!



I don’t believe you are as sympathetic to those kids as you are contemptuous of gun owners. I’m simply not seeing a parallel here or an even scale in your case. Your insistence on using overblown hyperbole and childish exaggerations and offensive terms like “zombie apocalypse” and “Tardy McTardo” does not lend itself to portray an objective observer.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s parents didn’t suspect anything either. And they weren’t autistic. Fuck off.



No, Harris just had severe emotional problems requiring him to be medicated...  

CNN - Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant - April 29, 1999



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. First of all, I never said Nancy wasn’t crazy. I said the _neighbors_ did not say she was nuts. And they didn’t. Secondly, I never defended Adam either. I just said he wasn’t retarded.
> 
> Your arguments are simplistic and unrealistic because they are not based on objective assessment of the facts of the case. They are a product of your hatred for gun owners.



Yes, I really do hate a culture that thinks crazy people like the Lanzas should have guns... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t believe you are as sympathetic to those kids as you are contemptuous of gun owners. I’m simply not seeing a parallel here or an even scale in your case. Your insistence on using overblown hyperbole and childish exaggerations and offensive terms like “zombie apocalypse” and “Tardy McTardo” does not lend itself to portray an objective observer.



You can believe whatever you want...  but, yeah, If you just all stayed home all day polishing your guns compensating for your...er... shortcomings, I probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with you.  It's that you think people like this should have guns and then make excuses when one of them goes off...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 1, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You can’t even tell the difference between autism and Down’s Syndrome. For that matter, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “She seemed high strung” and “She was fucking nuts.”



Yawn, guy...  not all the Tards have Downs...  

Some of them have Autism. 

Can we say "Tard" anymore? We wouldn't want to offended them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Harris’ and Dylan Klebold’s parents didn’t suspect anything either. And they weren’t autistic. Fuck off.
> ...



Irrelevant. The parents still had no idea that their sons would commit a mass shooting.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. First of all, I never said Nancy wasn’t crazy. I said the _neighbors_ did not say she was nuts. And they didn’t. Secondly, I never defended Adam either. I just said he wasn’t retarded.
> 
> Your arguments are simplistic and unrealistic because they are not based on objective assessment of the facts of the case. They are a product of your hatred for gun owners.





> Yes, I really do hate a culture that thinks crazy people like the Lanzas should have guns...



First of all, you don’t so much hate the culture as much as you hate the people who own guns and advocate for gun rights. Secondly, legal and responsible gun owners don’t think crazy people should have guns.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don’t believe you are as sympathetic to those kids as you are contemptuous of gun owners. I’m simply not seeing a parallel here or an even scale in your case. Your insistence on using overblown hyperbole and childish exaggerations and offensive terms like “zombie apocalypse” and “Tardy McTardo” does not lend itself to portray an objective observer.





> You can believe whatever you want...  but, yeah, If you just all stayed home all day polishing your guns compensating for your...er... shortcomings, I probably wouldn't have that much of a problem with you.  It's that you think people like this should have guns and then make excuses when one of them goes off...



Wrong. I never suggested people “like this” should have guns and I made no excuses for anyone. All I’ve done is correct you when you’re wrong and point out that there is a bigger picture here and other factors to consider.

None of these considerations absolve Adam of the crime. It was tragic and it was wrong and there is no justification for it. But there are contributing factors nonetheless; factors that don’t fit neatly into your “Preppers are nuts and mass shooters are retards” narrative.

So, unless you have experience caring for someone who’s autistic, you have no fucking qualification to offer an informed opinion on Nancy’s mental state or even Adam’s for that matter. It is your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper, nothing more.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 1, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You can’t even tell the difference between autism and Down’s Syndrome. For that matter, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “She seemed high strung” and “She was fucking nuts.”
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You can’t even tell the difference between autism and Down’s Syndrome. For that matter, you don’t seem to understand the difference between “She seemed high strung” and “She was fucking nuts.”
> ...



Even if you’re right, Adam’s proficiency with computers would suggest he was not retarded.

Below is an article at Autism-Society.org that explains Asperger’s, including mental capacity and how it differs from other forms of autism:

Asperger’s Syndrome - Autism Society

From the article:

_“Another distinction between Asperger’s Disorder and autism concerns cognitive ability. While some individuals with autism have intellectual disabilities, by definition, a person with Asperger’s Disorder cannot have a “clinically significant” cognitive delay, and *most possess average to above-average intelligence.*_



> Can we say "Tard" anymore? We wouldn't want to offended them.



It never stopped you before. The fact that you’re asking merely suggests to me that you just want me to know you don’t give a shit if it’s offensive or not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, you don’t so much hate the culture as much as you hate the people who own guns and advocate for gun rights. Secondly, legal and responsible gun owners don’t think crazy people should have guns.



Yeah, here's the problem I have.  "gun rights".  It works on the premise that you have a "right" to a gun like you have a right to trial or free speech.  

Gun ownership should not be a right. Not everyone should own a gun. Some people plain old should not ever have a gun, like Adam Lanza.  They most certainly shouldn't have a gun that was specifically designed for the battlefields of Vietnam. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if you’re right, Adam’s proficiency with computers would suggest he was not retarded.
> 
> Below is an article at Autism-Society.org that explains Asperger’s, including mental capacity and how it differs from other forms of autism:



Look, guy, I know that I've hurt your wittle feelings by calling you and your fellow Autistics "Retards".  Deal with it.  
"Corky really smart... Corky can use computer!"


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So, unless you have experience caring for someone who’s autistic, you have no fucking qualification to offer an informed opinion on Nancy’s mental state or even Adam’s for that matter. It is your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper, nothing more.



Here's my INFORMED opinion.  He went out and shot 26 people with guns that she taught him how to use.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So, unless you have experience caring for someone who’s autistic, you have no fucking qualification to offer an informed opinion on Nancy’s mental state or even Adam’s for that matter. It is your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper, nothing more.
> ...



Irrelevant. First, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are still not qualified to make an informed assessment of her mental state. In other words, she wasn’t nuts just because you say so. 
Second, operating a firearm is not rocket science and, contrary to your UNinformed opinion that Adam was a retard, he would have figured out how to use it anyway if he was determined to do so.
If someone of your intelligence can come up with “Tardy McTardo”, I’m confident Adam Lanza could have sussed out how to operate a firearm.



JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you don’t so much hate the culture as much as you hate the people who own guns and advocate for gun rights. Secondly, legal and responsible gun owners don’t think crazy people should have guns.
> ...



Opinion.



> Not everyone should own a gun.



No, not everyone should. Not everyone should drive a vehicle either. Not everyone should own a motorcycle, a boat, a jet-ski, a lawnmower, be a cop, be an airline pilot, bus driver, ferry captain...

Right now, at this very moment, one or more of these people will get themselves or others killed through incompetence, negligence or sheer stupidity. And it’s always easy to say, after the fact, that this person should never have been a truck driver or a police officer or whatever.

Hindsight is 20/20 and any idiot can figure out that a drunk bus driver that kills ten people should not have been a bus driver.



> Some people plain old should not ever have a gun, like Adam Lanza.



Adam didn’t own them, his mother did.



> They most certainly shouldn't have a gun that was specifically designed for the battlefields of Vietnam.



Weapons with full auto capability were designed for battlefields. The current AR-15 for civilian use was not.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if you’re right, Adam’s proficiency with computers would suggest he was not retarded.
> 
> Below is an article at Autism-Society.org that explains Asperger’s, including mental capacity and how it differs from other forms of autism:





> Look, guy, I know that I've hurt your wittle feelings by calling you and your fellow Autistics "Retards".  Deal with it.
> "Corky really smart... Corky can use computer!"



How clever. Is this the best you can do? You have nothing to say about the fact that people with Asperger’s are just as smart or smarter than you?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Look, guy, I know that I've hurt your wittle feelings by calling you and your fellow Autistics "Retards".  Deal with it.
> "Corky really smart... Corky can use computer!"





Ghost of a Rider said:


> How clever. Is this the best you can do? You have nothing to say about the fact that people with Asperger’s are just as smart or smarter than you?



  This is JoeB131 we're talking about.  People with severe Down's Syndrome are as smart or smarter than he.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 2, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. First, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are still not qualified to make an informed assessment of her mental state. In other words, she wasn’t nuts just because you say so.



No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, not everyone should. Not everyone should drive a vehicle either. Not everyone should own a motorcycle, a boat, a jet-ski, a lawnmower, be a cop, be an airline pilot, bus driver, ferry captain...



Okay.... now that we've established that, let's have some sensible standards on who can own a gun.   

Oh, wait, that's not where you were going, was it? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right now, at this very moment, one or more of these people will get themselves or others killed through incompetence, negligence or sheer stupidity. And it’s always easy to say, after the fact, that this person should never have been a truck driver or a police officer or whatever.



Yes, it is... it's also easy to tell who shouldn't have a gun before they buy one.  Now, if you licensed guns the way we license cars, we probably wouldn't have an issue...  Most people would be fine with handguns, but if you want your anti-Zombie Arsenal, you better show cause. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Weapons with full auto capability were designed for battlefields. The current AR-15 for civilian use was not.



You realize that the design of the gun was entirely for the battlefield. It was designed to be lightweight, to have a smaller caliber round that tumbles to inflict maximum damage (My Drill Instructor pointed out that an M16 was a 22 caliber, a good varmit gun... good for shooting varmits, like Russians).  It has a short barrel to be easily used in jungles, 

In short- a gun no civilian has any good reason to have.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> This is JoeB131 we're talking about. People with severe Down's Syndrome are as smart or smarter than he.



Yet, still living in your head, Rent Free, Mormon Bob.  

Hey, what's the difference between Joseph Smith and David Koresh? 

Original and Extra Crispy.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up.·
> ·
> ·​Okay.... now that we've established that, let's have some sensible standards on who can own a gun.
> 
> ...



  One wonders how many times you think you need to repeat the same lies, before they will become true.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 2, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. First, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are still not qualified to make an informed assessment of her mental state. In other words, she wasn’t nuts just because you say so.
> ...



It was designed to be lightweight, to have a smaller caliber round that tumbles to inflict maximum damage

Your Drill Sargent was a moron....it was simply made to be light weight so Grunts could carry more of them....you idiot.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. First, you are entitled to your opinion, but you are still not qualified to make an informed assessment of her mental state. In other words, she wasn’t nuts just because you say so.
> ...



She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and  2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, not everyone should. Not everyone should drive a vehicle either. Not everyone should own a motorcycle, a boat, a jet-ski, a lawnmower, be a cop, be an airline pilot, bus driver, ferry captain...





> Okay.... now that we've established that, let's have some sensible standards on who can own a gun.
> 
> Oh, wait, that's not where you were going, was it?



By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:

1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.
2) involve profiling based on behaviors and actions that are NOT against the law.
3) political party affiliation.
4) support for a particular politician or political candidate.
5) support for gun rights organizations.
6) personal opinions of any person.

Others may come to mind but this is a good starting point.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right now, at this very moment, one or more of these people will get themselves or others killed through incompetence, negligence or sheer stupidity. And it’s always easy to say, after the fact, that this person should never have been a truck driver or a police officer or whatever.





> Yes, it is... it's also easy to tell who shouldn't have a gun before they buy one.



Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?



> Now, if you licensed guns the way we license cars, we probably wouldn't have an issue...  Most people would be fine with handguns, but if you want your anti-Zombie Arsenal, you better show cause.



Nope. It’s not against the law to prepare for any apocalypse, zombie or otherwise. It might be considered weird or eccentric but it is not against the law. Also, weird and eccentric doesn’t kill people, intent to kill kills people.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Weapons with full auto capability were designed for battlefields. The current AR-15 for civilian use was not.





> You realize that the design of the gun was entirely for the battlefield. It was designed to be lightweight, to have a smaller caliber round that tumbles to inflict maximum damage (My Drill Instructor pointed out that an M16 was a 22 caliber, a good varmit gun... good for shooting varmits, like Russians).  It has a short barrel to be easily used in jungles,



But it’s not full auto. Therefore, no different from any other semiautomatic firearm of comparable firepower.



> In short- a gun no civilian has any good reason to have.



Fortunately for us but unfortunately for you, “good reason” is not a criterion for determining these types of things. Given that we have a Constitutional right to own firearms, I am not required to prove “good reason” to purchase a firearm. The burden is on the government or state to prove good reason _not_ to allow a person to purchase a firearm.

Expanding on this, given that the AR-15 is no different than say, the M-14, other than aesthetic styling that makes it _look_ like a combat-ready military weapon, “good reason” is not a criterion that should be applied to one but not the other.
If I purchase an M-14 for sport but don’t need a “good reason” other than this, why should I need a “good reason” in addition to the purpose of sport and target shooting to purchase an AR-15 with the same fire rate and comparable firepower?

“No good reason” is an extremely slippery slope because once you employ this in the case of firearms, how long before they use it to deny other things like motorcycles?
Given the current climate change mania, I would not be surprised at all if this was used to deny us the right to purchase motorcycles, four wheelers and jet-skis in the future.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> One wonders how many times you think you need to repeat the same lies, before they will become true.



Sorry, man, your cult has been lying to you for your whole life...  

Joseph Smith was a two-bit con man who liked little girls, just like David Koresh...  His end was just as comical. 



2aguy said:


> Your Drill Sargent was a moron....it was simply made to be light weight so Grunts could carry more of them....you idiot.



No, it was designed to inflict maximum damage for a smaller caliber. The term "tumbling" is inaccurate, though. 

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-r...effective-to-550-yards-with-a-tumbling-bullet


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.
> 
> You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.



Well, yeah, if she thought Zombies were an actual thing, she might have been really nuts.. That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist.  Thanks for clarifying. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:
> 
> 1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.



Okay. "Are any of you in a Well-Regulated Militia?  No?  No gun for you. Problem solved.  Now we can proceed with the rest to deny guns to the crazies. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?



Well, if you want more than one, or want one designed for a battlefield. If you think you need a gun because you think society is about to collapse.   If your neighbors all report, "That bitch is crazy"  

As I've said, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > She wasn’t “stocking up” on guns, she was a gun enthusiast and enjoyed shooting them for sport. She likely had the guns before she started caching food. And she was not stocking food for zombies, it was for an economic collapse.
> ...



Who the fuck said anything about “negroes”?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> By all means, lay out some common sense standards by which we should decide who should have guns and who should not. Keep in mind though that these standards cannot:
> 
> 1) infringe on the basic 2nd Amendment rights.





> Okay. "Are any of you in a Well-Regulated Militia?  No?  No gun for you. Problem solved.  Now we can proceed with the rest to deny guns to the crazies.



“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”.

Sorry, but it doesn’t get any clearer than that.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Other than obvious legal criteria such as criminal record and citizenship and the like, how?





> Well, if you want more than one,



Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.



> or want one designed for a battlefield.



You said “gun”, not “AR_15”. And ARs for civilian use are not designed for the battlefield.



> If you think you need a gun because you think society is about to collapse.



Irrelevant. It’s not against the law to have an opinion.



> If your neighbors all report, "That bitch is crazy"



In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.



> As I've said, the best argument for gun control is a conversation with a gun nut.



Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic  and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?

If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Dude, if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, learn to use the quote feature properly.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > One wonders how many times you think you need to repeat the same lies, before they will become true.
> ...




Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....

Why did the US military switch from 7.62 to 5.56 rounds?

The smaller rounds weighed less, allowing troops to carry more ammunition into the fight. They also created less recoil, making it easier to level the weapon back onto the target between rounds and making automatic fire easier to manage. Tests showed that troops equipped with smaller 5.56mm rounds could engage targets more efficiently and effectively than those firing larger, heavier bullets.

5.56×45mm NATO - Wikipedia

There has been much debate of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Dude, if you want me to keep feeding your need for attention, learn to use the quote feature properly.



And if you want me to keep feeding _your_ need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> And if you want me to keep feeding _your_ need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.



Naw, I'm just mocking your ass now... . but if you make it too much of an effort by not using the quote feature properly, I'm not going to bother.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....
> 
> Why did the US military switch from 7.62 to 5.56 rounds?
> 
> ...



Does the 5.56 not meet your "manhood" requirements?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.



Good point.  Good thing the Second Amendment is about Militias and not guns. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.



Actually, that was just evidence of how crazy she was... which again- funny up until the point her own pet "Zombie" killed a bunch of kids.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?
> 
> If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > And if you want me to keep feeding _your_ need for attention, just keep coming back like you’ve been doing all along but pretend you are not.
> ...



Uh huh. So I guess that means that if I properly quote your inaccuracies and assumptions, you’ll continue to pretend you’re not doing the exact same thing I am? Got it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. If we have the right to own firearms then how many we own is immaterial.
> ...



And what does a militia use? That’s right, guns. Who are the militia? That’s right, civilians.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In Nancy Lanza’s case, they didn’t. And even if they did, their opinion that she is/was crazy does not supercede her opinion that society will collapse.





> Actually, that was just evidence of how crazy she was... which again- funny up until the point her own pet "Zombie" killed a bunch of kids.



Opinion. And the neighbors still did not say she was crazy.

You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.

Deal with it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Would that be because the “gun nut” simply adheres to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms or because his debate opponent uses melodramatic and sensational but untrue terms like “Tardy McTardo”, “zombie apocalypse” and “negroes”?
> 
> If you say “zombie apocalypse” often enough, you just may convince yourself that it’s true.



View attachment 292917[/QUOTE]

I guess you already have.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron.......the military chose that size round so they could carry more of it...you idiot.....
> ...




Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up.
> ...



  It seems to me that going on and and on and on about _“zombies”_, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree?  Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist.  Thanks for clarifying.
> ...



JoeB131 did.  Nobody else.

  So, who's the real racist, here?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Good point.  Good thing the Second Amendment is about Militias and not guns.
> ...



_“I ask, sir, who are the militia? It consists of *the whole people* except for a few public officials.”—George Mason_​
  And to whom does the right to keep and bear arms belong?  And to what extent, under what circumstances, is government permitted to infringe this right?

_“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, *shall not be infringed*.”_​


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2019)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the 5.56 not meet your "manhood" requirements?
> ...



  I'm pretty sure that earlier in this thread, he claimed to have served as some sort of weapons specialist in the military, a position which, if he had really held it, would make it impossible for him to have the extreme degree of ignorance about firearms that he so blatantly displays.  But the, I think it's already very solidly established that among his other issues, he's a pathological liar.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.



Trust me, after the jury takes Remington to the cleaners....  the gun industry will be the ones demanding to not sell to the Nancy Lanzas of the world. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I'm pretty sure that earlier in this thread, he claimed to have served as some sort of weapons specialist in the military, a position which, if he had really held it, would make it impossible for him to have the extreme degree of ignorance about firearms that he so blatantly displays. But the, I think it's already very solidly established that among his other issues, he's a pathological liar.



sorry, dude. MOS 76Y-  Supply Specialist/Armorer...  Could probably still field strip the M16A1 blindfolded.   I just don't masturbate over guns like you nuts do. 



2aguy said:


> Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...



No, I stated the ammo was designed SPECIFICALLY for combat... which it was.  The "Tumbling" was a term that was used, probably not terribly accurately, within the military itself, to describe the wounds these weapons inflict....  Probably really sucks to be a six year old hit by one.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It seems to me that going on and and on and on about _“zombies”_, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.



Naw, Mormon Bob, I use the term "Zombie" to point out the absurdity of an average citizen owning ten guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a nice white suburb...  that's just fucking crazy... 



Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 did. Nobody else.
> 
> So, who's the real racist, here?



That would be the guy who belongs to a cult that claims dark skin is a curse from God...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, Mormon Bob, I use the term "Zombie" to point out the absurdity of an average citizen owning ten guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a nice white suburb...  that's just fucking crazy...



  Congratulations.  You're proven how absurd you are.  Not that that was ever in any doubt.



JoeB131 said:


> That would be the guy who belongs to a cult that claims dark skin is a curse from God...



  And you've proven what a racist and general bigot you are.  Not that that was ever in any doubt.

  And if you imagine that you've proven anything about anyone other than yourself, then you've just proven how delusional and batshit crazy you are.  Not that that was ever in any doubt.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 3, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And if you imagine that you've proven anything about anyone other than yourself, then you've just proven how delusional and batshit crazy you are. Not that that was ever in any doubt.



again, coming from a guy who thinks he's wearing Magic Underpants.... it's kind of meaningless.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 4, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



It’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 4, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.
> ...



Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.

Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.

Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that going on and and on and on about _“zombies”_, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.
> ...



If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.
> ...




Yes...specifically for combat....because it was small, and light and they could carry more....and as the links pointed out, it wasn't as effective as the 7.62.  You moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.



Actually, its fucking hysterical... that's why it's so effective and you are whining about it. 




Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
> If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.



Privileged white kid smirking at an elderly minority... there's a reason the Entitled Little Bastard is suing everyone and his brother... he looks like a piece of shit.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.



And that's the problem. That's what we need to fix.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.



The marketing was directed towards crazy people...  and once the lawyers get their hands on the internal marketing documents, it's game over for Remington.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.



Um. No.  You've got your silly arguments.  We've got the autopsy photos of what a 5.56 round does to a small child.  You lose. 







Ghost of a Rider said:


> If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?



Why not? Why not point out that when you SPECIFICALLY MARKET military grade weapons to mentally unstable people, just how absurd and evil that is?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.
> ...




The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it.  They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun.  Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 4, 2019)

2aguy said:


> The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it. They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun. Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.



Wow, you really think that convinces anyone?  

Dick Tiny, no one should own an AR15.  There's simply no good reason for you to have one.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.
> ...



You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
> If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.





> Privileged white kid smirking at an elderly minority... there's a reason the Entitled Little Bastard is suing everyone and his brother... he looks like a piece of shit.



Like I said...



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.





> And that's the problem. That's what we need to fix.



There’s nothing to “fix” because she didn’t kill anyone.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.





> The marketing was directed towards crazy people...  and once the lawyers get their hands on the internal marketing documents, it's game over for Remington.



There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.





> Um. No.  You've got your silly arguments.  We've got the autopsy photos of what a 5.56 round does to a small child.  You lose.



Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?





> Why not? Why not point out that when you SPECIFICALLY MARKET military grade weapons to mentally unstable people, just how absurd and evil that is?



They didn’t.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 4, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it. They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun. Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.
> ...




People like you running the government is exactly the reason to own an AR-15....   you guys are way to eager to put those people you clearly hate into mass graves...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.



Naw, man, you think there are literal zombies... or something. 







Ghost of a Rider said:


> There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.



Then what are you guys worried about?  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.



Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2019)

2aguy said:


> People like you running the government is exactly the reason to own an AR-15.... you guys are way to eager to put those people you clearly hate into mass graves...



And this is the kind of crazy person that Remington is marketing to...  maybe the Families can call you as a witness.  You can scream "moron" at the prosecutor when he mocks you.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.
> ...




Not a military grade weapon....you doofus.   The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now.   The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.

The AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not used by any military anywhere in the world.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Not a military grade weapon....you doofus. The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now. The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.
> 
> The AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not used by any military anywhere in the world.



History lesson for you buddy. 

M16 rifle - Wikipedia

_As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 inch caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[27] The 5.56 mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[51]

T*his request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the Armalite AR-10, named ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[52][53][18] I*n the late 1950s, designer Eugene Stoner was completing his work on the AR-15. The AR-15 used .22-caliber bullets, which destabilized when they hit a human body, as opposed to the .30 round, which typically passed through in a straight line. *The smaller caliber meant that it could be controlled in autofire due the reduced recoil. *Being almost one-third the weight of the .30 meant that the soldier could sustain fire for longer with the same load. Due to design innovations, the AR-15 could fire 600 to 700 rounds a minute with an extremely low jamming rate. Parts were stamped out, not hand-machined, so could be mass-produced, and the stock was plastic to reduce weight.[26]

Throughout 1962 and 1963, the U.S. military extensively tested the AR-15. Positive evaluations emphasized its lightness, "lethality", and reliability.[26] However, the Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at longer ranges and lack of penetrating power at higher ranges.[52][46][26] In early 1963, the U.S. Special Forces asked, and was given permission, to make the AR-15 its standard weapon. Other users included Army Airborne units in Vietnam and some units affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency. As more units adopted the AR-15, Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance ordered an investigation into why the weapon had been rejected by the Army. The resulting report found that Army Materiel Command had rigged the previous tests, selecting tests that would favor the M14 and choosing match grade M14s to compete against AR-15s out of the box.[26] At this point, the bureaucratic battle lines were well-defined, with the Army ordnance agencies opposed to the AR-15 and the Air Force and civilian leadership of the Defense Department in favor.[26]

*In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production.[52][46] In late 1963, the Defense Department began mass procurement of rifles for the Air Force and special Army units. Secretary McNamara designated the Army as the procurer for the weapon with the Department, which allowed the Army ordnance establishment to modify the weapon as they wished. *The first modification was the additions of a "manual bolt closure," allowing a soldier to ram in a round if it failed to seat properly. The Air Force, which was buying the rifle, and the Marine Corps, which had tested it both objected to this addition, with the Air Force noting, "During three years of testing and operation of the AR-15 rifle under all types of conditions the Air Force has no record of malfunctions that could have been corrected by a manual bolt closing device." They also noted that the closure added weight and complexity, reducing the reliability of the weapon. Colonel Howard Yount, who managed the Army procurement, would later state the bolt closure was added after direction from senior leadership, rather than as a result of any complaint or test result, and testified about the reasons: "the M-1, the M-14, and the carbine had always had something for the soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something_


Short version, the AR15 was developed for MILITARY use. Not police. Not hunting. Not so you can compensate for your shortcomings.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.
> ...



Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how fucking ridiculous and lazy it is.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.





> Then what are you guys worried about?



I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.

The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.





> Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.



Nope. They marketed the gun to men with a penis complex. You know, people like you.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Not a military grade weapon....you doofus. The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now. The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.
> ...



From your link...you moron..

The *M16 rifle*, officially designated *Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16*, is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military. The original M16 rifle was a 5.56mm automatic rifle with a 20-round magazine.

Also...

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia

*In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[14] *
*--------*
*Comparison to military versions[edit]

The semi-automatic civilian AR-15 was introduced by Colt in 1963. The primary distinction between civilian semi-automatic rifles and military assault rifles is select fire. 

Military models were produced with firing modes, semi-automatic fire and either fully automatic fire mode or burst fire mode, in which the rifle fires several rounds in succession when the trigger is depressed.
*

The bolt action dear hunting rifle is an actual military weapon...in use today.   The pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon, in use today....you doofus.


----------



## SavannahMann (Dec 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.
> ...



Prove Nancy was crazy. Post one link.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 5, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how fucking ridiculous and lazy it is.



Not lazy at all.  The belief you'll be attacked by ravenous undead is just as silly as being attacked by your neighbors because the economy got a little worse.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.
> 
> The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.



Sure it was.  If they hadn't preyed on Nancy's brand of batshittery, that weapon never would have been in the house for him to use.  



2aguy said:


> In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[14]



Point is, the MILITARY version preceeded the civilian version.  Thank you for proving my point, Dick Tiny.  They designed it for a battlefield, and THEN started marketing it to crazy people, only making a slight modification to prevent it from firing full auto.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 5, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how fucking ridiculous and lazy it is.
> ...




Moron..the civilian model, the AR-15 is just that, a civilian model not used by the military, you doofus.....it is not military grade as you just pointed out you dumb ass.

The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon currently in use by the U.S. military.....

The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon currently used by the U.S. military.....

The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon and is not currently used by the U.S. military.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how fucking ridiculous and lazy it is.
> ...



Then I ask again: Why the cheap sensationalism?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.
> 
> The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.





> Sure it was.  If they hadn't preyed on Nancy's brand of batshittery, that weapon never would have been in the house for him to use.



Nancy didn’t kill anyone. Nancy only had an enthusiasm for shooting guns. Adam is the one who had the enthusiasm for mass killings, as evidenced by his _computer files_. You know, the things _you_ said did not exist.

Since Nancy is the one who purchased the guns but did not kill anyone and Adam suffered from depression and was planning a mass killing anyway and pretty much for that reason (not due to his fragile male ego), the case doesn’t have much to go on.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 6, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron..the civilian model, the AR-15 is just that, a civilian model not used by the military, you doofus.....it is not military grade as you just pointed out you dumb ass.



But this is where you are confused. The ORIGINAL AR-15 was fully automatic and designed FOR THE MILITARY.  The military called it an M16. 

Then they marketed a civilian version they called the AR-15 that has a slight modification to keep it from firing full auto that anyone reasonably competent can foil.   

Military grade weapon sold to civilians... that's all kinds of fucked up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 6, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then I ask again: Why the cheap sensationalism?



Because it gets the point across...  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nancy didn’t kill anyone. Nancy only had an enthusiasm for shooting guns. Adam is the one who had the enthusiasm for mass killings, as evidenced by his _computer files_. You know, the things _you_ said did not exist.



You mean the magic files that came off a destroyed computer... whatever.  Point was. she raised a monster and unleashed it on the world.  It's why we call the Monster Frankenstein but the Mad Doctor is the villain.  

Oh, wait, this is one of those "Cheap sensationalism" that gets your panties in a wad. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Since Nancy is the one who purchased the guns but did not kill anyone and Adam suffered from depression and was planning a mass killing anyway and pretty much for that reason (not due to his fragile male ego), the case doesn’t have much to go on.



Again, you go with that argument. 

I'll go with - she was a crazy person who raised a crazy kid, taught him how to shoot, told him that guns are a way to solve the worlds problems, and stockpiled the house with enough weapons to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse, and you got exactly the result you should have expected.  

And Remington decided, "Yeah, this person is our key customers."


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron..the civilian model, the AR-15 is just that, a civilian model not used by the military, you doofus.....it is not military grade as you just pointed out you dumb ass.
> ...




Yes.....the civilian model the AR-15 has never been used by the military, you doofus.

The bolt action deer hunting rifle is an actual military weapon, in actual use by the U.S. military.

The pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon, in actual use by the U.S. military.

The deer hunting rifle and pump action shotgun are actual military grade weapons...the AR-15 is not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 6, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Yes.....the civilian model the AR-15 has never been used by the military, you doofus.



Why should they, they already HAD the military model.  

Chicken and Egg... Dick Tiny.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 6, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Then I ask again: Why the cheap sensationalism?
> ...



To who, other simple-minded people like yourself who are not even aware that data had been retrieved from the computer?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nancy didn’t kill anyone. Nancy only had an enthusiasm for shooting guns. Adam is the one who had the enthusiasm for mass killings, as evidenced by his _computer files_. You know, the things _you_ said did not exist.





> You mean the magic files that came off a destroyed computer... whatever.



What would be the purpose in lying about something like that?



> Point was. she raised a monster and unleashed it on the world.  It's why we call the Monster Frankenstein but the Mad Doctor is the villain.



First he was a retard and now he’s a monster.



> Oh, wait, this is one of those "Cheap sensationalism" that gets your panties in a wad.



I’m not the one resorting to sensationalism and ludicrous exaggerations so it appears you are the one with his panties with his panties in a wad.

Your panties are in a wad because the truth of the case does not fit neatly into your narrative and is a little more complicated than you’re willing to admit.

The truth is that a mother, who just happened to be a gun enthusiast, was dealing with a very difficult and stressful situation at home trying to raise a child with an emotional disorder the best way she knew how. She had no way of knowing or suspecting her son was capable of, let alone planning, a mass shooting.

Twenty children were mercilessly slaughtered and everyone agrees it was tragic. But that is not enough for people like you. You shamelessly use their deaths as a tool to advance an agenda and you dishonor their memories by ascribing untruths, inaccuracies and puerile exaggerations to their killings. Their deaths were quite tragic enough without your childish references to retards, monsters and zombies. Dipshit.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Since Nancy is the one who purchased the guns but did not kill anyone and Adam suffered from depression and was planning a mass killing anyway and pretty much for that reason (not due to his fragile male ego), the case doesn’t have much to go on.





> Again, you go with that argument.
> 
> I'll go with - she was a crazy person who raised a crazy kid,



That’s not what you said before. Before you said he was a retard. If you’re going to sensationalize, at least be consistent.



> taught him how to shoot, told him that guns are a way to solve the worlds problems,



You don’t know that. You don’t know anything other than she taught him to shoot.



> and stockpiled the house with enough weapons to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse, and you got exactly the result you should have expected.



Uh huh. You expected them not to get anything off the computer. But they did.

You thought her “booty call” sent Adam over the edge. But it didn’t.

You thought the neighbors said she was nuts. But they didn’t.

You thought Phillips was with a veterans group. But he wasn’t.

You thought Sandmann approached Phillips. But he didn’t.



> And Remington decided, "Yeah, this person is our key customers."



Sure they did.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




The big thing here too......she was a single mother.....there was no father in this kids life.....so she had to deal with all of it on her own, and he was allowed to completely go off the rails without two parents watching over him.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 6, 2019)

2aguy said:


> The big thing here too......she was a single mother.....there was no father in this kids life.....so she had to deal with all of it on her own, and he was allowed to completely go off the rails without two parents watching over him.



  I hadn't thought of that, but one has to wonder how much of a factor that is.  As Politically-Incorrect as it is to acknowledge this fact, it is undeniable that being raised without a father, or without a mother, is heavily correlated with adverse life outcomes.  Not every fatherless boy grows up to be a criminal, of course, but one has to wonder if having a father in his life might have prevented this tragic outcome.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 6, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



I’ve told him this before but of course in his eyes she’s batshit crazy and she always will be.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 6, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The big thing here too......she was a single mother.....there was no father in this kids life.....so she had to deal with all of it on her own, and he was allowed to completely go off the rails without two parents watching over him.
> ...




Look at the majority of mass public shooters....fatherless homes......or fathers who were violent and abusive, the Virginia Tech shooter fits that one.........when you are a single mother trying to raise a difficult male child, you have a much tougher fight.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 6, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I’m not the one resorting to sensationalism and ludicrous exaggerations so it appears you are the one with his panties with his panties in a wad.
> 
> Your panties are in a wad because the truth of the case does not fit neatly into your narrative and is a little more complicated than you’re willing to admit.



It ain't complicated at all. 

The Gun industry marketed to the worst kind of people. 

Tragedy ensued.  



2aguy said:


> The big thing here too......she was a single mother.....there was no father in this kids life.....so she had to deal with all of it on her own, and he was allowed to completely go off the rails without two parents watching over him.



Um... no.  Here's the thing.  In a society where we DON'T LET CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, it doesn't matter if he goes off the rails or not.  I mean, yeah, maybe he'd have shown up with a baseball bat or something, but they'd have been able to easily overpower him. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I hadn't thought of that, but one has to wonder how much of a factor that is. As Politically-Incorrect as it is to acknowledge this fact, it is undeniable that being raised without a father, or without a mother, is heavily correlated with adverse life outcomes. Not every fatherless boy grows up to be a criminal, of course, but one has to wonder if having a father in his life might have prevented this tragic outcome.



NOpe. Growing up in a house with no guns in it would have prevented this tragedy.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not the one resorting to sensationalism and ludicrous exaggerations so it appears you are the one with his panties with his panties in a wad.
> ...



As I said: More complicated than you’re willing to admit.



> The Gun industry marketed to the worst kind of people.
> 
> Tragedy ensued.



No. They didn’t market to the worst kind, the worst kind used their product to kill. That’s it.

The worst mass killing in modern history was committed with a truck with a body count over four times that of Sandy Hook. Yet no one suggests that marketing was a factor.

You’re a hypocrite and you’re full of shit because everyone here knows what this is really about for you.



2aguy said:


> The big thing here too......she was a single mother.....there was no father in this kids life.....so she had to deal with all of it on her own, and he was allowed to completely go off the rails without two parents watching over him.





> Um... no.  Here's the thing.  In a society where we DON'T LET CRAZY PEOPLE HAVE GUNS, it doesn't matter if he goes off the rails or not.  I mean, yeah, maybe he'd have shown up with a baseball bat or something, but they'd have been able to easily overpower him.



He wasn’t crazy, he had Asperger’s and suffered depression.



Bob Blaylock said:


> I hadn't thought of that, but one has to wonder how much of a factor that is. As Politically-Incorrect as it is to acknowledge this fact, it is undeniable that being raised without a father, or without a mother, is heavily correlated with adverse life outcomes. Not every fatherless boy grows up to be a criminal, of course, but one has to wonder if having a father in his life might have prevented this tragic outcome.





> NOpe. Growing up in a house with no guns in it would have prevented this tragedy.



It didn’t stop the Columbine shooting. None of the weapons used by Harris and Klebold came from their homes or otherwise belonged to their parents or families. They were all purchased by legal-age friends from gun shows.

Once again; more complicated than you’re willing to admit.

The truth doesn’t dovetail neatly with your narrative so it keeps you running in circles making assumptions, exaggerations and perpetuating falsehoods and untruths. I must say, it’s rather entertaining to watch.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> As I said: More complicated than you’re willing to admit.



not even a little complicated.... If you sell guns to crazy people - in fact, make them your main market because most SANE people realize a gun in the house is actually kind of dangerous - eventually, one of them is going to do something awful. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The worst mass killing in modern history was committed with a truck with a body count over four times that of Sandy Hook. Yet no one suggests that marketing was a factor.



No, but let's look at that. AFTER that, we passed laws to track who was buying fertilizer of that type.

The U.S. Finally Starts Regulating Sales Of Ammonium Nitrate

Wow... I guess it's a good thing we don't have a National Fertilizer Association claiming that any crazy person who wants to buy Ammonium Nitrate has a right to do so because the Founding Fathers said so!  

Because they don't want THEIR products used by crazy people. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It didn’t stop the Columbine shooting. None of the weapons used by Harris and Klebold came from their homes or otherwise belonged to their parents or families. They were all purchased by legal-age friends from gun shows.



And a funny thing happened.  That person went to prison.  Someone was held accountable.   

SELLER OF GUN USED AT COLUMBINE GETS 6-YEAR PRISON TERM

We need to do the same thing to the people who sold weapons to Crazy Nancy and her son, Corky McTardo. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The truth doesn’t dovetail neatly with your narrative so it keeps you running in circles making assumptions, exaggerations and perpetuating falsehoods and untruths. I must say, it’s rather entertaining to watch.



It ain't complicated at all. I mean, watching you and Dick Tiny and Mormon Bob try to blame everything else EXCEPT guns for the shooting is funny, but the fact is, the ONE element you can remove from this equation that would have absolutely kept Corky McTardo from shooting up those kids was THE GUNS.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > As I said: More complicated than you’re willing to admit.
> ...




It ain't complicated at all. I mean, watching you and Dick Tiny and Mormon Bob try to blame everything else EXCEPT guns for the shooting is funny, but the fact is, the ONE element you can remove from this equation that would have absolutely kept Corky McTardo from shooting up those kids was THE GUNS.

You are a moron....

320 million people in the U.S.
600 million guns in private hands.
Over 18.6 million people carry guns for self defense.

Total number of mass public shootings in 2018...12...that means 12 nuts out of 320 million people.

Total killed...93 people.  Total.

Total killed in bicycle accidents?   345.

Guns are not a problem.   Democrat party judges, politicians and prosecutors who let repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on insanely short prison sentences are the problem........stop them, and we don't have a gun problem anymore.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2019)

2aguy said:


> You are a moron....
> 
> 320 million people in the U.S.
> 600 million guns in private hands.
> Over 18.6 million people carry guns for self defense.



see, Dick Tiny is doing his usual spooge with inaccurate numbers...  

Fact is, we take away the guns, no Adam Lanzas shooting up schools.  

One mass shooting is too many.  We just had another one yesterday on a military base... but I'm sure you'll come up with a reason why that one doesn't count, either.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 7, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > As I said: More complicated than you’re willing to admit.
> ...



They _didn’t_ market to crazy people. This is a complete fabrication by you.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The worst mass killing in modern history was committed with a truck with a body count over four times that of Sandy Hook. Yet no one suggests that marketing was a factor.





> No, but let's look at that. AFTER that, we passed laws to track who was buying fertilizer of that type.
> 
> The U.S. Finally Starts Regulating Sales Of Ammonium Nitrate
> 
> ...



I was talking about the Nice truck attack in 2016. But you know what else? The fertilizer was marketed to farmers. So what?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It didn’t stop the Columbine shooting. None of the weapons used by Harris and Klebold came from their homes or otherwise belonged to their parents or families. They were all purchased by legal-age friends from gun shows.





> And a funny thing happened.  That person went to prison.  Someone was held accountable.
> 
> SELLER OF GUN USED AT COLUMBINE GETS 6-YEAR PRISON TERM
> 
> We need to do the same thing to the people who sold weapons to Crazy Nancy and her son, Corky McTardo.



Irrelevant. The point is, they did not get the weapons from home and were able to acquire them anyway. Ergo, your claim that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is null and void.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The truth doesn’t dovetail neatly with your narrative so it keeps you running in circles making assumptions, exaggerations and perpetuating falsehoods and untruths. I must say, it’s rather entertaining to watch.





> It ain't complicated at all. I mean, watching you and Dick Tiny and Mormon Bob try to blame everything else EXCEPT guns for the shooting is funny, but the fact is, the ONE element you can remove from this equation that would have absolutely kept Corky McTardo from shooting up those kids was THE GUNS.



The ONE element you can remove from the Nice equation that absolutely would have kept Muhammed from running over eighty six people was THE TRUCK.

Your argument is like saying: “If the bomber hadn’t had a bomb then he wouldn’t have bombed the building.” Duh.

No one disputes that Lanza used guns you dumbass. That’s not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether Remington’s marketing figured in the shooting. I say no. Why? Because given Adam’s Lanza’s emotional problems and the fact that he had been planning the shooting for some time, I don’t think he was concerned with boosting his male ego. He just wanted to kill a bunch of people and the AR-15 was handy. I doubt he ever even saw a Remington ad.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 7, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> They _didn’t_ market to crazy people. This is a complete fabrication by you.



You think this ad is for a well-adjusted person... Well, of course you do. 








Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The point is, they did not get the weapons from home and were able to acquire them anyway. Ergo, your claim that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is null and void.



Well, since we are going to take EVERYONE'S gun... same effect. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one disputes that Lanza used guns you dumbass. That’s not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether Remington’s marketing figured in the shooting. I say no. Why? Because given Adam’s Lanza’s emotional problems and the fact that he had been planning the shooting for some time, I don’t think he was concerned with boosting his male ego. He just wanted to kill a bunch of people and the AR-15 was handy. I doubt he ever even saw a Remington ad.



His Crazy Mommy did...  or some ad that told her she needed to have one of those...  

You work on the assumption I care about a legal point. 

If I were on that jury, I'd look at the autopsy pics of those slaughtered kids, and THEN find Remington Guilty....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 8, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > They _didn’t_ market to crazy people. This is a complete fabrication by you.
> ...



You’re the one who’s always bringing up penis sizes so you tell me.

A man who is swayed by marketing directed at the male ego is nuts or crazy or retarded. But then if a man “whines” too much (by your estimation), you insult his male ego by calling him “Dick Tiny”.

It seems to me that you’re the one who’s confused here and maybe not quite so well adjusted.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The point is, they did not get the weapons from home and were able to acquire them anyway. Ergo, your claim that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is null and void.





> Well, since we are going to take EVERYONE'S gun... same effect.



Irrelevant. Your argument that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is still null and void.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one disputes that Lanza used guns you dumbass. That’s not what the debate is about. The debate is about whether Remington’s marketing figured in the shooting. I say no. Why? Because given Adam’s Lanza’s emotional problems and the fact that he had been planning the shooting for some time, I don’t think he was concerned with boosting his male ego. He just wanted to kill a bunch of people and the AR-15 was handy. I doubt he ever even saw a Remington ad.





> His Crazy Mommy did...  or some ad that told her she needed to have one of those...



She didn’t kill anyone so your point is moot.



> You work on the assumption I care about a legal point.



On the contrary, by this time I know you don’t care about anything, least of all the victims.



> If I were on that jury, I'd look at the autopsy pics of those slaughtered kids, and THEN find Remington Guilty....



I have no doubt of that. That’s why I’m glad you’re not on the jury. In fact, you should never be on _any_ jury. You are not capable of objectivity and are too easily swayed by your emotions. You would be pure poison to any legal trial.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 8, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.


Good news?!

But... eh... hmm... man, I think you have no brains man, no brains...

Remington has not business at all with what you will do with the arms they manufacture.

What you do with arms if YOUR responsibility, and the legal use of the arms is the government responsibility to control. Remington just sells arms, that is what they do. And their business is LEGAL business.

You buy a Ford F250 and use it to kill a bunch of people. Will the families and survivors sue the Ford company because is the manufacturer of the truck? My hope is for those families not receiving a single penny from Remington.

But no one knows, sometimes the judges give sentences the wrong way. The winner party will be the one with the smarter attorneys. Ovid saw the works of attorneys and said it clear and with the best criteria, *advocacy is the prostitution of the word.*


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You’re the one who’s always bringing up penis sizes so you tell me.
> 
> A man who is swayed by marketing directed at the male ego is nuts or crazy or retarded. But then if a man “whines” too much (by your estimation), you insult his male ego by calling him “Dick Tiny”.
> 
> It seems to me that you’re the one who’s confused here and maybe not quite so well adjusted.



I don't need a gun to prove my manhood...  some of you apparently do.   I handled enough guns in the Army to last me six lifetimes, if I never see another one, that's fine.  I just want to make sure people like Adam Lanza don't get them. If you are telling me we can't do that without taking away your guns, too.... I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.  

Now, if you can come up with a way that keeps Adam Lanza from getting a gun, but you get to keep yours, I'm all for it. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. Your argument that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is still null and void.



No one else would have given that crazy retard a gun. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I have no doubt of that. That’s why I’m glad you’re not on the jury. In fact, you should never be on _any_ jury. You are not capable of objectivity and are too easily swayed by your emotions. You would be pure poison to any legal trial.



Actually, I'd be the one calling bullshit on the lawyers and getting to the truth.

The truth is, Remington KNEW that crazy people were buying their weapons... they didn't care.  In fact, they saw crazy people as their prime market.  

THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GUILTY.  

I don't give a fuck about "Law", I care about JUSTICE.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 8, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You’re the one who’s always bringing up penis sizes so you tell me.
> ...



It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need _something_ to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.



> I handled enough guns in the Army to last me six lifetimes, if I never see another one, that's fine.  I just want to make sure people like Adam Lanza don't get them. If you are telling me we can't do that without taking away your guns, too.... I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.



I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.

Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the fuck away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure. 



> Now, if you can come up with a way that keeps Adam Lanza from getting a gun, but you get to keep yours, I'm all for it.



No you’re not. You’d just as soon they all go away even if no one is ever killed by one again. And as I said before, I don’t own an AR-15.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. Your argument that it wouldn’t have happened if Nancy hadn’t had the guns in the house is still null and void.





> No one else would have given that crazy retard a gun.



The guns didn’t belong to him and nobody gave them to him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I have no doubt of that. That’s why I’m glad you’re not on the jury. In fact, you should never be on _any_ jury. You are not capable of objectivity and are too easily swayed by your emotions. You would be pure poison to any legal trial.





> Actually, I'd be the one calling bullshit on the lawyers and getting to the truth.



You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.



> The truth is, Remington KNEW that crazy people were buying their weapons... they didn't care.  In fact, they saw crazy people as their prime market.
> 
> THAT'S WHY THEY ARE GUILTY.



No. This is your emotions getting the best of you. 

Do gun manufacturers know that some people will use their product unlawfully? Of course. 
Do car manufacturers know that some people will drink and drive or text and drive and kill people? Of course. 
Do makers of four wheelers and dirt bikes know some people will use their product recklessly and get themselves killed? Of course.

So why should a manufacturer of firearms be held accountable if a customer knowingly chooses to break the law with their product but not a car manufacturer if someone knowingly breaks the law by drinking and driving?



> I don't give a fuck about "Law", I care about JUSTICE.



No you don’t. If you were then you would be aware of the facts of the case and you wouldn’t persist with and perpetuate falsehoods even after knowing the facts. 
You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that they were able to get data off Lanza’s computer for Christ’s sake. You couldn’t acknowledge this because the data showed he had been planning the shooting for a year and thus it blew a hole in your argument that her trip sent him over the edge.

Your hate and contempt for gun owners oozes from every one of your posts and is obvious to everyone here. Your judgments and motives simply can’t be trusted.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 8, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




Yes...the shooter chose that school for 2 reasons...one, it didn't have a police resource officer...the middle school and the high school had them, the elementary school didn't...it was a completely gun free zone.....and two, in his notes he stated he wanted the highest score possible...that is how he saw the attack, as a game, and the kindergarten children were the most helpless and easily murdered...so he could have achieved the same result with a pump action shotgun or revolvers....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need _something_ to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.



Naw, I'm just making fun or you need to "compensate" for your shortcomings.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.
> 
> Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the fuck away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.



Yeah, I'm sure you guys spend time thinking about the mechanics of this sort of thing.... but an AR15 is a weapon of war, and that place looked like a battlefield when he was done. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.



The gun companies are guilty....  this isn't complicated.  When they start losing money selling guns to crazy people, watch how fast they get behind licensing, registration and THOROUGH background checks.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t ....e.



Blah, blah, blah... the bitch was arming herself like the Zombies were coming.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 8, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Yes...the shooter chose that school for 2 reasons...one, it didn't have a police resource officer...the middle school and the high school had them, the elementary school didn't...it was a completely gun free zone.....and two, in his notes he stated he wanted the highest score possible...that is how he saw the attack, as a game, and the kindergarten children were the most helpless and easily murdered...so he could have achieved the same result with a pump action shotgun or revolvers....



Funny thing... they have those same games in Japan, and they play more of them than we do .... 


And this shit never happens there.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 9, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It may not be guns but it’s obvious you need _something_ to prove your manhood or you wouldn’t keep calling us “Dick Tiny”.
> ...



Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are _you_ compensating for?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I’m not telling you anything other than that the specific brand and model of the gun used is immaterial. Lanza could have done just as much damage with a handgun, a shotgun or even a knife.
> 
> Shooting up a school is like - if you’ll pardon the metaphor - shooting fish in a barrel. In a situation like that, children are scared shitless and just want to get the fuck away from the shooter. In other words, no one is shooting back so he can go from victim to victim and kill at his leisure.





> Yeah, I'm sure you guys spend time thinking about the mechanics of this sort of thing.... but an AR15 is a weapon of war, and that place looked like a battlefield when he was done.



Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back. 

It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.

Having been in the military, you know that weapons like the M16 were designed for _combat_ use. Meaning, they were made for putting the most projectiles downrange in the shortest time possible for situations where people _are shooting back._ 
In Sandy Hook, Lanza could have achieved the same results with a handgun and it would have looked just as bloody and horrible. The only difference is, people likely would not be blaming the gun manufacturer if he had.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You wouldn’t be “getting to the truth”, you’d be trying to make the gun company guilty no matter what the truth is.





> The gun companies are guilty....



Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?



> this isn't complicated.  When they start losing money selling guns to crazy people, watch how fast they get behind licensing, registration and THOROUGH background checks.



Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to _manufacture_ them according to government guidelines and restrictions.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You are so obsessed with making Nancy out to be insane and directly at fault that you can’t ....e.





> Blah, blah, blah... the bitch was arming herself like the Zombies were coming.



Irrelevant. The fact is, they were able to get data off the computer but you can’t acknowledge this. Why?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 9, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are _you_ compensating for?



Having to deal with gun nuts trying to excuse what these people did?  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back.
> 
> It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.
> 
> ...



With a handgun, someone probably could have overpowered him, and he wouldn't have had the same rate of fire.  But in my world, he wouldn't have access to handguns, either. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?



Of marketing a dangerous to mentally unstable people...  Again, can't wait for that discovery, baby!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to _manufacture_ them according to government guidelines and restrictions.



No, they have a lot of control. IN fact, the gun industry COULD support stronger restrictions.  Using a comparison to the Alcohol Industry, they are very active in discouraging underage drinking and drunk driving.  The Gun Industry is issuing "Man Cards"


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 9, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Uh huh. And when you persist with falsehoods like the neighbors saying Nancy was nuts or that they didn’t get anything off Adam’s computer, what are _you_ compensating for?
> ...



First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.

So again, why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right, because he had plenty of time and no one shooting back.
> 
> It’s not thinking about the mechanics, it’s plain old common sense and critical thinking. It would have looked the same if he had used a handgun. It would have looked even worse if he had used a shotgun.
> 
> ...





> With a handgun, someone probably could have overpowered him, and he wouldn't have had the same rate of fire.



Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner? 

A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.



> But in my world, he wouldn't have access to handguns, either.



In your world Little Catholic Bastards are mind readers with x-ray vision.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Guilty of what, selling a perfectly legal product with perfectly legal advertising?





> Of marketing a dangerous to mentally unstable people...  Again, can't wait for that discovery, baby!



Nope. That’s not what happened and is not what the case is about and can never be proved. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, the manufacturers have no control over who buys their product. They’re only required to _manufacture_ them according to government guidelines and restrictions.





> No, they have a lot of control. IN fact, the gun industry COULD support stronger restrictions.  Using a comparison to the Alcohol Industry, they are very active in discouraging underage drinking and drunk driving.  The Gun Industry is issuing "Man Cards"



Underage drinking and drunk driving are both against the law, purchasing a firearm and plinking at targets to stroke your male ego is not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.
> 
> So again, why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge facts?



Here are the facts. 

The bitch was crazy.
She raised a crazy son.
Thanks to Remington, she stocked the house with enough guns to fight off the Zombies
26 people died needlessly. 

We can't hold her or her son accountable, but man, we can totally fuck over Remington... 




Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner?
> 
> A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.



Probably any of the adult teachers...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 10, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First, one has nothing to do with the other and it doesn’t answer the question. Second, I’ve made no excuses for anyone, least of all Adam Lanza. As for Nancy, I make no excuses for her because she did nothing to be excused for. She bought her guns legally, taught her sons to shoot - also not against the law- and beyond that, simply did her best to deal with her autistic son’s emotional problems and the added stress of his withdrawing further despite her efforts and then getting murdered by him.
> ...



The only thing you got right here is that twenty six people died needlessly. The rest is opinion or simply not true.

So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?

Oh, and the only Remington weapon Lanza had with him was the AR-15. The rest were Glock and Sig Sauer handguns and a Saiga shotgun. So Remington did not help her “stock up”.  Also, the two handguns he had also had thirty round clips like the AR, which means he could have done just as much damage with them.



> We can't hold her or her son accountable, but man, we can totally fuck over Remington...



For what, selling a legal firearm?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who would have overpowered him, a kindergartner?
> 
> A semiautomatic AR-15 can fire no faster than a semiautomatic handgun and it takes two to three seconds to swap handgun clips. No, if no one could overpower him with the AR then no one could have done so with the handgun either.





> Probably any of the adult teachers...



So why didn’t they?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 10, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?



Actually, they said she was a nutty prepper... those people are nuts.  

Corky, quit slamming your head against the table...you'll damage your helmet.  Do you have any new material? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So why didn’t they?



Because he had a fucking assault rifle...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So, again, why do you consistently deny facts? Namely, that neighbors did not say Nancy was crazy and that they did get data off Adam’s computer?
> ...



No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.



> Corky, quit slamming your head against the table...you'll damage your helmet.  Do you have any new material?



Do you? If you would just come up with some new lies, falsehoods, fabrications and assumptions, you might see different responses from me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So why didn’t they?





> Because he had a fucking assault rifle...



Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 11, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.



You can usually tell who the nuts are.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.



Well, there's the intimidation factor.  Higher rate of fire. More power to each shot... stuff like that.  I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 11, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > No, they did not. They said she was a gun enthusiast. And they had no idea she was stocking food; that wasn’t discovered until after the shooting. The only person who knew of Nancy’s prepper tendencies was her sister in law.
> ...



Irrelevant. The neighbors never said anything about her being a prepper.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Being familiar with firearms as you claim to be, explain to me how someone with a semiautomatic rifle with a thirty round clip is harder to take down than someone with a semiauto handgun with a thirty round clip.





> Well, there's the intimidation factor.



Only people who know nothing about firearms would be intimidated by an AR-15 but not a handgun.



> Higher rate of fire.



Wrong. One semiautomatic is no faster than any other semiautomatic. The fire rate of both the AR and the Glock are limited by the same thing: how fast you can pull the trigger.



> More power to each shot... stuff like that.  I might take my chances with a nut with a handgun, but an AR-15, no way.



That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.

A few things to consider:

1) The AR-15 has a higher firepower but any expert will tell you that the AR or M16 was not necessarily designed to kill. It was designed to _incapacitate _the victim on the battlefield so his buddies would try to save him and when they did, BAM.
You were probably taught this when you were in the Army yourself.

2) The AR was designed for combat situations in the open where the targets are say, fifty yards or more away. Therefore, it has no advantage over the handgun in close quarters such as a school shooting.

3) Both the AR and the Glock were designed for shredding flesh and in close quarters, being a larger caliber, the Glock will do just as much, if not more, damage.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Dec 11, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...


How come soldiers don't all just use hand guns out on the battlefield then??

Since it isn't much difference between a rifle and a pistol.....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 11, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Read my post again .


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 11, 2019)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> How come soldiers don't all just use hand guns out on the battlefield then??
> 
> Since it isn't much difference between a rifle and a pistol.....



  A rifle is much more accurate at any distance.  A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.

  In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range.  On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.



No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> A rifle is much more accurate at any distance. A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.
> 
> In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range. On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.



You spend a lot of time thinking about what might be more effective in a School Shooting Scenario, Mormon Bob? 

Point is, he didn't use a pistol. He used an AR-15.  He killed 26 people.   The real high body count mass shootings seem to involve these kids of weapons.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 12, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > That’s only because you’re intimidated by the AR’s appearance.
> ...



Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.



Bob Blaylock said:


> A rifle is much more accurate at any distance. A pistol is really only useful at fairly close range.
> 
> In a school shooting scenario, a pistol might be more effective, since such a scenario happens at fairly close range. On a battlefield, your targets are usually much farther away, nearly impossible to hit with a pistol.





> You spend a lot of time thinking about what might be more effective in a School Shooting Scenario, Mormon Bob?
> 
> Point is, he didn't use a pistol. He used an AR-15.  He killed 26 people.   The real high body count mass shootings seem to involve these kids of weapons.



No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.

A handgun is easier and faster to bring to bear on the target in close quarters. It is precisely why room clearing is almost always done with handguns, short stock shotguns and MPGs.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 12, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.



  One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.

  If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 12, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm intimidated by it's performance, having fired the M16 hundreds of times over an 11 year period.
> ...



  I think what you're having trouble understanding is that JoeB131 is almost certainly lying about the experience he claims to have had in the military, and with firearms.  If he really had the experience that he claims, then he'd know that the AR-15 and the M-16 are nowhere near as intimidating to actually handle and fire as quite a few other common firearms; and if he's really so much of a Kuntzman that an M-16 would be that intimidating to him, then he would never have lasted very long in the Army.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
> 
> If you're that intimidated by firing a medium-powered rifle, one has to wonder what you'd think of firing a real high-powered rifle, such as one suitable for deer hunting, or a shotgun.



I'm not intimidated by firing it,MOrmon Bob... I'm initmidated being on the downrange side of it with a crazy nut behind it. 

The problem is, we have too many of them out there in the hands of nuts...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> think what you're having trouble understanding is that JoeB131 is almost certainly lying about the experience he claims to have had in the military, and with firearms. If he really had the experience that he claims, then he'd know that the AR-15 and the M-16 are nowhere near as intimidating to actually handle and fire as quite a few other common firearms; and if he's really so much of a Kuntzman that an M-16 would be that intimidating to him, then he would never have lasted very long in the Army.



Again, you've never been on a live fire range.. 

Ft. Sill, OK, we had a range instructor who lost half his foot because some numbnut didn't engage the safety on his rifle... 

Yes, you develop a healthy respect for the damage these weapons can do to real people.  

Of course, the thing is, they weed out the gun nuts in basic, which is why we don't have a lot of nuts in the service.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 12, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.



Again, he didn't use a glock... he used an AR-15, a weapon DESIGNED FOR WAR.  

Something no civilian should own.   Ever.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.



One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols...  They involve assault rifles...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 12, 2019)

You know, the Las Vegas shooting blows holes in the theory that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  The Vegas shooter was using AR-15's, and was shooting from far enough away that the handguns some of the people at the concert were carrying basically ineffective, as they didn't have the range to reach the shooter.

And yeah JoeB...................I can't really see the necessity of a weapon that is specifically designed to throw lots of ammo down range in a short period of time outside of a war zone.


----------



## okfine (Dec 12, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
> ...


Chances are better you survive a pistol wound. Not so much with an AR.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 12, 2019)

okfine said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...



Exactly.  The muzzle velocity of a 9mm is significantly slower than what an AR-15 shoots.  And, the force that is delivered is also significantly less.

Then, there is that nasty little fact that the ammo of the AR-15 is designed to shatter on impact.  9mm's don't nearly as bad as the AR-15.


----------



## okfine (Dec 12, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> okfine said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


When that round hits an organ, it can't be repaired. It is designed for killing.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Which is frankly why I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp these distinctions. You know as well as anyone that a Glock in the close quarters of a school shooting will kill a child just as efficiently as an AR will. Given this, I can only assume that the aesthetics of the AR-15 is a factor in your conclusions.
> ...



Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.

At Columbine, the only weapon used that is even remotely like the AR-15 was a Hi-Point model 995 carbine in 9mm. In other words, basically a handgun with a shoulder stock. It is not a weapon designed for combat with nowhere near the firepower of the AR and yet they managed to kill twelve students with this, a semiautomatic 9mm pistol and two shotguns.



> Something no civilian should own.   Ever.



If you had an AR, would you shoot up a school with it?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No one is disputing that he used an AR-15 or what the body count was. The question is whether or not he could have achieved the same results with a handgun. In close quarters, I say yes.





> One more time... the really devastating mass shootings - Las Vegas, Pulse Night Club, Sandy Hook, Stoneman High School... don't involve pistols...  They involve assault rifles...



One more time...no one disputes the weapons used or how deadly they were.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, the Las Vegas shooting blows holes in the theory that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.  The Vegas shooter was using AR-15's, and was shooting from far enough away that the handguns some of the people at the concert were carrying basically ineffective, as they didn't have the range to reach the shooter.
> 
> And yeah JoeB...................I can't really see the necessity of a weapon that is specifically designed to throw lots of ammo down range in a short period of time outside of a war zone.



It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 13, 2019)

okfine said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...



In close quarters such as a school shooting, one is as deadly as the other.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.



Not what I said at all... 

Okay, Corky, try to follow this... an AR had a higher rate of fire, and can do more damage than a pistol. The ammo is specifically designed to do more damage when it hits someone. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.



That's again- retarded.  Most of the things we use every day aren't designed to kill people.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > One cannot read that, without being reminded of the pathetic, Gillettized pussy, Gersh Kuntzman, and his ridiculous article about how traumatic he found it to fire an AR-15.
> ...




18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....

3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......

Bicycles killed 345 people in 2017.

You are insane.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.
> ...



The ammo was not designed to do more damage, you moron....you were shown this in another thread...the ammo was made light so that soldiers could carry more of it...you dope.

And ....

Gilroy...AR-15.....3 killed
Dayton....AR-15  10 killed.

Russia polytechnic shooting 20 killed, 40 injured with a 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun.
Navy yard shooting....12 killed, pump action shotgun.

Luby's cafe....24 killed, 2 pistols.
Virginia Tech....32 killed, 2 pistols.

It isn't the weapon, you dope....it is the choice of target and how long it takes before someone starts shooting back at the killer, you moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2019)

2aguy said:


> 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
> 
> 3 were used in 2018 to kill 33 people......
> 
> ...



Bicycles aren't designed to kill people, and the Bicycle industry isn't marketing to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands....
> ...




And yet bicycles kill more people than the AR-15 rifle......knives kill more people than the AR-15 rifle.....

cars killed over 38,000 people...

18 million AR-15 rifles..... 3 were used illegally.....

You are an idiot.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 13, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Again, no one is disputing what weapon he used or how deadly it was or what the body count was or any of the known facts of the case. The problem is that you’re focusing on the weapon used as the main cause of the carnage and you seem to be saying the AR is the only weapon capable of doing this. It is not.
> ...



And like I’ve been telling you Corky, in the close quarters of a school or office building it makes no difference. Unless you’re telling me that a Glock won’t kill a child at five to ten yards, I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say other than that the AR looks more menacing.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It’s not a question of necessity. We don’t have a necessity for 99% of the things we use every day.





> That's again- retarded.  Most of the things we use every day aren't designed to kill people.



Automobiles were not made to kill people but they kill children much more efficiently and much more often than ARs anyway. Or even handguns for that matter.

So you’re not concerned about children being killed, only when someone does it on purpose.

You didn’t answer my question: If you had an AR, would you shoot up a school?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 13, 2019)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



Bicycles didn't kill those people.  Drivers in cars that ran over the bicyclists is what killed them.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 13, 2019)

ABikerSailor said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




And guns don't kill people...the people using the guns illegally kill those people.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2019)

2aguy said:


> And yet bicycles kill more people than the AR-15 rifle......knives kill more people than the AR-15 rifle.....
> 
> cars killed over 38,000 people...
> 
> ...



You're numbers are crap....  Do you just make this shit up? 

Point is, nobody is making me go through a metal detector or a security checkpoint because I might have a bicycle.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > And yet bicycles kill more people than the AR-15 rifle......knives kill more people than the AR-15 rifle.....
> ...



Wow, aa deranged lunatic like you says the numbers are crap....I'll notify the democrat media...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Wow, aa deranged lunatic like you says the numbers are crap....I'll notify the democrat media...



Guy, you use bulllshit numbers all the time like 12 mass shootings (the numbers are in the hundreds) and 600 million guns (the actual number is 300 million).

Even your claim that there are 18 million AR 15's out there is wrong... the actual number is probably 5 million. 

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, aa deranged lunatic like you says the numbers are crap....I'll notify the democrat media...
> ...




Moron, I don't claim anything....Mother Jones lists all of the mass public shootings going back to 1981...you doofus...using the actual definition of mass public shootings, not every squabble between gang bangers, you dope......and they put the number at 12 for 2018.   And actual numbers show a least 17 million AR-15s in private hands, it is the most popular rifle in the country, you dope...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron, I don't claim anything....Mother Jones lists all



Tiny Dick, all the wishing int he world doesn't make your numbers true. 

Can't wait for Remington to get shredded in court.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 14, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Tiny Dick…



  You should stop projecting your sexual inadequacies on others.  It only makes you come across as even more stupid and pathetic than you otherwise would.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You should stop projecting your sexual inadequacies on others. It only makes you come across as even more stupid and pathetic than you otherwise would.



Naw, guy, I'm not the one who needs military grade weapons to make up for my short comings and lives in fear the ATF will "emasculate" me... that's you guys.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 15, 2019)

Joe, do you know why gun owners are up in arms (pun intended) over all this? They’re not worried about being “emasculated” by having their guns being taken away by the government, they’re simply worried that the government will take their guns, a Constitutionally protected right. 
They’re worried about government overreach, excessive bureaucracy, excessive government power and precedents. 

Gun owners and gun control advocates both know that if ARs are banned, it won’t stop there. Gun control advocates won’t admit it of course but deep down where the worms are squirming through the muck, they know it to be true and in fact, desire it.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > You should stop projecting your sexual inadequacies on others. It only makes you come across as even more stupid and pathetic than you otherwise would.
> ...




The anti-gun wishful thinking that fewer Americans now own guns....so that they can use that to convince weak politicians to ban them.......

Notice....joe....that the three letters are not "NRA", they are "NBC....."

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens_ increases _safety.

*"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves,"* NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership _reduced_ safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "*47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 15, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Joe, do you know why gun owners are up in arms (pun intended) over all this? They’re not worried about being “emasculated” by having their guns being taken away by the government, they’re simply worried that the government will take their guns, a Constitutionally protected right.
> They’re worried about government overreach, excessive bureaucracy, excessive government power and precedents.
> 
> Gun owners and gun control advocates both know that if ARs are banned, it won’t stop there. Gun control advocates won’t admit it of course but deep down where the worms are squirming through the muck, they know it to be true and in fact, desire it.




A ban on AR-15 rifles is the gateway to banning all other semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols.......since they all operate the same way, one shot per pull of the trigger.....then they will come back for the actual military weapons......bolt action deer rifles, and pump action shotguns....and finally, they will come for the revolvers.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Joe, do you know why gun owners are up in arms (pun intended) over all this? They’re not worried about being “emasculated” by having their guns being taken away by the government, they’re simply worried that the government will take their guns, a Constitutionally protected right.
> They’re worried about government overreach, excessive bureaucracy, excessive government power and precedents.
> 
> Gun owners and gun control advocates both know that if ARs are banned, it won’t stop there. Gun control advocates won’t admit it of course but deep down where the worms are squirming through the muck, they know it to be true and in fact, desire it.







I'm amused you guys really think this is about what a bunch of slave rapists wanted... or that anyone would buy that 

Realistically, I'd be fine if all privately owned guns are banned because there is NO GOOD REASON for you to own a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.  Realistically, I'd be fine with just keeping military grade weapons out of the hands of the Adam Lanzas and Nicholas Cruzes of the world.  

As I've pointed out, for the small fraction of you that are gun nuts, the REST of us have to live with active shooter drills, metal detectors, and a prison industrial complex. 



2aguy said:


> The anti-gun wishful thinking that fewer Americans now own guns....so that they can use that to convince weak politicians to ban them.......



Guns have been in decline for quite a while..>the problem is that there are more and more nuts like you who need to stockpile them.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, do you know why gun owners are up in arms (pun intended) over all this? They’re not worried about being “emasculated” by having their guns being taken away by the government, they’re simply worried that the government will take their guns, a Constitutionally protected right.
> ...




12 million dead men, women and children, murdered by socialists like you joe, would disagree about gun ownership and the government.........as would the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns each year to save lives from rape, robbery and murder....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2019)

2aguy said:


> 12 million dead men, women and children, murdered by socialists like you joe, would disagree about gun ownership and the government.........



One more time.  There were a shitload of guns in Nazi Germany... just no one wanted to put his life on the line to save a Jew. 

Trust me,when the ATF comes for you... your neighbors won't be rushing out to save you, either.  They'll probably be glad you are being taken away because you were frightening them.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > 12 million dead men, women and children, murdered by socialists like you joe, would disagree about gun ownership and the government.........
> ...




And one more time....asshat...

In the 1920s they registered guns in German.

In the 1930s the national socialists used the registration lists to take guns away from their enemies.

In the 1930s, those who stood in the way of the national socialists were beaten and had their businesses destroyed by antifa......I mean, socialist thugs...because the people who would stop them, the police, had guns, but were told to stand down.....and everyone else was disarmed....making it cost free to beat innocent people.   That can't happen here.....you'll eventually get shot.

At the end of the 1930s, the people who were disarmed were sent to death camps...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 15, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, do you know why gun owners are up in arms (pun intended) over all this? They’re not worried about being “emasculated” by having their guns being taken away by the government, they’re simply worried that the government will take their guns, a Constitutionally protected right.
> ...



What amuses you is irrelevant. This is the reason gun owners are against gun control. 

Also, those same “bunch of slave rapists” also wanted free speech, freedom of religion and due process, among other things; all of which I’m sure you agree with. Tell me I’m wrong.



> Realistically, I'd be fine if all privately owned guns are banned because there is NO GOOD REASON for you to own a gun if you aren't a cop or a soldier.



First, what you’re fine with is irrelevant. Second, a good reason is not required.



> Realistically, I'd be fine with just keeping military grade weapons out of the hands of the Adam Lanzas and Nicholas Cruzes of the world.



Don’t insult my intelligence. You just said you’d be fine with no one having firearms.



> As I've pointed out, for the small fraction of you that are gun nuts, the REST of us have to live with active shooter drills, metal detectors, and a prison industrial complex.



For your information dumbass, ALL of us have to live with these things. 

I don’t like this shit any more than you. I just don’t delude myself into thinking that it’s all the fault of legal and law abiding gun owners just because I hate them. I’m also intelligent enough to see the bigger picture and know that the problem is cultural and that merely depriving law abiding gun owners of their firearms won’t solve the problem.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2019)

2aguy said:


> And one more time....asshat...
> 
> In the 1920s they registered guns in German.
> 
> In the 1930s the national socialists used the registration lists to take guns away from their enemies.



Big deal.  Most Germans were not their "Enemies".  Most Germans were perfectly fine with them getting rid of the Jews.  Most Germans had guns, but they weren't going to stick their necks for Communists or Jews or whatever. 



 

This is why your argument fails.  What did the US government do when the cultists at Waco shot back?  They came in with tanks and bigger guns.   What would the government do if the folks in Pilsen shot at ICE agents?  They'd come back with more agents.  

This is why when I hear one of you gun nuts scream, "I needs me my Guns to fights me the Gummit" I just have to laugh. The government will always have more guns, bigger guns, and if they are coming for you, no one is getting in their way.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What amuses you is irrelevant. This is the reason gun owners are against gun control.
> 
> Also, those same “bunch of slave rapists” also wanted free speech, freedom of religion and due process, among other things; all of which I’m sure you agree with. Tell me I’m wrong.



I'd rather have freedom of religion and a responsible press that doesn't destroy people's lives.  Given you are perfectly fine with Smirky Sandmann Suing the WaPo for merely showing his slappable face, I don't think you are that committed to free speech or the free press.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t insult my intelligence. You just said you’d be fine with no one having firearms.



You've told me that you can't keep them out of their hands without infringing on everyone's right.  Fine. You tell me how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of the next mass shooter, I'll be happy to listen. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For your information dumbass, ALL of us have to live with these things.
> 
> I don’t like this shit any more than you. I just don’t delude myself into thinking that it’s all the fault of legal and law abiding gun owners just because I hate them. I’m also intelligent enough to see the bigger picture and know that the problem is cultural and that merely depriving law abiding gun owners of their firearms won’t solve the problem.



No, we don't have to live with those things.  

Countries with common sense gun laws DON'T have those things.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 16, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What amuses you is irrelevant. This is the reason gun owners are against gun control.
> ...



Right. Given to you by a group of people who, when they also give you the right to bear arms, are suddenly a bunch of “slave rapists”. You’re full of shit.



> Given you are perfectly fine with Smirky Sandmann Suing the WaPo for merely showing his slappable face, I don't think you are that committed to free speech or the free press.



I’ve never said anything one way or the other about Sandmann’s lawsuit and I don’t give a shit about it.

While I think the media is guilty of conflating and sensationalizing the story and that the way they went about it helped stoke animosity and hatred against Sandmann, they were careful to word their stories and headlines to where I don’t think Sandmann will win his case.

In reality, they wouldn’t have needed to sensationalize anyway because everyone had a liberal aneurism and threw objectivity right out the window the moment they saw the MAGA hat.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t insult my intelligence. You just said you’d be fine with no one having firearms.





> You've told me that you can't keep them out of their hands without infringing on everyone's right.  Fine. You tell me how you are going to keep guns out of the hands of the next mass shooter, I'll be happy to listen.



I don’t know what the solution is but I know what it is _not_. Banning firearms is not and will not be the end-all/be-all solution for avoiding mass shootings.

The problem of mass killings has been simmering for some time and there are multiple factors involved, the least of which is the firearm itself.

Guns are merely a tool and are incapable of killing unless someone picks it up and uses it for that purpose.
So the question is, why are we seeing an upsurge in mass shootings now, in the last twenty years or so, when the semiautomatic rifle has been around and available to consumers for eighty to a hundred years?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For your information dumbass, ALL of us have to live with these things.
> 
> I don’t like this shit any more than you. I just don’t delude myself into thinking that it’s all the fault of legal and law abiding gun owners just because I hate them. I’m also intelligent enough to see the bigger picture and know that the problem is cultural and that merely depriving law abiding gun owners of their firearms won’t solve the problem.





> No, we don't have to live with those things.



Didn’t say we did.



> Countries with common sense gun laws DON'T have those things.



Norway, 2011 - 77 people killed; remains the worst mass shooting/killing in history.

France, 2015 Charlie Hebdo shooting - 12 people killed.

France, 1978 Marseille bar massacre; 10 people killed.

Belgium, 2011 Liege attack - 6 people killed.

Russia, 2010 Chechen Parliament attack - 6 killed.

Spain, 1990 Puerto Hurraco shooting - 9 killed.

Need I go on? There are many more examples but I think you get the point.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 16, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




I think the reason we are seeing more?   The breakdown of the family, and more fatherless homes......most of the shooters....almost all, lacked fathers in the home, then add to that 24/7 media coverage, and social media which gives shooters a fame they didn't have before......

You forgot the French rock concert attack....130 killed by terrorists with fully automatic military rifles, pistols and grenades, terrorists who were already on French government, terrorist watch lists.....

Also, just recently, the Russian Polytechnic shooting, 20 killed, 40 injured with a pump action, 5 shot, shotgun....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 16, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



The attacks in Europe and elsewhere are almost always driven by political or religious ideals whereas in the U.S., a common thread seems to be depression and other mental problems.

Depression and other mental problems have always had a stigma attached to them. The unspoken consensus was that it was some sort of character weakness or failure. As a result, family members with these issues were kept out of view of others and the families otherwise didn’t know how to deal with it. Besides all that, we didn’t have the medicines and treatments we have today.

I think what happens a lot of times is that they see others as the cause of their problems and lash out.

But that’s just me. I’m no expert so maybe I’m wrong.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right. Given to you by a group of people who, when they also give you the right to bear arms, are suddenly a bunch of “slave rapists”. You’re full of shit.



The Second Amendment was about Militias, not gun ownership.  Since we've replaced militias with a Standing Army and Police forces, it's no longer operative.  

Oh, yeah, and these were the same guys who said, "All Men are Created Equal" and then went home and lived large off the labor of their slaves.  Thomas Jefferson raped the shit out of Sally Hemmings because she had the bad luck to be his dead wife's half sister and kind of looked like her 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In reality, they wouldn’t have needed to sensationalize anyway because everyone had a liberal aneurism and threw objectivity right out the window the moment they saw the MAGA hat.



Naw, we drew a conclusion when we saw a smirking little punk taunting an Native American veteran...  the problem was, instead of slapping the kid silly and making him apologize, they got him lawyers and PR people to rehabilitate him. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Guns are merely a tool and are incapable of killing unless someone picks it up and uses it for that purpose.
> So the question is, why are we seeing an upsurge in mass shootings now, in the last twenty years or so, when the semiautomatic rifle has been around and available to consumers for eighty to a hundred years?



Because the gun industry if flooding the market with them, and pitching them to the most unstable people. 

In 1950, there were only 40 million guns in private hands, most of them bolt action and revolvers...Then this funny thing happened.  Hunting fell out of favor because, hey, Animal Cruelty is so uncool.  The Gun Industry had a problem.  Sales were declining. Gun ownership was declining.  What ever shall we do?  

I know, they said.  Let's market to the crazies.   You see, in the 1960's, the NRA supported tough gun laws.  When the Black Panthers started walking around openly brandishing guns, the NRA helped government pass sensible gun control laws.  Then in the 1970's, Wayne LaPeirre and the other nuts took over the NRA, and the Gun Industry decided that they really needed to sell AR-15 to Nancy Lanza and her sort.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Need I go on? There are many more examples but I think you get the point.


.
Yes, when you have sensible gun control, these incidents are rare and only pulled off by organized terrorist groups. 

We have them happen a bunch of times a year, usually any nut who forgot to take his meds can become a menace.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> The attacks in Europe and elsewhere are almost always driven by political or religious ideals whereas in the U.S., a common thread seems to be depression and other mental problems.



No, the common thread in the US is that they can walk down to a store and the nice man behind the counter will sell them enough guns to fight off the Zombie Apocalypse...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2019)

2aguy said:


> I think the reason we are seeing more? The breakdown of the family, and more fatherless homes......most of the shooters....almost all, lacked fathers in the home, then add to that 24/7 media coverage, and social media which gives shooters a fame they didn't have before......
> 
> You forgot the French rock concert attack....130 killed by terrorists with fully automatic military rifles, pistols and grenades, terrorists who were already on French government, terrorist watch lists.....
> 
> Also, just recently, the Russian Polytechnic shooting, 20 killed, 40 injured with a pump action, 5 shot, shotgun....



Again, Dick Tiny, not much you can do about organized terrorist groups, who have almost unlimited resources. We are in Year 19 of a "War on Terror".  If we could limit it to just organized terrorists, we'd only have one of these incidents every few years...  

Instead, any gun nut with a tiny dick can walk into a gun store, and walk out with the ability to launch a major attack on a school or a theater...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Right. Given to you by a group of people who, when they also give you the right to bear arms, are suddenly a bunch of “slave rapists”. You’re full of shit.
> ...



Irrelevant. You have no problem enjoying all the other rights and liberties they gave you and in fact you most likely agree and see them as fundamental. But then they gave you the right to bear arms and now they’re a bunch of slave rapists. 

Like I said, you’re full of shit.



> Oh, yeah, and these were the same guys who said, "All Men are Created Equal" and then went home and lived large off the labor of their slaves.  Thomas Jefferson raped the shit out of Sally Hemmings because she had the bad luck to be his dead wife's half sister and kind of looked like her



If you feel that way about them, why not move to say, North Korea where you don’t have to suffer under under their oppressive and wicked liberties?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In reality, they wouldn’t have needed to sensationalize anyway because everyone had a liberal aneurism and threw objectivity right out the window the moment they saw the MAGA hat.





> Naw, we drew a conclusion when we saw a smirking little punk taunting an Native American veteran...  the problem was, instead of slapping the kid silly and making him apologize, they got him lawyers and PR people to rehabilitate him.



It’s already been proven to you that Phillips got in Sandmann’s face and that Sandmann did not know Phillips was a veteran.

Are you just trolling me with this shit? Nobody can be that fucking stupid as to believe what you believe about that incident with all the video and photo evidence that proves the exact opposite.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Guns are merely a tool and are incapable of killing unless someone picks it up and uses it for that purpose.
> So the question is, why are we seeing an upsurge in mass shootings now, in the last twenty years or so, when the semiautomatic rifle has been around and available to consumers for eighty to a hundred years?





> Because the gun industry if flooding the market with them, and pitching them to the most unstable people.



Irrelevant and incorrect. The mere existence and civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles cannot be a factor if there were virtually no mass shootings for the first 2/3s of the period of their availability.

A semiautomatic rifle is an inanimate object and a tool and cannot kill unless it is used with that intent. So why is there such a spike in murderous intent in the last twenty years? Have you even asked that question?



> In 1950, there were only 40 million guns in private hands, most of them bolt action and revolvers...Then this funny thing happened.  Hunting fell out of favor because, hey, Animal Cruelty is so uncool.  The Gun Industry had a problem.  Sales were declining. Gun ownership was declining.  What ever shall we do?



Hunting is not animal cruelty if you eat what you kill. Unless you’re saying that a cheetah killing a gazelle is animal cruelty, this is nothing more than contempt for gun owners.

Also, hunting probably fell off because as we became more prosperous with more jobs, hunting was no longer needed to supplement food stores.



> I know, they said.  Let's market to the crazies.   You see, in the 1960's, the NRA supported tough gun laws.  When the Black Panthers started walking around openly brandishing guns, the NRA helped government pass sensible gun control laws.  Then in the 1970's, Wayne LaPeirre and the other nuts took over the NRA, and the Gun Industry decided that they really needed to sell AR-15 to Nancy Lanza and her sort.



*_chuckle_*



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Need I go on? There are many more examples but I think you get the point.


.


> Yes, when you have sensible gun control, these incidents are rare and only pulled off by organized terrorist groups.



That’s not what you said. You said they DON’T happen in countries with common sense gun laws.



> We have them happen a bunch of times a year, usually any nut who forgot to take his meds can become a menace.



Usually any idiot who forgets that drinking and driving are against the law can become a menace.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 17, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > The attacks in Europe and elsewhere are almost always driven by political or religious ideals whereas in the U.S., a common thread seems to be depression and other mental problems.
> ...



You just said in the other post that any NUT who forgot to take his meds...

Semiautomatic firearms have been available since the early part of the twentieth century, long before mass shootings became a thing. So no, simply being able to walk down the street and purchase them from the nice man does not explain the upsurge in mass shootings.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 17, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...




And as joe refuses to recognize.....600 million guns in this country, 12 mass public shootings.

12 guns out of 600 million....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 18, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. You have no problem enjoying all the other rights and liberties they gave you and in fact you most likely agree and see them as fundamental. But then they gave you the right to bear arms and now they’re a bunch of slave rapists.
> 
> Like I said, you’re full of shit.



Naw, man, I'm all for well-regulated Militias, but the fact is, private gun ownership is as unneeded today as a rule that you can't quarter troops in your house in peacetime.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you just trolling me with this shit? Nobody can be that fucking stupid as to believe what you believe about that incident with all the video and photo evidence that proves the exact opposite.



Whatever, guy. . We all saw a smirking little punk.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant and incorrect. The mere existence and civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles cannot be a factor if there were virtually no mass shootings for the first 2/3s of the period of their availability.



Except they weren't that available. They only really started marketing them to civilians in the 1990's, and that's when the mass shootings started. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hunting is not animal cruelty if you eat what you kill. Unless you’re saying that a cheetah killing a gazelle is animal cruelty, this is nothing more than contempt for gun owners.
> 
> Also, hunting probably fell off because as we became more prosperous with more jobs, hunting was no longer needed to supplement food stores.



Nope, it fell off and became the sport of Rednecks because it's cruel. 

Period. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Semiautomatic firearms have been available since the early part of the twentieth century, long before mass shootings became a thing. So no, simply being able to walk down the street and purchase them from the nice man does not explain the upsurge in mass shootings.



Um, guy, they weren't available to civilians until the 1990's, when the NRA and their pals started marketing them to the Tiny Dick Crowd.   



2aguy said:


> And as joe refuses to recognize.....600 million guns in this country, 12 mass public shootings.
> 
> 12 guns out of 600 million....



Your numbers get sillier with each post.   Eventually you'll claim it's a Billion guns and negative mass shootings.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 18, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. You have no problem enjoying all the other rights and liberties they gave you and in fact you most likely agree and see them as fundamental. But then they gave you the right to bear arms and now they’re a bunch of slave rapists.
> ...



You’ve already said we don’t need militias with a standing army. You’re just arguing to argue at this point.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you just trolling me with this shit? Nobody can be that fucking stupid as to believe what you believe about that incident with all the video and photo evidence that proves the exact opposite.





> Whatever, guy. . We all saw a smirking little punk.



No, _you_ saw a smirking punk. But even if he was, everything else you believe about that incident is patently false:

Phillips was not with a veterans group that day;

Sandmann did not know Phillips was a veteran and had no way of knowing this;

Phillips instigated the entire thing and deliberately placed himself in Sandmann’s face when he had no business being there.

Sandmann never left the main group to harass the NA group or even the Black Israelites. When Phillips got in his face, he was right where he had been the whole time.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant and incorrect. The mere existence and civilian ownership of semiautomatic rifles cannot be a factor if there were virtually no mass shootings for the first 2/3s of the period of their availability.





> Except they weren't that available. They only really started marketing them to civilians in the 1990's, and that's when the mass shootings started.



According to the list of mass shootings in the U.S. compiled by the Mother Jones website, there were a total of twenty three mass shootings in the 90s and of these, only 4 involved a military style semiautomatic rifle and none of them were ARs.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hunting is not animal cruelty if you eat what you kill. Unless you’re saying that a cheetah killing a gazelle is animal cruelty, this is nothing more than contempt for gun owners.
> 
> Also, hunting probably fell off because as we became more prosperous with more jobs, hunting was no longer needed to supplement food stores.





> Nope, it fell off and became the sport of Rednecks because it's cruel.
> 
> Period.



Idiot.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Semiautomatic firearms have been available since the early part of the twentieth century, long before mass shootings became a thing. So no, simply being able to walk down the street and purchase them from the nice man does not explain the upsurge in mass shootings.





> Um, guy, they weren't available to civilians until the 1990's, when the NRA and their pals started marketing them to the Tiny Dick Crowd.



Um, guy, Google “semiautomatic rifles for civilian use” and you’ll see that they’ve been available to and used by civilians since the early 1900s.



2aguy said:


> And as joe refuses to recognize.....600 million guns in this country, 12 mass public shootings.
> 
> 12 guns out of 600 million....





> Your numbers get sillier with each post.   Eventually you'll claim it's a Billion guns and negative mass shootings.



I can’t help but notice that you don’t cite different numbers to refute his, you just keep repeating that his numbers are bogus. Do you actually have a source for different numbers or do you just not like what the real numbers are?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 19, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Phillips instigated the entire thing and deliberately placed himself in Sandmann’s face when he had no business being there.



Yes, how dare that person of color interrupt his Entitled White Privilege!!!!  

Go fuck yourself. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> According to the list of mass shootings in the U.S. compiled by the Mother Jones website, there were a total of twenty three mass shootings in the 90s and of these, only 4 involved a military style semiautomatic rifle and none of them were ARs.



That site has been discredited...   I know your boy Dick Tiny likes to use it, but we had more mass shooting back then than that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I can’t help but notice that you don’t cite different numbers to refute his, you just keep repeating that his numbers are bogus. Do you actually have a source for different numbers or do you just not like what the real numbers are?



Posted them dozens of times, don't feel like posting them again.   Dick Tiny doesn't post sources either.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips instigated the entire thing and deliberately placed himself in Sandmann’s face when he had no business being there.
> ...



No, we didn't...I post all of my sources.   From the CDC, FBI and Mother Jones to any other number of places like Pew, to show you have no idea what you are talking about...


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips instigated the entire thing and deliberately placed himself in Sandmann’s face when he had no business being there.
> ...



That site has been discredited...   I know your boy Dick Tiny likes to use it, but we had more mass shooting back then than that.

Wow...you say, "It has been discredited," and whamo, you assume, like an ass, that what you say will be taken as truth....you are wrong....

Mother Jones uses the actual definition of mass public shootings, though I think actual terrorist attacks shouldn't be included....that is a different category of shooting.....but here, you dumb ass...

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2018... 12

2017:  11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 19, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips instigated the entire thing and deliberately placed himself in Sandmann’s face when he had no business being there.
> ...



What does Phillip's ethnicity have to do with any of this other than that he happened to be with a Native American group? If you can show me through logic and critical thinking that his being an NA has any relevance, I'll take your advice and go fuck myself. What do you say, are you up to the challenge?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> According to the list of mass shootings in the U.S. compiled by the Mother Jones website, there were a total of twenty three mass shootings in the 90s and of these, only 4 involved a military style semiautomatic rifle and none of them were ARs.





> That site has been discredited...   I know your boy Dick Tiny likes to use it, but we had more mass shooting back then than that.



Okay, how about this one: List of mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia

This Wikipedia article lists twenty nine shootings in the nineties. From this list, only five weapons were semiautomatic rifles of calibers higher than .22 and one was an "Uzi-type" submachine gun, which is against the law. And again, there were no ARs used during this period.

And just in case you have a problem with Wikipedia, here's another one from Fortune.com: This Is Every Mass Shooting in the U.S. Since 1949

This article lists all the shootings from 1949 to today and lists all the same shootings from the nineties as the one from Wikipedia and the numbers are the same: 29 shootings - 5 semiautomatic rifles of military calibers.

The bulk of the shootings at that time were committed with semiautomatic pistols and surprisingly, a lot of those were .22s. A good portion of the rifles during that time were .22s as well.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I can’t help but notice that you don’t cite different numbers to refute his, you just keep repeating that his numbers are bogus. Do you actually have a source for different numbers or do you just not like what the real numbers are?





> Posted them dozens of times, don't feel like posting them again.   Dick Tiny doesn't post sources either.



Probably from a left wingnut site too.


----------



## hjmick (Dec 19, 2019)

I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Wow...you say, "It has been discredited," and whamo, you assume, like an ass, that what you say will be taken as truth....you are wrong....



Again, no one believes that we only have a handful of mass shootings a year.  You look silly claiming it. 

Here's a list of mass shooting so far this year. 

Mass Shootings in 2019 | Gun Violence Archive


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 20, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What does Phillip's ethnicity have to do with any of this other than that he happened to be with a Native American group? I



Um, I think you just answered your own question. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Okay, how about this one:



Wiki? That's pathetic..



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Probably from a left wingnut site too.



The problem is with you Wingnuts is that you try to deny a mass shooting is a mass shooting. Not enough people die? Not a mass shooting.  People of color? They don't fucking count.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 20, 2019)

hjmick said:


> I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...



33,000 gun deaths.  70,000 gun injuries.  $270 BILLION in gun related economic losses.  

I'm glad you think this is funny. I don't.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...you say, "It has been discredited," and whamo, you assume, like an ass, that what you say will be taken as truth....you are wrong....
> ...




The gun violence archive...you dope....they add every gang banger shooting at a pool party in their numbers, you moron...those are not mass public shootings you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...
> ...




Guns save more lives....and again, you throw in suicide to hide the fact that your numbers are too small to counter the lives saved...

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


 that makes for _at least_ 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.




==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what _are_ the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.

*Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.*

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

*When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”*
*Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...
> ...




Moron....more guns = less gun murder....

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and* over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...*


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

*More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.*

Actual Result:

*In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72% 

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....*

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
*More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change?   That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------*

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 20, 2019)

2aguy said:


> The gun violence archive...you dope....they add every gang banger shooting at a pool party in their numbers, you moron...those are not mass public shootings you idiot.



See, you made my point.  "That mass shooting doesn't count, it's only black people".


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What does Phillip's ethnicity have to do with any of this other than that he happened to be with a Native American group? I
> ...



Um, no, I did not. His being there with a Native American group was circumstantial. That's why I asked the question. So, what did his ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Okay, how about this one:





> Wiki? That's pathetic..



You did notice I posted the Fortune.com article and that I specifically pointed out that I posted it because I knew you might say something just like this about the Wiki article, right? So, no comment about the Fortune article?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Probably from a left wingnut site too.





> The problem is with you Wingnuts is that you try to deny a mass shooting is a mass shooting. Not enough people die? Not a mass shooting.  People of color? They don't fucking count.



If you had bothered to look - and I know goddamned well you didn't - you would have seen that the Fortune, Wiki and Mother Jones lists had all the mass shootings with body counts from 58 (Las Vegas) all the way down to 3. 

And "people of color"? What the fuck are you talking about? 

You have more of an obsession with race than most racists do. Which leads me to believe that you are guilty of your own brand of racism. You seem to view minorities as helpless children who are not responsible for their own actions.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> The problem is with you Wingnuts is that you try to deny a mass shooting is a mass shooting. Not enough people die? Not a mass shooting.



  That's kind of the definition of a *•MASS•* shooting.




JoeB131 said:


> People of color? They don't fucking count.



  Yours is the only side that ever claims that.







JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The gun violence archive...you dope....they add every gang banger shooting at a pool party in their numbers, you moron...those are not mass public shootings you idiot.
> ...



  Quod erat demonstrandum.

  Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > The gun violence archive...you dope....they add every gang banger shooting at a pool party in their numbers, you moron...those are not mass public shootings you idiot.
> ...




No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting.  A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018.   A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.


----------



## hjmick (Dec 20, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > I'll give you this... Joe sure has posted some of the funniest, and most ignorant, missives in this thread...
> ...




It's your abject ignorance in the face of indisputable facts that makes you funny...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no, I did not. His being there with a Native American group was circumstantial. That's why I asked the question. So, what did his ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?



You mean why did the right viciously attack a person of color because he was the focus of a Entitled White Person's rudeness? 

I think you answered your own question. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You did notice I posted the Fortune.com article



Nope, I ignore all right wing links... they are meaningless to me. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> That's kind of the definition of a *•MASS•* shooting.



Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Quod erat demonstrandum.
> 
> Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?



Because "Gangbanger" it the word you chose when you found out using the N-word outside your cult would get you fired. 

Once again- Mormonism didn't let black people join until 1979 and considers dark skin a curse from God.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018. A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.



No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...  

Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron, it doesn't count because it isn't the definition of a mass public shooting. A mass public shooting is an act without any connection to other criminal activity.......there were12 of these in 2018. A gang member spraying a rival gang members pool party has an underlying crime behind it......you doofus.
> ...




No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....



Right.  We've already determined as a racist society we don't care when people of color are slaughtered.  It's just when they shoot up nice clean white people someone cares.  

That's kind of fucked up.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...moron...there is an actual definition for a reason....you can't work to prevent a crime if you are lying about what it is....gang members shooting up a party is completely different from a lone individual walking into a mall to shoot strangers...you moron....
> ...




No...that is what the democrat party decided.  As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......

This Republican is trying to save Baltimore from people like you...and save the lives of thousands of Black men, women and childern....

Maryland Governor Hogan Provides Blueprint For Chicago Violence

What Hogan realizes and as I have long pointed out is that job one is to get control of the city streets. Criminals are operating in plain sight and with no fear of an embattled police department still reeling from their political all activist State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby who is more determined to get indictments on police officers for doing their job than on prosecuting career criminals. Hogan pointed out that 85% of homicide suspects had a prior criminal record and had been arrested an average of seven times. So much for second chances. Additionally, over 50% have been arrested for violent offenses. So much for giving second chances for low-level offenders and 40% had previously been arrested for a crime committed with a gun.  The plan is correctly heavy on providing millions for resources like additional officers for street patrols, prosecutors, judges, probation and parole agents all focused on going after career criminals. 


*The key will be changing the culture in the prosecutor’s office to actually bring criminal charges, keeping them in jail with high bail while awaiting trial and getting lenient judges to not accept watered-down prosecutions in exchange for plea bargains and sentencing them to long periods of incarceration. *


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......



They tried to do something about it.  We enacted gun laws and the National Rampage Society ran to the courts and said, "But, but ,but, the Founding Slave Rapists said we can have guns!"  

So how's this for an idea.  Let the big cities completely ban guns and allow them to be as ruthless as they want in enforcing the gun laws.    If we still have lots of murder, then you can complain.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......
> ...




No, moron...the problem isn't law abiding gun owners, it is asshats like you who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again........

Maryland Governor Hogan Provides Blueprint For Chicago Violence

It is not the government’s or taxpayer’s responsibility to step in and raise children abandoned by their mothers and fathers. It is, however, the responsibility for the government to use tax dollars to protect law-abiding people from being victimized by ineffective parenting and separate them from society for the longest time allowable by law. Then bleeding heart liberals turned what was proven strategies to control crime into something racist. 

They turned safe streets, schools, and communities into a political movement by claiming that this was a thinly veiled attempt by tough on crime advocates to systematically lock up black males. 


*Liberals screamed about a mass incarceration campaign and went away from the use of jails and prisons as crime control tools. They indoctrinated criminal justice practitioners including prosecutors, police and probation and parole agents about some inane idea about inherent bias theory. That led to discouraging prosecutors from issuing charges against drug dealers and gun-toting repeat offenders. They urged judges away from high bail and lengthy sentences even though these are some of the tactics at the heart of the great crime declines of the 1980s to the mid-2000s. There is no argument about that. It has been proven over and over by criminologists and economists on either side of what works best argument, programming or incarceration.*


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No...that is what the democrat party decided. As long as enough Blacks show up every two years to vote the democrat party control of these hell holes, they don't care how many Blacks kill each other...otherwise they would do something about it since they have complete control over these cities...you doofus......
> ...




Real life shows you are wrong about guns......completely wrong....and you are wrong about locking up criminals too....

Normal people with guns...lots of guns...do not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate....as actual facts, truth and reality show.

Over the last 26 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and* over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...*


--* gun murder down 49%*

*--gun crime down 75%*

*--violent crime down 72%*

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

*More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.*

Actual Result:

*In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72% 

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....*

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
*More Guns = More Gun Crime
Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.
They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...
Your Theory again....
More guns = More Gun Crime
Guns Banned creates no change?   That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.
When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------*

Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Um, no, I did not. His being there with a Native American group was circumstantial. That's why I asked the question. So, what did his ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?
> ...



Negative. Don't answer the question with a question. Besides, even if true (it's not), all this happened _after_ the incident. So, once again: What did Phillip's ethnicity have to do with the events of that day, beyond the circumstantial aspect?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You did notice I posted the Fortune.com article





> Nope, I ignore all right wing links... they are meaningless to me.



Don't be an idiot. Fortune.com is an offshoot of _Fortune_ magazine that was started in 1929 by Henry Robinson Luce, who also cofounded _Time_ magazine. It focuses on business and finance and is also the author and publisher of the Fortune 500 lists.

Try again.



Bob Blaylock said:


> That's kind of the definition of a *•MASS•* shooting.





> Exactly Mormon Bob. if more than ONE person is shot, it's a mass shooting.



Every one of the lists I cited to you included shootings with as few as three people killed and you refused to look at them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > That's kind of the definition of a *•MASS•* shooting.
> ...





JoeB131 said:


> No, moron, a mass shooting is more than one person shot, you doofus...
> Not just nice white people minding their own business in a school or mall... not that we don't have a lot of those, too.



  Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a _“mass shooting”_.
_
A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term mass shooting. The United States' FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders." Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s).

Different media outlets and research groups use different definitions for the term "mass shooting" For example, crime violence research group Gun Violence Archive defines a "mass shooting" as " FOUR or more shot (injured or killed) in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter,” differentiating between mass shooting and mass murder and not counting shooters as victims.

The United States’ Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition and defines a "public mass shooting" as an event where someone selects four or more people and kills them in an indiscriminate manner, echoing the FBI's definition of the term "mass murder." But adding the indiscriminate factor._​
Mass shooting - Wikipedia




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Who is it, here, that is assuming that murderous criminal gang members are always black?
> ...



  I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that _“Gangbanger”_ denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied.  That would be you.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...




Obama had the Dept. of Justice lower the number to 3 or more victims....they were hoping to increase the number of mass public shootings recorded each year as he was trying to revitalize the anti-gun movement......he also allowed over 3,000 guns to get to drug cartels to help this effort.......

I don't have a problem with the 3 number, but when they throw in every gang shooting to get the number up that is just blatant lying...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> No, moron...the problem isn't law abiding gun owners, it is asshats like you who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again........



Again, getting repetitive. 

We lock up 2 million people.  Locking people up isn't a solution.



2aguy said:


> Real life shows you are wrong about guns......completely wrong....and you are wrong about locking up criminals too....
> 
> Normal people with guns...lots of guns...do not increase the gun murder rate, the gun crime rate or the violent crime rate....as actual facts, truth and reality show.



Here's the problem... you think you gun nuts are "Normal". 

Most Americans don't own guns. That's Normal.  

Most Americans who do own guns really don't have a problem with common sense gun laws.  

The "abnormal" are people like you and your pinup girl Nancy Lanza, stocking enough high-powered guns to fight off the zombies and terrifying the rest of us.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a _“mass shooting”_.



Awesome.  Even by that standard, we still have hundreds of mass shootings.  Certainly a lot more than 12, Mormon Bob.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Obama had the Dept. of Justice lower the number to 3 or more victims....they were hoping to increase the number of mass public shootings recorded each year as he was trying to revitalize the anti-gun movement......he also allowed over 3,000 guns to get to drug cartels to help this effort.......



Guy, 250,000 guns cross the border every year.  When Mexico caught that crooked Ex-Marine smuggling guns into their country, you practically wanted to go to war with them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that _“Gangbanger”_ denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied. That would be you.



Yes, we know, this is the thing you guys do... pretend your racism isn't racist.  

You know, never met any white gangbangers in my life... and I'm old.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, we know, this is the thing you guys do... pretend your racism isn't racist.


  You're the only one here, who has expressed any racism, and you do so almost constantly.

  I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You're the only one here, who has expressed any racism, and you do so almost constantly.
> 
> I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.



Yes, it's the one who belongs to a cult that says Dark Skin is a curse from God... that would be you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is quite obvious enough which one of us is a racist, and which one is not.
> ...



  So far as I know, nobody here belongs to any cult that says that.

  I say that the obvious racist is the one who continually makes racist remarks, while falsely accusing others of racism.  Also the same person who is a religious bigot, who continually tells blatant, hateful lies about other people's religions, while falsely accusing others of bigotry.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > No, moron...the problem isn't law abiding gun owners, it is asshats like you who keep letting violent gun offenders out of jail and prison over and over again........
> ...




Moron...when you release violent, repeat gun offenders after less than 3 years it doesn't matter how many people you lock up...you are letting the gun offenders back out...you doofus.   And when you let violent shooters out of jail on bond, to go back to the very neighborhoods they just shot up less than a week from their release, you allow them to terrorize witnesses, making prosecution less likely, you dope.....


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Most definitions set the minimum number of victims at four, to qualify as a _“mass shooting”_.
> ...




Wrong...we had 12 in 2018, 11 in 2017......you dope.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> So far as I know, nobody here belongs to any cult that says that.



Uh, huh...

Mormons Once Aspired to Be a 'White and Delightsome' People

Like other religious groups, Mormons have a complicated history around race. Until a few decades ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that they “shall be a white and a delightsome people,” a phrase taken from the Book of Mormon. Until the 1970s, the LDS Church also restricted black members’ participation in important rituals and prohibited black men from becoming priests, despite evidence that they had participated more fully in the earliest years of the Church.*

Emma Green: There’s been talk about an emerging Mormon alt-right, populated by Mormon white nationalists. Much of this has focused on a Utah woman who blogs under the name ‘Wife with a Purpose,’ who created a “white-baby challenge” for fellow Mormons to perpetuate their putatively white heritage. What do you make of this?

Max Perry Mueller: Within Mormonism’s history is this concept of whiteness as Godliness and purity.

Issues of Christianity are often seen as linear, marching towards a certain direction. But actually, that’s not how history, especially theological history, works. The kind of white supremacy that’s at the heart of a lot of Mormon history, and the contemporary church that rejects white supremacy, both embody the same space.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron...when you release violent, repeat gun offenders after less than 3 years it doesn't matter how many people you lock up...you are letting the gun offenders back out...you doofus. And when you let violent shooters out of jail on bond, to go back to the very neighborhoods they just shot up less than a week from their release, you allow them to terrorize witnesses, making prosecution less likely, you dope.....



Again, we lock up 2 million people.  Locking people up isn't a deterrent.  

Also- most gun violence isn't criminals with records, its ordinary people who shoot their family members, their neighbors or themselves.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron...when you release violent, repeat gun offenders after less than 3 years it doesn't matter how many people you lock up...you are letting the gun offenders back out...you doofus. And when you let violent shooters out of jail on bond, to go back to the very neighborhoods they just shot up less than a week from their release, you allow them to terrorize witnesses, making prosecution less likely, you dope.....
> ...




Yes...locking them up keeps them shooting more people, you doofus....and again, the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep letting them out on bail, to terrorize the witnesses to their shootings, and out on insanely low sentences, less than 3 years.........

Almost all gun violence is repeat offenders you moron, the ones shooting their baby mommas are gang members you dope.  And you lie again....the researchers you cite say "Acquaintance" killings...not family killings you dope.....which means the gang member shooting the rival gang member knew who was killing him...as does the drug user killing his drug dealer, you dope.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Yes...locking them up keeps them shooting more people, you doofus....and again, the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep letting them out on bail, to terrorize the witnesses to their shootings, and out on insanely low sentences, less than 3 years.........



Okay, let's lock up everyone who has a gun... oh, no, wait. That would be impractical.  

Just having a gun isn't a serious enough crime to lock someone up.  We only have a finite number of jail cells.  

Recently talked to an old college buddy of mine. He became a Chicago Cop, and told me a story about how he works very hard to catch financials scammers, but very few of them see the inside of a prison cell.   Why? No where to lock them up, they are too busy locking up the really violent criminals.   

So the question is, how many rapists, murderers, scam artists, burglers, etc. are you willing to cut loose so you can pretend you are doing something about gun violence?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 21, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Almost all gun violence is repeat offenders you moron, the ones shooting their baby mommas are gang members you dope. And you lie again....the researchers you cite say "Acquaintance" killings...not family killings you dope.....which means the gang member shooting the rival gang member knew who was killing him...as does the drug user killing his drug dealer, you dope.








One more time. 

Only 5 percent of murderers are people killing total strangers.  51% of people killing people they know, 32% are people killing family members.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Yes...locking them up keeps them shooting more people, you doofus....and again, the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians keep letting them out on bail, to terrorize the witnesses to their shootings, and out on insanely low sentences, less than 3 years.........
> ...




Moron we aren't talking about locking up people who just have a gun.  We are talking democrat party judges who release violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again and democrat party prosecutors who constantly plea down repeat gun offenders who are caught with guns over and over again and democrat party politicians who keep reducing sentencing laws for repeat gun offenders, you moron.

Chief judge says there have been no "horrible incidents" under his affordable bail program. These people might disagree, if they only they were still alive.

Two years into an “affordable bail” initiative that is allowing most accused gun offenders and even accused murderers to be released from jail to await trial, Cook County’s chief judge says the program is working fabulously.
----------

There are likely many people who would disagree with Evans’ definition of “horrible incidents” — if they were still alive to do so.

• On Feb. 9, Daryl Williams violated the terms of a court-ordered curfew, secured an illegal handgun, and then fatally shot 45-year-old Daniel Smith in the back of the head, prosecutors allege.

*Three months earlier, Judge Stephanie Miller released Williams on a recognizance bond after he was charged with illegally possessing a stolen handgun near a “shots fired” incident on the South Side.*

“That was me,” Williams allegedly told police. “I let off two rounds to see if [the gun] worked.”

Williams is now being held without bail as he awaits trial for murder.

*Facts first. 100% reader-funded. Click here to support CWBChicago today.*

• In August, someone fatally shot 34-year-old Neal Sumrell as he sat in his car in Humboldt Park. Someone also shot a woman who was in Sumrell’s vehicle as she tried to run away.

Prosecutors say they know who at least one of the shooters was: Antwane Lashley.

*The 18-year-old who was free on a recognizance bond and electronic monitoring at the time of the shootings after cops said they caught him with an illegal handgun on the West Side in May.*

Lashley was on juvenile probation for aggravated battery, causing great bodily harm at the time of his gun arrest, according to court records. He is now being held without bail as he awaits trial for murder.

•* In May, prosecutors say, 30-year-old Antawan Smith murdered 15-year-old Jaylin Ellzey in a drive-by shooting. When police arrested Smith during a traffic stop two weeks later, officers reported finding a loaded handgun in his car.*

*At the time of the murder, Smith was free on bail while awaiting trial for Class X felony armed violence with a weapon; felony manufacture-delivery of cocaine; felony repeated unlawful use of a weapon by a felon,* and felony aggravated fleeing. Smith was on parole for illegal possession of a handgun when cops arrested him on those charges in September. His bond amount? $6,000.

He’s now held without bail as he awaits trial for Ellzey’s murder and the earlier charges.

• In May 2018, a judge released 18-year-old Randy Wilson to await trial after prosecutors charged him with criminal trespass to a vehicle. But things escalated when Chicago police allegedly found him carrying a handgun illegally one month later. But, another judge released him to await trial again.

Three weeks later, a 50-year-old man told police that Wilson and three other men robbed him and two teenagers on the South Side. Police arrested Wilson and wrote in a report that he was wearing an electronic monitoring bracelet when they found him. Prosecutors charged him with two counts of attempted robbery with a firearm.

He paid a $2,500 deposit bond to get out of jail. And, of course, the judge ordered him to be on electronic monitoring which didn’t help much before.
Gunday: A look at how the courts are handling some recent weapons charges in Chicago

*Near North incident*
You may remember our Oct. 30 report about a Near North woman who called police because a man fired a shot through her door after she kicked him out of her apartment on the 700 block of North Dearborn.The woman called police again early on Nov. 2 after she and her brother saw the alleged offender in the first block of West Huron.Officers arrived and arrested 35-year-old Christopher Stanley after confirming that the victim identified him by name in her police report, according to court records. During a search, police allegedly found a handgun in Stanley’s possession.Prosecutors charged Stanley with being a felon in possession of a firearm but not with the alleged shooting. Judge John Lyke set bail at $5,000 and Stanley went free by posting a $500 deposit bond.In May 2002, prosecutors dropped four counts of attempted murder and four other felonies in a plea deal with Stanley. In exchange for pleading guilty to aggravated discharge of a firearm, Stanley received a sentence of eight years, court records show.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all gun violence is repeat offenders you moron, the ones shooting their baby mommas are gang members you dope. And you lie again....the researchers you cite say "Acquaintance" killings...not family killings you dope.....which means the gang member shooting the rival gang member knew who was killing him...as does the drug user killing his drug dealer, you dope.
> ...




Moron....Known is the category you asshats play with........gang members shooting other gang members and then you have the family category where gang members shoot their baby mommas....you dope.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all gun violence is repeat offenders you moron, the ones shooting their baby mommas are gang members you dope. And you lie again....the researchers you cite say "Acquaintance" killings...not family killings you dope.....which means the gang member shooting the rival gang member knew who was killing him...as does the drug user killing his drug dealer, you dope.
> ...



In that case, let's take away or lock up every person that every person knows. Makes about as much sense as other gun control-nut solutions.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all gun violence is repeat offenders you moron, the ones shooting their baby mommas are gang members you dope. And you lie again....the researchers you cite say "Acquaintance" killings...not family killings you dope.....which means the gang member shooting the rival gang member knew who was killing him...as does the drug user killing his drug dealer, you dope.
> ...




Moron...

Family murder....

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

 Approximately 74 percent of murder defendants had prior criminal records.


----------



## initforme (Dec 21, 2019)

Glad I have my Remington bolt actions already.  If they close up shop now no big deal to me.  The hunt is still on.  This other stuff doesn't affect me.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 21, 2019)

initforme said:


> Glad I have my Remington bolt actions already.  If they close up shop now no big deal to me.  The hunt is still on.  This other stuff doesn't affect me.




Yes...it does effect you....they want your military sniper rifle and if they have the power they will take it.....


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 21, 2019)

I really shouldn't allow myself to keep getting drawn into your puerile attempts to derail thread after thread with absurd, off-topic slurs against my religion, but nevertheless…



JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > So far as I know, nobody here belongs to any cult that says that.
> ...



  Nothing in that article supports your claim about our beliefs.

  And it's not even terribly factual.  It's mostly just an interview with a historian, who has some opinions about the church, and some of his own interpretations of some of our past teachings and practices, that I think I can safely say that most Mormons would not agree with.  It reads like the thoughts of someone who started with a preformed conclusion, and then did biased _“research”_ to support that conclusion, seeking information that supported his premise, often twisting it and/or taking it out of context to do so; rather than that of an honest researcher who sought facts, and formed his conclusion after analyzing those facts.

  I'd never heard of him, before, but after writing the above, I googled his name, and what I found pretty solidly supports my impression of him.  He's someone who started from the premise that there is, to use his own words that you quoted, a _“…kind of white supremacy that’s at the heart of a lot of Mormon history…”_, and then all the _“research”_ that he subsequently did was biased to support that premise.




JoeB131 said:


> Emma Green: There’s been talk about an emerging Mormon alt-right, populated by Mormon white nationalists. Much of this has focused on a Utah woman who blogs under the name ‘Wife with a Purpose,’ who created a “white-baby challenge” for fellow Mormons to perpetuate their putatively white heritage. What do you make of this?



  We are, of course, meant to take from this that this _“Wife with a Purpose”_ is representative of the Mormon church and of Mormons in general, but both of the cited articles make it clear that no, she is not.

  From the Salt Lake Tribune Article:
_Mormonism is doomed if it continues to celebrate racial and ethnic diversity, to support refugees and immigrant families, and to debase Western, white culture.
At least that's the view of one Latter-day Saint, a blogger named Ayla, who tweets as Nordic Sunrise and "Wife With A Purpose" — *despite the fact that her church disagrees with her on all those points*._​
  From the Buzzfeed article:
_Her comment came in a post titled "Mormon 'Rap' and the Destruction of White, Western, Mormon Culture." It was jarring; Mormons are known for their moderate positions on issues like immigration and diversity, famously putting them at odds with now-President Trump. *Extreme movements such as the alt-right…are anathema to many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)*._​
  I note that the Buzzfeed article makes quite a few unsupported generalizations about Mormons.  We have over 13 million members, as of the last count, in almost all nations and cultures around the world.  Outside of beliefs, standards, and practices which are specific to the church, there really isn't much that you can honestly generalize about us.  And, on that note, the Salt Lake Tribune article states:
_
At least that's the view of one Latter-day Saint, a blogger named Ayla, who tweets as Nordic Sunrise and "Wife With A Purpose" — despite the fact that her church disagrees with her on all those points.
Still — because the mother of six has nearly 22,000 Twitter followers, has been interviewed multiple times on radio and maintains a strong presence on social media — some see her as representing a "growing" alt-right LDS subculture._​
  As I said, at last count, there are over thirteen million of us.  22,000 is about 0.17 of a % of us.  One out of about every 600.  That's an insignificant fringe of extreme outliers, not _“a ‘growing’ LDS subculture”_.  I have no doubt that you'd find a similar, if not bigger portion out of the U.S. population as a whole, or out of just about any other reasonable subset.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Moron we aren't talking about locking up people who just have a gun. We are talking democrat party judges who release violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again and democrat party prosecutors who constantly plea down repeat gun offenders who are caught with guns over and over again and democrat party politicians who keep reducing sentencing laws for repeat gun offenders, you moron.



Okay, I realize that's how you describe it, it just doesn't happen to be true.  

Here's the thing about this case.. 

THE GUY HADN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING... This was an issue of bail.  Sorry, people are entitled to bail. We can't lock up the people who've actually been convicted of something, dumbass, you want to lock up everyone who has been accused?  

Here's the problem with your logic... you think that gun ownership - the right to self-defense- is an unalienable right.  Okay. Until they've been convicted of something, they still have that right.   

Oh-- wait for it... "Silly Darkie, rights are for white people".


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 22, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nothing in that article supports your claim about our beliefs.
> 
> And it's not even terribly factual. It's mostly just an interview with a historian, who has some opinions about the church, and some of his own interpretations of some of our past teachings and practices, that I think I can safely say that most Mormons would not agree with. It reads like the thoughts of someone who started with a preformed conclusion, and then did biased _“research”_ to support that conclusion, seeking information that supported his premise, often twisting it and/or taking it out of context to do so; rather than that of an honest researcher who sought facts, and formed his conclusion after analyzing those facts.
> 
> I'd never heard of him, before, but after writing the above, I googled his name, and what I found pretty solidly supports my impression of him. He's someone who started from the premise that there is, to use his own words that you quoted, a _“…kind of white supremacy that’s at the heart of a lot of Mormon history…”_, and then all the _“research”_ that he subsequently did was biased to support that premise.



Buddy, the fact is, the "past" practices are what was advocated by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young... guys you CLAIMED WERE TALKING TO GOD.  Did God get it wrong? Did God not correct them?  Did God Change his mind?  

Or was this another case of "The whole "Dark Skin is a Curse from God" thing isn't playing well, we better change it." 



Bob Blaylock said:


> As I said, at last count, there are over thirteen million of us. 22,000 is about 0.17 of a % of us. One out of about every 600. That's an insignificant fringe of extreme outliers, not _“a ‘growing’ LDS subculture”_. I have no doubt that you'd find a similar, if not bigger portion out of the U.S. population as a whole, or out of just about any other reasonable subset.



True enough, but a bigger portion of the US population doesn't have Dark Skin is a curse from God as part of their fake religious texts. 

Mitt Romney and the Curse of Blackness | HuffPost

And no, I’m not talking about a single ambiguous, cherry-picked verse, either. I’d much rather that were the case. The sad truth is that the Book of Morman says it explicitly and in numerous passages: black people are cursed by God and our dark skin is the evidence of our accursedness. Here are a few examples:

_And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them (2 Nephi 5:21).

And I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations (1 Nephi 12:23).

“O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Jacob 3:8).

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men (Alma 3: 6)._

I'm sure you guys don't talk about this shit at the Interfaith Pancake Breakfast.


----------



## 2aguy (Dec 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron we aren't talking about locking up people who just have a gun. We are talking democrat party judges who release violent, repeat gun offenders over and over again and democrat party prosecutors who constantly plea down repeat gun offenders who are caught with guns over and over again and democrat party politicians who keep reducing sentencing laws for repeat gun offenders, you moron.
> ...




Wrong, moron, the democrat party judges keep giving bail to known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....the democrat party prosecutors keep pleading down gun charges against known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....and democrat party politicians keep reducing prison sentences for repeat gun crimes......

You are a moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, moron, the democrat party judges keep giving bail to known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....the democrat party prosecutors keep pleading down gun charges against known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....and democrat party politicians keep reducing prison sentences for repeat gun crimes......
> 
> You are a moron.



Guy, we only have 5500 beds in Cook County Jail.  

In Chicago alone, we had 561 Homicides, 1804 rapes, 9702 robberies and 15,000 assaults.   

Just having a gun when you shouldn't have a gun...    Sorry, I want the rapists, murderers and robbers locked up first.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, moron, the democrat party judges keep giving bail to known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....the democrat party prosecutors keep pleading down gun charges against known, repeat, violent gun offenders.....and democrat party politicians keep reducing prison sentences for repeat gun crimes......
> ...



Even the brown ones?

By the way, I knew you were going to bail on me rather than answer my question. You didn't answer it because you couldn't. 

You knew damn well that Phillips' ethnicity had nothing to do with the events of that day; it was not the reason he approached Sandmann; it was not the reason Sandmann responded to Phillips' approach by smiling and saying nothing; it was not the reason Phillips went on national TV and contradicted himself as to why he approached Sandmann and it was not the reason people criticized him for it.

Phillips' ethnicity had no relevance to anything except as a weapon for you to use against the "Little Catholic Bastard": 

"Wait, the guy who approached and got in the kid's face is Native American? Well, that must mean the kid's a racist. Whatever else could it be?"

You are fucking pathetic.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 22, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even the brown ones?
> 
> By the way, I knew you were going to bail on me rather than answer my question. You didn't answer it because you couldn't.
> 
> You knew damn well that Phillips' ethnicity had nothing to do with



It had everything to do with it. Had it been a teen of color disrespecting a White Veteran, they'd have gone all Rodney King on his ass. 

Sandmann is a white entitled piece of shit... not going to get far in life with that attitude.  Hopefully he grows up at some point.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Even the brown ones?
> ...



Why can't you answer a simple question? Again, you're talking about the events _after_ the incident in D.C.. So once again: What did Phillips' ethnicity have to do with the events of THAT DAY? 

Is it the reason he approached Sandmann and banged his drum in his face? 
Is it the reason Sandmann was there that day? 
Is it the reason Sandmann said nothing and smiled at him? 
Is it the reason Phillips gave contradictory reasons as to why he approached Sandmann (one that he wanted to defuse the situation between the Covington kids and the BAs and the other that he was trying to get up the memorial steps)? 
Is it the reason he wrongly said he couldn't get up the steps when the video proved he had a clear path to and up the steps?

Now here are some pertinent questions that hit closer to the truth:

Was his being Native American the reason you wrongly thought Phillips was there with a veterans group?
Is it the reason you wrongly thought Sandmann knew Phillips was a vet? 
Is it the reason that Sandmann just happened to be a Catholic, a group of people you just happen to hate?
Is it the reason Sandmann was wearing a MAGA hat, a symbol of another group of people you just happen to hate?

Can you answer even one of these questions or are you going to tuck tail and bail out again?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 22, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> And no, I’m not talking about a single ambiguous, cherry-picked verse, either. I’d much rather that were the case. The sad truth is that the Book of Morman [sic] says it explicitly and in numerous passages: black people are cursed by God and our dark skin is the evidence of our accursedness.



  Most of us understand the term _“black people”_ to refer to the Negroid races from Africa.  The Book of Mormon makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of them, nor does it give any basis to extrapolate any of what the Book of Mormon says of God's dealings with the Lamanites, to apply to why other races not mentioned therein might differ from one another.  The Book of Mormon covers very specifically, the dealings between the descendants of Lehi, and what God did to make the Lamanites easily distinguishable from the Nephites; as filtered through the perceptions of the Nephites who wrote it.


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 22, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.



I wonder when families will be able to sue GM, Ford, and all the car companies, for every death caused by a drunk driver?


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 22, 2019)

Brain357 said:


> Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> 
> Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed
> 
> The Supreme Court has denied Remington Arms Co.'s bid to block a lawsuit filed by families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook school massacre. The families say Remington should be held liable, as the maker of the AR-15-style rifle used in the 2012 killings.



Newlywed 'brutally’ beaten to death with baseball bat at his Calif. wedding reception, suspects in custody

We need to start suing those baseball bat manufacturers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 23, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why can't you answer a simple question?



I did. You just didn't like the answer so you are pounding your head against the wall like a retard...  At least put your helmet on first. 



Andylusion said:


> I wonder when families will be able to sue GM, Ford, and all the car companies, for every death caused by a drunk driver?



It depends.  Did Ford, etc. specifically market to drunk drivers and make their cars more dangerous?  

If Ford acted like Remington, cars would look like this. 








Bob Blaylock said:


> Most of us understand the term _“black people”_ to refer to the Negroid races from Africa. The Book of Mormon makes absolutely no mention whatsoever of them, nor does it give any basis to extrapolate any of what the Book of Mormon says of God's dealings with the Lamanites, to apply to why other races not mentioned therein might differ from one another. The Book of Mormon covers very specifically, the dealings between the descendants of Lehi, and what God did to make the Lamanites easily distinguishable from the Nephites; as filtered through the perceptions of the Nephites who wrote it.



Yes, the Book of Mormon states that NATIVE AMERICANS were cursed with Dark Skin by God, and therefore it was okay to murder them and take their land.   

Oh, not that there were any Nephites or Lamanites... Joseph Smith made that shit up.  

Now, when it comes to black people, not to worry, the Mormons had an excuse for discrimination against them, too.  Utah under Brigham Young was a slave territory. 

Foundation for Discrimination | Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

_While the Bible speaks of Cain being marked by God, there is not a trace of information there about the nature of that mark. It also speaks of Canaan, the son of Noah's son Ham, being cursed by Noah, that he and his descendants would serve Shem and Japheth and their descendants. All of this is obviously insufficient evidence on which to base any theory that African blacks are descendants of Cain, Ham or Canaan, or that their skin color is either a mark or a curse from God, or that they should be prohibited from holding the priesthood.

Uniquely Mormon scriptures, however, all in the Pearl of Great Price, bridge the doctrinal chasm. "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people"(Moses 7:8). To many Mormons, the land here described sounds like the African desert, and it seems sufficient to identify the people dwelling there at one time as having black skin.

Four verses later it is stated that Enoch, a giant of the faith, "continued to call upon all the people, save it were the [black] people of Canaan, to repent" (v. 12). There is no direct statement of a curse here, but surely such a man of God as Enoch would not withhold the opportunity for repentance from the people of Canaan out of base prejudice. So, it is reasoned, there must have been some kind of curse from God upon them, of which, supposedly, their black skin was emblematic._


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't you answer a simple question?
> ...



I guess that means you're going to bail again. 

Look, another question is not an answer and your question focused on the reactions of _other_ people _after_ the incident to the fact that Phillips was a Native American and a vet, and that Sandmann was white, Catholic, went to a private school and wore a MAGA hat. In fact, Sandmann's being Catholic had nothing to do with the events of that day either but that didn't stop prejudiced fucks like you from using _that_ as a weapon against him. 

Sandmann and his group did not instigate this incident, Phillips did. But because Sandmann was white and wore a MAGA hat, he was the bad guy. 

I'll bet it never even occurred to you that no violence was committed that day and that no harsh words were spoken by either Phillips or Sandmann and in fact, they exchanged no words at all. Yet, the reaction of a lot of people was to issue death threats and call for violence to be committed against Sandmann and the Covington kids, a lot of them from celebrities. The threats got so bad that the school had to close down for a time.

People like you are dangerous to our society. Far more dangerous than any kid wearing a silly hat.



Andylusion said:


> I wonder when families will be able to sue GM, Ford, and all the car companies, for every death caused by a drunk driver?





> It depends.  Did Ford, etc. specifically market to drunk drivers and make their cars more dangerous?



Irrelevant. The M16 was designed for the military for combat and killing/maiming people. There are hundreds of thousands of M16s in our military and law enforcement and in those of other countries around the world. Of these hundreds of thousands of weapons, most will never be fired at another human being in anger. A weapon or device is only as dangerous as the person using it. Or misusing it as the case may be.


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder when families will be able to sue GM, Ford, and all the car companies, for every death caused by a drunk driver?
> ...



Really?  Because I've seen ads by Remington, and not one said "Great for use in murder!".

Me thinks you fabricate a bit much.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 23, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Why can't you answer a simple question?
> ...




[ATTACH=full]296346[/ATTACH]


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Look, another question is not an answer and your question focused on the reactions of



Yeah, actually, it kind of is... Little Entitled bastard was disrespectful. 



Andylusion said:


> Really? Because I've seen ads by Remington, and not one said "Great for use in murder!".
> 
> Me thinks you fabricate a bit much.



No, we see ads like this.  





Oh, Mormon Bob, your concession is duly noted.   


Do you really think this ad is geared towards someone who is well adjusted?


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I only see one person in this discussion even hinting at the idea that _“Gangbanger”_ denotes anything racial about the criminal to whom the term is applied. That would be you.
> ...


Here we go again with the white boy who does not know shit about racism telling other people they are racist 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Moron...when you release violent, repeat gun offenders after less than 3 years it doesn't matter how many people you lock up...you are letting the gun offenders back out...you doofus. And when you let violent shooters out of jail on bond, to go back to the very neighborhoods they just shot up less than a week from their release, you allow them to terrorize witnesses, making prosecution less likely, you dope.....
> ...


Then tell me why when the city of Richmond VA actually enforced federal gun laws by putting criminals in federal prison the murder rate dropped by 20% in less than a year 

And most people who commit murder are not regular people they have criminal records and most of them cannot legally own a gun

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## The Purge (Dec 24, 2019)

Wonder when SCOTUS will allow us to SUE car companies for the THOUSANDS OF DEATHS A YEAR that cars cause?....Never mind that it's intended use has been subverted!


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

The Purge said:


> Wonder when SCOTUS will allow us to SUE car companies for the THOUSANDS OF DEATHS A YEAR that cars cause?....Never mind that it's intended use has been subverted!


Not just car makers.

How about alcohol makers?

How about knife makers?

Shit if someone beats a person to death with a baseball bat they should be able to sue Louisville Slugger. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> Here we go again with the white boy who does not know shit about racism telling other people they are racist



Uh, guy, I grew up in the most racist neighborhood in Chicago...  I'm old enough to remember when things go so bad we had race riots in this city.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> Then tell me why when the city of Richmond VA actually enforced federal gun laws by putting criminals in federal prison the murder rate dropped by 20% in less than a year
> 
> And most people who commit murder are not regular people they have criminal records and most of them cannot legally own a gun



Hey, guy, if I wanted to read NRA propaganda, I'd read Dick Tiny's posts.   

Do you have anything else?  



Blues Man said:


> Shit if someone beats a person to death with a baseball bat they should be able to sue Louisville Slugger.



Did Louisville Slugger market their product to crazy people, you MIGHT have a point.  

"Louisville Slugger, it'll give you that edge in a drunken bar fight." 

Um. No. Louisville slugger actually marketed their product to PLAY BASEBALL>





Remington marketted to crazy people like Nancy Lanza.


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Here we go again with the white boy who does not know shit about racism telling other people they are racist
> ...


Still don't know shit about it because you never experienced it you were just a bystander 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Then tell me why when the city of Richmond VA actually enforced federal gun laws by putting criminals in federal prison the murder rate dropped by 20% in less than a year
> ...


Show me where any gun was marketed for committing murder 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


And project exile worked

I have already posted links 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Look, another question is not an answer and your question focused on the reactions of
> ...



A question is not an answer to another question you idiot. And the above comment is not an answer either. Why? Because whether or not he was actually disrespectful, it still has no bearing on Phillips' ethnicity.

In your mind, Sandmann is a disrespectful entitled Little Catholic Bastard, correct? Which means he would have reacted the same way to _anyone_ who approached him in this manner, yes?

So even if you are right in everything you say about Sandmann, Phillips' ethnicity still has no relevance to or was a factor in the events of that day.

Now, here's an even simpler question that even you should be able to answer:

Did Phillips approach Sandmann?

A simple yes or no will suffice. No _"Do you mean, is Sandmann a misogynist?"_ Or, _"Did the winter solstice occur the other day?_". Just a one word response in the negative or affirmative is all that's required.

You know what's hilarious and pathetic? You have been sparring with me for over a month in this thread. You stood there, feet firmly planted, throwing jabs for thirty eight fucking straight days but when I press you to answer a simple question, _that's_ when you bail.



Andylusion said:


> Really? Because I've seen ads by Remington, and not one said "Great for use in murder!".
> 
> Me thinks you fabricate a bit much.





> No, we see ads like this.
> 
> View attachment 296421
> 
> ...



I know you didn't ask me but here's my answer in the form of another question: Is someone with a fragile male ego any less well adjusted than someone who hates Catholics?

I couldn't resist the opportunity to pull a JoeB bullshit evasive maneuver.

Now that that's out of the way, unlike you, I will actually answer your question directly with no fatuous dodges or evasions.

The answer to your question, in a word is: yes.

But in actuality, given that Nancy Lanza was a woman, the question is moot anyway. Also, men with frail egos get through life just fine without ever shooting up a school. Male egos have never been a factor in any of the mass shootings that have occurred in this country anyway. A common theme in mass shootings in the U.S. is depression or other mental health problems.

In my opinion there are a few factors at work here:

1) Young people today are ill equipped to deal with normal disappointments and failures and some of the harsher realities of life. It explains why so many millennials today are in favor of a government system (socialism) that essentially gives them everything without ever really having to work for it. Therefore, the pain, embarrassment, confusion and uncertainty of suffering, say, bullying, becomes much more acute and daunting.

2) Throw depression and other mental health issues into the pot and, given other contributing factors, you have a volatile mixture that may go off at any time.

3) Due to the stigma of mental health issues, our society has never really explored or approached the issue openly and directly. As a result, parents and society are in turn ill equipped to nurture a child or teenager with special emotional and mental needs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> And project exile worked
> 
> I have already posted links



I know, to gun nutter websites. 

Research analysts offered different opinions as to the program's success in reducing gun crime.

Jens Ludwig and Steven Raphael, in a 2003 analysis of the program, argued that the decline in gun homicide was part of a general regression to the mean across U.S. cities with high homicide rates.[12] 

Project Exile - Wikipedia


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 24, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know you didn't ask me but here's my answer



This is why nobody asks you... you just ask other questions. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is someone with a fragile male ego any less well adjusted than someone who hates Catholics?



Well, let's see now.  The Catholic Church ran an international conspiracy to shield pedophile priests. You see, this is where you keep getting confused. It's not "Catholics" I hate. (Most of my relatives are catholic, after all) I despite the Church and it's cult like atmosphere...



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In my opinion there are a few factors at work here:



You know what, all of these factors exist in every other country in the Western world. Some of them, a LOT worse than the US. 

Yes none of those countries have mass shootings as a common problem. In fact, it's rare if it happens at all.  

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET GUNS.  

Blaming "youth" or "socialism" or "mental illness" is kind of silly.  Because the real problem isn't that you have a bunch of mal-adjusted people...  They are in fact, kind of rare.  Millions of these kids go to school and they don't shoot the school up despite bullying and mental illness.. 

What does happen is that the few who are nuts CAN GET GUNS REALLY EASILY.


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Look, another question is not an answer and your question focused on the reactions of
> ...


Yeah, because not all men are so pathetic, that they assume being a man means being acting like a women.

Men like cars.  Men like bombs.  Men like guns.

This normal.  And yes, well adjusted.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 24, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I know you didn't ask me but here's my answer
> ...



I answered your question dumbass. The question in my first response was strictly for yucks because that is what you do. Then I answered with "yes". I know you saw this. And why do you have a problem with questions, anyway?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Is someone with a fragile male ego any less well adjusted than someone who hates Catholics?





> Well, let's see now.  The Catholic Church ran an international conspiracy to shield pedophile priests. You see, this is where you keep getting confused.



I'm not confused at all about what the Catholic church did, I'm confused as to what it has to do with Sandmann. So what did any of this have to do with Sandmann or the Covington school?



> It's not "Catholics" I hate. (Most of my relatives are catholic, after all) I despite the Church and it's cult like atmosphere...



Bullshit. If you were just angry at the church then you wouldn't have brought up Sandmann's religion and called him a Little Catholic Bastard. You're full of shit.

Let me refresh your memory as to what you've said about Sandmann's Catholicism and about the school:

Post# 502 - _"Sandmann is a little smirking Catholic Bastard."_

Post# 519 _"I saw the video. WHat I saw was a smirking little Catholic bastard disrespecting a vet."_

Post# 608 - _"When they realized doing the right thing might actually cost them money, *Bishop McFeely* or whatever his name was backed off."_

You've made snide remarks about Sandmann's religion from the beginning and alluded to pedophelia on more than one occasion in this thread and in others in regards to this topic. You're not fooling anybody; you hate Catholics. If it's true what you say then it begs the question as to why you keep bringing it up and using it against Sandmann to further denigrate him. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In my opinion there are a few factors at work here:





> You know what, all of these factors exist in every other country in the Western world. Some of them, a LOT worse than the US.



Give me links and numbers.



> Yes none of those countries have mass shootings as a common problem. In fact, it's rare if it happens at all.
> 
> BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET GUNS.



Not true. According to the website World Population Review, there are only two countries in the entire world with complete bans on gun ownership: Eritrea and North Korea. Every single European country allows gun ownership. Most countries have more restrictions than the U.S. but almost every country in the world allows gun ownership. 

And don't forget, the mass shooting that remains the worst in history was committed in Norway by a Norwegian.



> Blaming "youth" or "socialism" or "mental illness" is kind of silly.



Not what I said dumbass. I didn't blame youth or socialism or even mental illness. I said they were ill equipped to deal with life's difficulties. They're not ill equipped because of their youth or socialism, they're ill equipped because of the laziness and complacency of their parents and that their parents coddled them. 
They're ill equipped because of what they are taught in schools and the way they are taught about things like science and history. They're ill equipped because of the stinking shit that the media and the entertainment industry and celebrities feed them on a daily basis. 
They're ill equipped because they can't pull their fucking faces out of their phones long enough to see that the world is falling apart around them and it's falling apart around them in part because they can't pull their fucking faces out of their phones. To make matters worse, their _parents_ can't get their fucking faces out of their phones long enough to tell the kids to get their fucking faces out of their phones and teach them about the joys and benefits of human interaction, fellowship and the potential for learning from others and about the real world around them.



> Because the real problem isn't that you have a bunch of mal-adjusted people...  They are in fact, kind of rare.  Millions of these kids go to school and they don't shoot the school up despite bullying and mental illness..



Until one of them does. Like a Harris, Klebold, Cruz or a Lanza.

But I see you like comparing numbers and averages for your own purposes while at the same time, discounting anyone else's. It's true that most young people with everyday young people problems will never shoot up a school. But it's also true that, out of the 10 to 15 million semiautomatic rifles in the U.S., only a handful will be used to kill and fewer than that for mass shootings.


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > And project exile worked
> ...


In Richmond VA the murder rate declined by twice the average of other comparable cities

A statistically significant difference



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I know you didn't ask me but here's my answer
> ...


And you still  have a 99.997% chance of not getting murdered by a person with a gun



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Andylusion said:


> Yeah, because not all men are so pathetic, that they assume being a man means being acting like a women.
> 
> Men like cars. Men like bombs. Men like guns.
> 
> This normal. And yes, well adjusted.



Uh, guy, if you like Guns and Bombs, you are not well-adjusted.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I'm not confused at all about what the Catholic church did, I'm confused as to what it has to do with Sandmann. So what did any of this have to do with Sandmann or the Covington school?



You mean other than he happily participated in one of their Misogynistic events against a woman's right to choose? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You've made snide remarks about Sandmann's religion from the beginning and alluded to pedophelia on more than one occasion in this thread and in others in regards to this topic. You're not fooling anybody; you hate Catholics. If it's true what you say then it begs the question as to why you keep bringing it up and using it against Sandmann to further denigrate him.



Um, yeah, I know this is hard for you to accept, but the Catholic Church was involved in a world-wide, decades long effort to shield pedophiles...  Shit, we even had a principle at my HS who was sent off on "Sabbatical", and another lay teacher who was later sued for showing his football players gay porn.  Two priests at my parish were caught being pedophiles, and the only "Surprise" was that one of them was involved with a girl instead of a boy.  

The Church is contemptible in doing this, and a lot of the congregations, KNOWING what they were doing, are still sticking their asses in pews and throwing money in collection plates to pay off the victims. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said they were ill equipped to deal with life's difficulties. They're not ill equipped because of their youth or socialism, they're ill equipped because of the laziness and complacency of their parents and that their parents coddled them.
> They're ill equipped because of what they are taught in schools and the way they are taught about things like science and history. They're ill equipped because of the stinking shit that the media and the entertainment industry and celebrities feed them on a daily basis.



One more time, buddy.  You could make the same argument about Youth in Japan or England or Germany.. but they don't have School Shootings for some reason. 







Ghost of a Rider said:


> Until one of them does. Like a Harris, Klebold, Cruz or a Lanza.
> 
> But I see you like comparing numbers and averages for your own purposes while at the same time, discounting anyone else's. It's true that most young people with everyday young people problems will never shoot up a school. But it's also true that, out of the 10 to 15 million semiautomatic rifles in the U.S., only a handful will be used to kill and fewer than that for mass shootings.



Okay, here's the thing.  

We can get rid of the guns, and be just fine. 
We can't really get rid of the kids.. 

You seem to think that 33,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, and $270 BILLION in economic losses are something we can live with... along with the Active Shooter Drills, Security Guards, Metal Detectors and all the other SHIT the rest of us have to put up with because you have a fetish.


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not confused at all about what the Catholic church did, I'm confused as to what it has to do with Sandmann. So what did any of this have to do with Sandmann or the Covington school?
> ...


No one on this board but you has ever been in an active shooter drill and I seriously doubt you have 

I never walk through metal detectors except for the ones at the airport

So stop with the histrionics

And suicide is a choice so those people die from suicide not gun violence



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> No one on this board but you has ever been in an active shooter drill and I seriously doubt you have



Actually, I have twice. One time, they brought in a cop to tell us what to do in an active shooter situation.  One employee even asked if he had his own gun, would that be a good thing, and the cop looked at him like he was a retard. 

The other time happened a few weeks ago, when the facility manager panicked when he saw an ex-employee walking the halls. (She had been invited back to attend a retirement party, but the guy panicked.) 

Kind of tired of living with your fetish...


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > No one on this board but you has ever been in an active shooter drill and I seriously doubt you have
> ...


Uh huh

Funny how out of all the people here only you say that.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of tired of living with your fetish...
> ...



  There is a quotation, of unknown provenance, but often falsely attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual maturity.

  Although the origin of this quote is unknown, there's enough evidence to be seen of its truth.  Just take note, in any conversation about the right to keep and bear arms, from which side nearly all the sexual references are made, consisting mostly of descriptions of weapons as objects of sexual fetishes, and of obvious projections of the speakers' own perceived sexual inadequacies against those whom they are opposing.

  So, tell me, JoeB131, what is the condition of your marriage, and of your relationship with your wife?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is a quotation, of unknown provenance, but often falsely attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual maturity.



Naw, guy, your side is the one compensating for tiny dicks with guns. 

We have a reasonable fear that some nut who was able to get a weapon is going to shoot something up. 













Bob Blaylock said:


> So, tell me, JoeB131, what is the condition of your marriage, and of your relationship with your wife?



I realized a long time ago marriage is a scam... Probably watching all these senior Sergeants in the Army getting taken to the Cleaner by Wife #2 when wife #1 had already cleaned him out.  

This has nothing to do with the fact you fetishists seem intent on compensating.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> There is a quotation, of unknown provenance, but often falsely attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual maturity.
> 
> Although the origin of this quote is unknown, there's enough evidence to be seen of its truth.  Just take note, in any conversation about the right to keep and bear arms, from which side nearly all the sexual references are made, consisting mostly of descriptions of weapons as objects of sexual fetishes, and of obvious projections of the speakers' own perceived sexual inadequacies against those whom they are opposing.
> 
> So, tell me, JoeB131, what is the condition of your marriage, and of your relationship with your wife?



  Quod erat demonstrandum.


JoeB131 said:


> Naw, guy, your side is the one compensating for tiny dicks with guns.
> ·
> ·
> ·​I realized a long time ago marriage is a scam... Probably watching all these senior Sergeants in the Army getting taken to the Cleaner by Wife #2 when wife #1 had already cleaned him out.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > There is a quotation, of unknown provenance, but often falsely attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual maturity.
> ...



Naw, man, I'm fine with my sex life... I just haven't encountered sex so awesome I'm going to sign away half my possessions for. 

I did live with a woman for 13 years... but she had her priorities and I had mine. 

Again, nothing do do with you tiny dicks compensating with guns...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> I realized a long time ago marriage is a scam... Probably watching all these senior Sergeants in the Army getting taken to the Cleaner by Wife #2 when wife #1 had already cleaned him out.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the fact you fetishists seem intent on compensating.



  I think your _“sour grapes”_ view of marriage has everything to do with your sexual inadequacies, real or perceived, and with your pathetic projection of your own issues on others.  It demonstrates the applicability, regarding you, of the adage about a fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual maturity.

  You don't have what it takes to make a marital relationship work.  And that's a pretty low bar.  I would not represent myself as the ideal of maturity and mental health, but in a few months, my wonderful wife and I will have been married for a quarter of a century.  And given the various issues and conflicts that we both have, if we can make it work, I have a difficult time imagining how dysfunctional, immature, and just plain pathetic a Gillettized loser such as yourself would have to be, to have failed so spectacularly at it and to come away with such an intense loathing of the entire institution of marriage.

  But then, there's that loathing of weapons, and the retarded sexual maturity that it indicates, and which you persist in projecting at others.  Perhaps that's all it takes.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, I'm fine with my sex life... I just haven't encountered sex so awesome I'm going to sign away half my possessions for.
> 
> I did live with a woman for 13 years... but she had her priorities and I had mine.
> 
> Again, nothing do do with you tiny dicks compensating with guns...



  I learned something very early in life.

  There are two kinds of people.  Those who boast about their sex lives, and those who actually have sex lives.  The latter consider it sacred enough to keep it between themselves and their partner, and not a subject to be boasted about to those whose business it is not.  The former, well, there again, there is that adage about what a fear of weapons means.

  And, by the way, marriage is about much more than just sex.  But I wouldn't expect you to understand it, and I'd think it futile to try to explain it to you.  You just don't have what it would take to understand it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I think your _“sour grapes”_ view of marriage has everything to do with your sexual inadequacies, real or perceived, and with your pathetic projection of your own issues on others. It demonstrates the applicability, regarding you, of the adage about a fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual maturity.
> 
> You don't have what it takes to make a marital relationship work.



I also don't know how to fly a jet plane...what's your point? 

Then again, I don't belong to a cult where they keep the women in sexual slavery trying to fuck their men into the Celestial Heaven, either. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I would not represent myself as the ideal of maturity and mental health, but in a few months,



No, guy, you have severe anger issues, and you belong to a whacky cult. Commenting any further would probably be a violation of forum rules, so I won't. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And given the various issues and conflicts that we both have, if we can make it work, I have a difficult time imagining how dysfunctional, immature, and just plain pathetic a Gillettized loser such as yourself would have to be, to have failed so spectacularly at it and to come away with such an intense loathing of the entire institution of marriage.



No, it just tells me we have different priorities... Which I'm fine with.  Do what makes you happy, although you don't seem like a very happy guy, to be honest.  

As I said, when I was in the service, when most people make the marriage mistake, it really turned me off to the concept. You go on deployment, the chances of her being there when you get back were slim... and frankly, most of the married guys were cheating on the side when they were on deployment, so they really didn't have much to complain about, did they? 



Bob Blaylock said:


> But then, there's that loathing of weapons, and the retarded sexual maturity that it indicates, and which you persist in projecting at others. Perhaps that's all it takes.



Guy, I was in the army for 11 years, I've fired weapons you gun nuts only wank off about.  It's not guns I worry about. It's guns in the hands of nuts, I worry about....   

considering that someone killed himself with a gun not more than 30 feet from where I am sitting right now, it's a reasonable concern.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> There are two kinds of people. Those who boast about their sex lives, and those who actually have sex lives. The latter consider it sacred enough to keep it between themselves and their partner, and not a subject to be boasted about to those whose business it is not.



Here's the problem.. you have fetishized sex to mean something more than it really is.  This is why you totally freak out around gay folks, which tells me you have real issues.  It's been scientifically established that most homophobic men have latent homosexual tendencies. 

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

In four studies, the researchers looked at the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and their implicit sexual orientation based on a reaction-time test. The studies involved college students from Germany and the United States.

For the implicit measure, students had to categorize words and pictures flashed onto a computer screen into "gay" or "straight" groups. Words included "gay," "straight," "homosexual" and "heterosexual," while the pictures showed straight and gay couples. Before each trial, participants were primed with the word "me" or "others" flashed momentarily onto a computer screen. The researchers said quicker reaction time for "me" and "gay," and a slower association of "me" with "straight" would indicate said an implicit gay orientation.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I think your _“sour grapes”_ view of marriage has everything to do with your sexual inadequacies, real or perceived, and with your pathetic projection of your own issues on others. It demonstrates the applicability, regarding you, of the adage about a fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual maturity.
> ...



  You haven't the slightest hint of what you're missing; what most guys, by the time they reach our age, get out of being in a healthy marriage to a wonderful wife.  I don't think you're even capable of imagining the benefits of such a relationship, beyond your immature view of sex.




JoeB131 said:


> Then again, I don't belong to a cult where they keep the women in sexual slavery trying to f••• their men into the Celestial Heaven, either.



  If any such cult exists, I am not at all familiar with it.

  Neither do I, nor, as far as I know, anyone participating in this discussion.



JoeB131 said:


> No, guy, you have severe anger issues
> ·
> ·
> ·​Do what makes you happy, although you don't seem like a very happy guy, to be honest.










JoeB131 said:


> As I said, when I was in the service, when most people make the marriage mistake, it really turned me off to the concept. You go on deployment, the chances of her being there when you get back were slim... and frankly, most of the married guys were cheating on the side when they were on deployment, so they really didn't have much to complain about, did they?



  Do you realize that for every pathetic, Gillettized, worthless loser such as yourself, who cannot come anywhere close to making a marriage work, there are several guys like myself, who, whatever issues we may have, are in stable, healthy marriages, and benefiting from it in ways far beyond what losers such as yourself can even imagine?

Marriage and men's health - Harvard Health
Marital status and longevity in the United States population
Tying the Knot Is Tied to Longer Life Span, New Data Shows


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the problem.. you have fetishized sex to mean something more than it really is.  This is why you totally freak out around gay folks, which tells me you have real issues.  It's been scientifically established that most homophobic men have latent homosexual tendencies.
> 
> Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals
> 
> ...



  This bullshit again.  So why is it that it's only _“prejudice”_ against one specific form of sick, immoral, sexual perversion, that is persistently and falsely claimed to be an indication that one latently harbors that very same perversion?

  If I recognize that sexually molesting children is wrong, does that mean that I must be a latent pedophile?

  If I recognize that adultery is wrong, does that make me a latent adulterer?

  If I recognize that stealing is wrong, does that make me a latent thief?

  If I recognize that murder is wrong, does that make me a latent murderer

  And what does this mean about you, and the various hatred and bigotry that you continually spew?

  Are you really a self-loathing latent Catholic, or latent Mormon?

  The extreme hatred that you have for any basic standards of decency and morality—does that mean that deep down, you believe in these standards and hate yourself for it?

  Why should this principle apply only to homosexuality, and not to every other thing that anyone might—rightly or wrongly—consider to be wrong?


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > There is a quotation, of unknown provenance, but often falsely attributed to Freud, which states that a fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual maturity.
> ...


To be afraid of something that has a. 003 percent chance of happening is the very definition of an irrational fear 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 25, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


A telling statement

No wonder you're so fucking miserable 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You haven't the slightest hint of what you're missing; what most guys, by the time they reach our age, get out of being in a healthy marriage to a wonderful wife. I don't think you're even capable of imagining the benefits of such a relationship, beyond your immature view of sex.



Actaully, I know exactly what I'm missing.  Most of my friends are in either miserable marriages or nasty divorces. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> If any such cult exists, I am not at all familiar with it.
> 
> Neither do I, nor, as far as I know, anyone participating in this discussion.



Yeah, I know, the Cultist never realizes he's in a cult..   Hopefully some day, you'll get deprogrammed. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Do you realize that for every pathetic, Gillettized, worthless loser such as yourself, who cannot come anywhere close to making a marriage work, there are several guys like myself, who, whatever issues we may have, are in stable, healthy marriages, and benefiting from it in ways far beyond what losers such as yourself can even imagine?



Yeah, again... My current batch of co-workers... Two of them are divorced, one of them is in a miserable marriage she won't end because she doesn't want to pay alimony...  I have another person in my circle who has a crazy wife putting their kids in therapy....   I'm glad I dodged so many bullets.. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> This bullshit again. So why is it that it's only _“prejudice”_ against one specific form of sick, immoral, sexual perversion, that is persistently and falsely claimed to be an indication that one latently harbors that very same perversion?
> 
> If I recognize that sexually molesting children is wrong, does that mean that I must be a latent pedophile?



Well, the thing is, you haven't proven that gay relationships are sick, immoral or perverted.  

The difference between that and pedophilia is a child can't consent. 

The only argument you have against homosexuality is you think it's icky. You think it's so icky that you describe it in the most graphic and detailed terms.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> And what does this mean about you, and the various hatred and bigotry that you continually spew?
> 
> Are you really a self-loathing latent Catholic, or latent Mormon?



Well, no, you see, I give a reasoned explanation of why I think those religions are silly.  As opposed to your homophobia, which is kind of pathological in your hatred.  

Other people being gay has no effect on your life.   Other people being Catholic has an effect on my life in that they keep trying to make their superstitions the law in this country.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Why should this principle apply only to homosexuality, and not to every other thing that anyone might—rightly or wrongly—consider to be wrong?



Mostly, because I can explain to you why I think those things are wrong...  The only explanation you have for your homophobia is you think it's icky.  

Hey, I think two dudes having sex is icky... I just recognize that's my hangup, not their problem.  (Two chicks on the other hand....)


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 25, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> To be afraid of something that has a. 003 percent chance of happening is the very definition of an irrational fear



Really.  I have a pretty low chance of being caught in a house fire.  In fact, total deaths from fires in the US were only a tenth of gun deaths, about 3400.  Yet I still have a smoke detector, a fire extinguisher, and an escape plan to get out of my house.  



Blues Man said:


> A telling statement
> 
> No wonder you're so fucking miserable



Naw, guy, the only miserable ones are the hateful folks on the right. I became a much happier person when I turned off the Hate Radio and stopped voting Republican.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not confused at all about what the Catholic church did, I'm confused as to what it has to do with Sandmann. So what did any of this have to do with Sandmann or the Covington school?
> ...



First of all, you said you hated the church for covering up pedophilia, not for their beliefs. Secondly, Sandmann's Catholic anti-abortion beliefs have nothing to do with the church's cover up of pedophilia. So once again, what does any of that have to do with Sandmann and the events of January 2018? Why did you bring up Sandmann's Catholicism in that context when it had nothing to do with anything that happened that day?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You've made snide remarks about Sandmann's religion from the beginning and alluded to pedophelia on more than one occasion in this thread and in others in regards to this topic. You're not fooling anybody; you hate Catholics. If it's true what you say then it begs the question as to why you keep bringing it up and using it against Sandmann to further denigrate him.





> Um, yeah, I know this is hard for you to accept, but the Catholic Church was involved in a world-wide, decades long effort to shield pedophiles...  Shit, we even had a principle at my HS who was sent off on "Sabbatical", and another lay teacher who was later sued for showing his football players gay porn.  Two priests at my parish were caught being pedophiles, and the only "Surprise" was that one of them was involved with a girl instead of a boy.



Fine, but again, what does it have to do with Sandmann and the events of January 2018?



> The Church is contemptible in doing this, and a lot of the congregations, KNOWING what they were doing, are still sticking their asses in pews and throwing money in collection plates to pay off the victims.



I agree, it was contemptible, but faith can be very compelling. You didn't seriously think that Catholics would just turn their backs on the church and the only life they've ever known because of the wrongs committed by others, did you? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said they were ill equipped to deal with life's difficulties. They're not ill equipped because of their youth or socialism, they're ill equipped because of the laziness and complacency of their parents and that their parents coddled them.
> They're ill equipped because of what they are taught in schools and the way they are taught about things like science and history. They're ill equipped because of the stinking shit that the media and the entertainment industry and celebrities feed them on a daily basis.





> One more time, buddy.  You could make the same argument about Youth in Japan or England or Germany.. but they don't have School Shootings for some reason.



Actually, I don't think I could make the same argument. I don't agree with you on this one. I know other countries have their problems with their youth like anyone else but this phenomenon is relatively new in this country. Or at least, we've never seen it to this degree before.

View attachment 296601



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Until one of them does. Like a Harris, Klebold, Cruz or a Lanza.
> 
> But I see you like comparing numbers and averages for your own purposes while at the same time, discounting anyone else's. It's true that most young people with everyday young people problems will never shoot up a school. But it's also true that, out of the 10 to 15 million semiautomatic rifles in the U.S., only a handful will be used to kill and fewer than that for mass shootings.





> Okay, here's the thing.
> 
> We can get rid of the guns, and be just fine.
> We can't really get rid of the kids..



We can't get rid of the kids but we can get rid of the angst, or alleviate it some by teaching our children more about the real world, how to deal with bullies, how to deal with personal failures and difficulties and how to approach life head on. We can simply become more involved in our childrens' lives and their doings and if we can just start with that, we'll be just fine.  



> You seem to think that 33,000 gun deaths, 70,000 gun injuries, and $270 BILLION in economic losses are something we can live with... along with the Active Shooter Drills, Security Guards, Metal Detectors and all the other SHIT the rest of us have to put up with because you have a fetish.



You seem to think that 37,000 deaths, 2.35 million injuries and 230.6 billion dollars in economic losses a year in automobile accidents are something we can live with. Everyone has to put up with this because everyone has a fetish.

Finally, you never answered my question: Did Phillips approach Sandmann?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, you said you hated the church for covering up pedophilia, not for their beliefs.



Actually, I hate them for both, and their intertwined.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Secondly, Sandmann's Catholic anti-abortion beliefs have nothing to do with the church's cover up of pedophilia.



First, he's 16... he doesn't get to have "beliefs".  When he can vote and pay taxes, then he gets to have beliefs.  

Second, um, yeah, the Catholic Church uses this kind of bullshit to raise money to pay off the altar boys. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I agree, it was contemptible, but faith can be very compelling. You didn't seriously think that Catholics would just turn their backs on the church and the only life they've ever known because of the wrongs committed by others, did you?



Um,yeah, I think most of the parents KNEW that Catholic Clergy are EXACTLY what they are. If you are such a fucking brainwashed zombie that you can see that your clergy are complete perverts, and you keep sitting your ass in a pew and throwing money at them, that's on you. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually, I don't think I could make the same argument. I don't agree with you on this one. I know other countries have their problems with their youth like anyone else but this phenomenon is relatively new in this country. Or at least, we've never seen it to this degree before.



Again- the only difference is that this country lets any crazy person with a tiny dick buy a gun.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> We can't get rid of the kids but we can get rid of the angst, or alleviate it some by teaching our children more about the real world, how to deal with bullies, how to deal with personal failures and difficulties and how to approach life head on. We can simply become more involved in our childrens' lives and their doings and if we can just start with that, we'll be just fine.



Or we can just NOT LET THEM HAVE GUNS...  That seems to be the simpler solution. 

I don't think any amount of "teaching" fixes a Cruz or an Adam Lanza, and often their caregivers are a large part of the problem.  Nancy Lanza armed herself like the fucking Zombies were coming and took little Adam to the shooting range. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You seem to think that 37,000 deaths, 2.35 million injuries and 230.6 billion dollars in economic losses a year in automobile accidents are something we can live with.



Again, autos are licensed... designed with new safety features, and we have thousands of cops patrolling the roads policing conduct.  

We can't really live without cars... We can get rid of guns quite easily.


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > To be afraid of something that has a. 003 percent chance of happening is the very definition of an irrational fear
> ...


But I don't want to ban matches candles or any other source of fire. 

And while you have a. 003 percent chance of being murdered by a person with a gun there is a much greater chance of being the victim of a violent crime so a gun is akin to a fire extinguisher in your example.

And FYI I have never voted republican in fact I used to vote democrat before I realized that they were owned by the same people that own the republicans

And I don't listen to talk radio and never did


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> But I don't want to ban matches candles or any other source of fire.
> 
> And while you have a. 003 percent chance of being murdered by a person with a gun there is a much greater chance of being the victim of a violent crime so a gun is akin to a fire extinguisher in your example.



A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal...  if Fire Extinguishers were that dangerous, I'd consider banning them, too.


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't want to ban matches candles or any other source of fire.
> ...


No it is not

That is pure bullshit from a debunked survey 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Blues Man (Dec 26, 2019)

Blues Man said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't want to ban matches candles or any other source of fire.
> ...



Did you know a Human is needed to fire that firearam?

It is true, so if you want to solve the issue of a firearm killing a family member by accident or most likely in you case they just got tired of you then ban Humanity...

See and poof your fears are all gone...

Now of course you will explain to me how that firearm is not needed and just dial 911 but what if you live in rural Texas?

I know you will explain how that person should move then what about if you live in Houston and they introduce a 911 system that causes emergency calls to get dropped and no officer shows up?

It has happened but you will explain it is rare and guns are not needed...

So Joe as you pull a number out of the air just know the reality is I am more likely to be killed by someone like you on a cellphone driving recklessly down Interstate 69 than being shot in a mass shooting by some fanatical anarchists or Saudi Muslim Jihadists...

Your main goal to ban firearms is to disarm the population and then use the government to force your Progressive nonsense down everyone throat...

But alas please ban firearms so when the cops do not show up to your house when you are being robbed by an armed assailant just tell the criminals that you will report the fact they were using a banned item, well if they do not kill you first...

My point ban firearms and criminals will ignore the law like every law your typed has passed...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 26, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> And what does this mean about you, and the various hatred and bigotry that you continually spew?
> 
> Are you really a self-loathing latent Catholic, or latent Mormon?





> Well, no, you see, I give a reasoned explanation of why I think those religions are silly.  As opposed to your homophobia, which is kind of pathological in your hatred.



Hah! You don't give reasoned explanations why you think Catholicism is silly, you give _un-_reasoned explanations as to why you hate it. You prove this by incorrectly associating all Catholics with the wrong actions of the church leadership.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, you said you hated the church for covering up pedophilia, not for their beliefs.
> ...



There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that condones pedophilia or covering it up. The two are not intertwined.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Secondly, Sandmann's Catholic anti-abortion beliefs have nothing to do with the church's cover up of pedophilia.





> First, he's 16... he doesn't get to have "beliefs".  When he can vote and pay taxes, then he gets to have beliefs.



You're kidding, right? This is the most asinine thing you've ever said and you've said some pretty asinine things. Did your dog type this?

Beliefs are not handed out as privileges or rights by the government or whoever when you reach a certain age. 



> Second, um, yeah, the Catholic Church uses this kind of bullshit to raise money to pay off the altar boys.



The church uses anti-abortion beliefs to pay off altar boys? As in, "I believe abortion is wrong so I'll give money to the church to cover up pedophilia."?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I agree, it was contemptible, but faith can be very compelling. You didn't seriously think that Catholics would just turn their backs on the church and the only life they've ever known because of the wrongs committed by others, did you?





> Um,yeah, I think most of the parents KNEW that Catholic Clergy are EXACTLY what they are. If you are such a fucking brainwashed zombie that you can see that your clergy are complete perverts, and you keep sitting your ass in a pew and throwing money at them, that's on you.



If you are such a brainwashed zombie that you can't see that Catholicism had nothing to do with Phillips approaching Sandmann that day, that's on you.

And you still haven't answered my question: Did Phillips approach Sandmann?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually, I don't think I could make the same argument. I don't agree with you on this one. I know other countries have their problems with their youth like anyone else but this phenomenon is relatively new in this country. Or at least, we've never seen it to this degree before.





> Again- the only difference is that this country lets any crazy person with a tiny dick buy a gun.



Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass shooter with the as yet highest mass shooting body count, purchased a semiautomatic Mini-14 (.223/5.56 caliber like the AR-15) and a Glock pistol legally in his home country of Norway.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> We can't get rid of the kids but we can get rid of the angst, or alleviate it some by teaching our children more about the real world, how to deal with bullies, how to deal with personal failures and difficulties and how to approach life head on. We can simply become more involved in our childrens' lives and their doings and if we can just start with that, we'll be just fine.





> Or we can just NOT LET THEM HAVE GUNS...  That seems to be the simpler solution.



And that's why things like mass killings will continue even if there's a total ban on guns; people like you would rather take the easy way out. But easy answers or simple measures will never solve complicated problems.



> I don't think any amount of "teaching" fixes a Cruz or an Adam Lanza, and often their caregivers are a large part of the problem.  Nancy Lanza armed herself like the fucking Zombies were coming and took little Adam to the shooting range.



Once again, as is your wont, you oversimplify the issue. 

Cruz, like Lanza had mental health issues and also like Lanza, he was autistic. This may be partly attributable to the fact that his birth mother was a crackhead (she was arrested for buying crack while she was pregnant with Nikolas). Also, he had had care for his mental health issues at one time but had received no care for a year before the shooting. Add to that the death of his adoptive mother, which he took very hard. With all these factors in play, it should come as no surprise that he snapped. 
As for Lanza, we both know he had mental health issues; though I say he was autistic (which he was) and you say he was retarded (which he was not). He withdrew more and more from everyone and spent the last three months of his life shut up in his room and, not knowing how to deal with this, Nancy simply let him be.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You seem to think that 37,000 deaths, 2.35 million injuries and 230.6 billion dollars in economic losses a year in automobile accidents are something we can live with.





> Again, autos are licensed... designed with new safety features, and we have thousands of cops patrolling the roads policing conduct.
> 
> We can't really live without cars... We can get rid of guns quite easily.



And yet, still more people die in automobile accidents than from guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2019)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Now of course you will explain to me how that firearm is not needed and just dial 911 but what if you live in rural Texas?
> 
> I know you will explain how that person should move then what about if you live in Houston and they introduce a 911 system that causes emergency calls to get dropped and no officer shows up?



True story. There's rural England and Rural Japan and Rural Germany- they all get by fine without guns.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that condones pedophilia or covering it up. The two are not intertwined.



Quite the contrary... the Catholic hiring policy is "No interest in adult women, must spend lots of time around kids! Oh, yeah, and we'll cover it up if you do it, because the confessional is sacred!!!"  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass shooter with the as yet highest mass shooting body count, purchased a semiautomatic Mini-14 (.223/5.56 caliber like the AR-15) and a Glock pistol legally in his home country of Norway.



You have to go back 8 years to find a case like this...  because they are so rare in Europe. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Cruz, like Lanza had mental health issues and also like Lanza, he was autistic. This may be partly attributable to the fact that his birth mother was a crackhead (she was arrested for buying crack while she was pregnant with Nikolas). Also, he had had care for his mental health issues at one time but had received no care for a year before the shooting. Add to that the death of his adoptive mother, which he took very hard. With all these factors in play, it should come as no surprise that he snapped.



No, it was no surprise when you give a little nut a gun, he's going to snap.  Hey, here's a crazy idea.. Don't give them guns. 

Problem solved.  

What, you can't have a gun, either?  Still not seeing a problem. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And yet, still more people die in automobile accidents than from guns.



Auto deaths have been declining due to increased legislation and safety mandates. 






Gun deaths, on the other hand...  Woooo, doggie..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 26, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hah! You don't give reasoned explanations why you think Catholicism is silly, you give _un-_reasoned explanations as to why you hate it. You prove this by incorrectly associating all Catholics with the wrong actions of the church leadership.



Uh, the Church Leadership is tolerated by the faithful, who know DAMNED WELL that their clergy are all perverts.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > There's nothing in Catholic doctrine that condones pedophilia or covering it up. The two are not intertwined.
> ...



A hiring policy is not a doctrine. You're just being facetious anyway.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass shooter with the as yet highest mass shooting body count, purchased a semiautomatic Mini-14 (.223/5.56 caliber like the AR-15) and a Glock pistol legally in his home country of Norway.





> You have to go back 8 years to find a case like this...  because they are so rare in Europe.



How many years I went back is irrelevant. You said, in so many words: "This doesn't happen in countries with common sense gun laws" and "..they can't get guns."

You were wrong on both counts.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Cruz, like Lanza had mental health issues and also like Lanza, he was autistic. This may be partly attributable to the fact that his birth mother was a crackhead (she was arrested for buying crack while she was pregnant with Nikolas). Also, he had had care for his mental health issues at one time but had received no care for a year before the shooting. Add to that the death of his adoptive mother, which he took very hard. With all these factors in play, it should come as no surprise that he snapped.





> No, it was no surprise when you give a little nut a gun, he's going to snap.  Hey, here's a crazy idea.. Don't give them guns.
> 
> Problem solved.



Giving someone a gun doesn't cause them to snap you idiot. And Cruz purchased his own weapons legally.



> What, you can't have a gun, either?  Still not seeing a problem.



What, a sixteen year old kid has beliefs? Still not seeing a problem.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And yet, still more people die in automobile accidents than from guns.





> Auto deaths have been declining due to increased legislation and safety mandates.
> 
> Gun deaths, on the other hand...  Woooo, doggie..



Yet they are still higher than gun deaths.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Hah! You don't give reasoned explanations why you think Catholicism is silly, you give _un-_reasoned explanations as to why you hate it. You prove this by incorrectly associating all Catholics with the wrong actions of the church leadership.
> ...



Actually, not all the clergy are perverts. I know this, they know this and you know this. 

You're oversimplifying again because you're too lazy to see the bigger picture.


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 26, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, because not all men are so pathetic, that they assume being a man means being acting like a women.
> ...



Right.....  which is why no one ever watches those block buster movies, and you see guys sitting around watching the hallmark channel.   That's who those hallmark movies are marketed to, is guys..... right?

Um... with all due respect, I think you just disqualified yourself from this discussion.

Go watch some hallmark movies with your girlfriends, and synchronize your periods.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> A hiring policy is not a doctrine. You're just being facetious anyway.



I'm hardly being facetious... 

First, you eliminate anyone who already had healthy sex lives with your idiotic celibacy program.
Second, you create a system where they are all required to cover for each other. Fr. McCreepy just confessed to molesting Timmy the Altar Boy?  Well, ten Hail Marys and we ship his ass off to another parish where he does it again!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many years I went back is irrelevant.



It's completely relevent. The problem is you want to make the perfect the enemy of the Good.  

I'd rather have one mass shooting a decade than one mass shooting a week. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Cruz purchased his own weapons legally.



Exactly my point. He was batshit crazy and STILL able to buy a gun, because he lived in a Gun Nut state.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually, not all the clergy are perverts. I know this, they know this and you know this.
> 
> You're oversimplifying again because you're too lazy to see the bigger picture.



I grew up Catholic.   We really did know all the Clergy were perverts. You never wanted to be alone in a room with one of them.  

I would go a step further.  Pre-1970 or so, when Little Timmy started singing show tunes or otherwise showed signs of being gay or some other "alternative lifestyle", they shipped his ass off to a seminary.   So you essentially had an adult gay man whose sexual development stopped at 14 or so.   Then you unleash him as an adult on a community, because he didn't find himself.  

The best part of the gay liberation movement was that all these kids stopped getting shipped off to become nuns and priests...  True, they were still stuck with the pedos...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 27, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > A hiring policy is not a doctrine. You're just being facetious anyway.
> ...



Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many years I went back is irrelevant.





> It's completely relevent. The problem is you want to make the perfect the enemy of the Good.



The problem is you made two assertions that were false. I corrected you and there's nothing more to it than that.



> I'd rather have one mass shooting a decade than one mass shooting a week.



Me too. Surprise, surprise. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And Cruz purchased his own weapons legally.





> Exactly my point. He was batshit crazy and STILL able to buy a gun, because he lived in a Gun Nut state.



This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.

Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is _behavior _ and _intent_. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually, not all the clergy are perverts. I know this, they know this and you know this.
> 
> You're oversimplifying again because you're too lazy to see the bigger picture.





> I grew up Catholic.   We really did know all the Clergy were perverts.



No you didn't. You assumed _all_ the clergy were perverts because _some_ were.



> I would go a step further.  Pre-1970 or so, when Little Timmy started singing show tunes or otherwise showed signs of being gay or some other "alternative lifestyle", they shipped his ass off to a seminary.   So you essentially had an adult gay man whose sexual development stopped at 14 or so.   Then you unleash him as an adult on a community, because he didn't find himself.



I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with _all_ Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 27, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.



Um, yeah, no need to "exaggerate"...  I lived it for 12 years... couldn't run away screaming fast enough. 

It's a perverted church run by pedos... what else are we supposed to have for it? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.
> 
> Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is _behavior _ and _intent_.



I agree.  The INTENT of the gun designer was to design something that can kill a lot of people.  That's what they are designed to do.   

And then they decided to sell and market them to Cruz and Mama Lanza and Joker Holmes and a whole list of other nuts. 

Lawn Darts got pulled after one or two fatalities...  Remington considers a mass shooting "Good Marketing". 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with _all_ Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.



Funny, after it became cool to be gay, membership in the Holy Orders did this... 





Note the start date.. 1965.  The Stonewell Riots (considered the begining of the gay liberation movement) were in 1969.  

 People started dealing with their sexuality rather than trying to pray it away.  

_We were all better off for it. _


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 27, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but you have displayed far too much biased contempt against Catholics and the church to take you seriously on the matter at this point. I'm aware there was pedophilia and that there was covering up and I agree that both of these things were wrong. But you have shown that you have a penchant for exaggeration, assumptive leaps and confusing correlation with causation.
> ...



You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.



> It's a perverted church run by pedos... what else are we supposed to have for it?



In other words, you hate Catholics.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This was due to a failure of the system, not the existence of semiautomatic rifles.
> 
> Thing is, in the cases of both gun deaths and automobile deaths, both the gun and the automobile are just objects or tools. The one factor that contributes to deaths in both cases is _behavior _ and _intent_.





> I agree.  The INTENT of the gun designer was to design something that can kill a lot of people.  That's what they are designed to do.



I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I've heard this theory before and I've no doubt there's some truth to it. But there is no way you can prove or reasonably claim that this was the case with _all_ Catholic clergy. Some of these guys are genuine in their desire to serve God and the church. We probably both agree that the whole idea is silly but it is narrow minded hubris to assume that all of them are perverts or running from homosexual tendencies.





> Funny, after it became cool to be gay, membership in the Holy Orders did this...
> 
> View attachment 296967
> 
> ...



And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.

Finally: Did Phillips approach Sandmann?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 28, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.



Yeah, you take me so not seriously you've been following me around on this thread for a month.  I enjoy living in your head rent free. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.



Intent is meaningless without means.  The problem with gun proliferation is that it turns moments of anger into moments of tragedy... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.



It kind of has everything to do with it.  The point is, men of faith who had normal relations with women weren't encouraged to join the priesthood.  Nope. Not the Catholic Way. Their job was to go out and make babies.  And don't you dare think about wearing a rubber or getting your old lady an abortion!!!!  

Nope, the priesthood was reserved for those who weren't into chicks...  So you got pedophiles and frustrated homosexuals who all covered for each other.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 28, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You exaggerate, make assumptive leaps and confuse correlation to causation in every discussion we've had. That's why I never take you seriously.
> ...



There you go again, pretending you're not doing the exact same thing I am.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said: "The one factor that contributes to deaths is behavior and intent." Meaning, intent to kill. What the gun designer and manufacturer intended is irrelevant, they're not the ones committing the act.





> Intent is meaningless without means.



Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.



> The problem with gun proliferation is that it turns moments of anger into moments of tragedy...



The gun doesn't turn a goddamn thing. It's an _inanimate object_.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And? What does that have to do with priests who join the clergy for genuine reasons of faith and never molest anyone? I'm not sure what your point is here.





> It kind of has everything to do with it.  The point is, men of faith who had normal relations with women weren't encouraged to join the priesthood.  Nope. Not the Catholic Way. Their job was to go out and make babies.  And don't you dare think about wearing a rubber or getting your old lady an abortion!!!!
> 
> Nope, the priesthood was reserved for those who weren't into chicks...  So you got pedophiles and frustrated homosexuals who all covered for each other.



This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.

You've had an opportunity for well over a month now to prove your case or at least validate your position and you fucking blew it. All I keep getting is scornful adolescent rhetoric and hate, hate and more hate.

Finally, did Phillips approach Sandmann?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 29, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.



Nothing to do with my point, but never mind. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.



They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their fucked up religion.  

Now, if they were our there protesting pedophile priests, I'd be more impressed.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Tell that to the families of the 86 people killed in Nice. Tell that to the families of the victims of Oklahoma City. Tell that to the family of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the 15 year old boy who was murdered with machetes in New York. Go ahead, I dare you. See if one of them doesn't knock you on your ass.
> ...



It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent. 

After all this time it continues to escape you that the two worst mass killings in history were committed by 1) a fucking truck and 2) in a country that has "common sense" gun laws. Actually, _both_ of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and in both cases they _still _managed to outkill "retards" with AR-15s. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is why I can't take you seriously. You don't cite any examples or sources or numbers or anything. When I see somebody say things like "Little Catholic Bastard" in a context that has no bearing on the Catholic person's religion, the impression I get is not of someone with warm feelings or indifference towards the church. So these comments are just more of the same petty vitriol you've been spewing the whole time.





> They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their fucked up religion.



No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason. Neither his religion nor Phillips' ethnicity had anything to do with that event. 

The group's actions that day were in response to the slings and arrows being thrown at them by the Black Israelites. They obtained permission from their chaperone to do the school cheer to drown out the BAs and began doing so. The commotion caught Phillips' attention and he zeroed in on the MAGA hat. Nevermind the fact that the BAs had been heckling his own group and everyone else all afternoon; the white kid in the MAGA hat was the real culprit.

Again, this is why I can't take you seriously. Your bitterness and anger at the church are a poison that infects your objectivity. Hell, you are not even capable of answering a simple question and acknowledging that Phillips approached Sandmann. You refuse to answer because it's the one question you are not able to respond to by somehow making it about Catholics, Sandmann's supposed entitlement and privilege or Phillips' ethnicity without looking like an idiot. Which you've already done numerous times.  



> Now, if they were our there protesting pedophile priests, I'd be more impressed.



What would impress you as to the reason for their being in D.C. is irrelevant. It had nothing to do with why Phillips approached them. They could have been there on a tour of the museums and Phillips still would have approached them because of the MAGA hat.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 29, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> They were out there in a Church Sponsored event protesting a woman's right to choose. The LCB's actions had everything to do with their f•••ed up religion.



  Let's be clear what you are talking about here, when you say _”a woman's right to choose.”_  Those who use that absurd euphemism are always too cowardly and too deceitful to honestly say what they really mean.

  You're talking about murdering innocent children in cold blood; and asserting a right to do exactly that.  And not only do you assert this as a right, but you condemn anyone who dares to disagree, who would stand up for the right of these innocents not to be slaughtered.  To you, it's not the murderer who is to be condemned, but those who dare to speak out against murder.

  This is what pure evil looks like.

  So, of course, it makes sense, that with regard to other sorts of murder, you refuse to hold the perpetrator responsible, instead blaming the tool used to commit that murder, and by extension, anyone who wants to possess a similar tool strictly for legitimate reasons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent.
> 
> After all this time it continues to escape you that the two worst mass killings in history were committed by 1) a fucking truck and 2) in a country that has "common sense" gun laws. Actually, _both_ of these countries have more restrictive gun laws than the U.S. and in both cases they _still _managed to outkill "retards" with AR-15s.



Again, the fact is, a retard couldn't pull off a mass killing with a truck.  The Paris attack was pulled off by an organized terror group.  McVeigh was a highly trained military man.   

Easy access to guns means any loser can do a mass shooting, and that's the problem. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason.



YOu mean it was okay that he was a rude, smirking little punk...  Yes, how dare this uppity person of color get into his face.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 30, 2019)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Let's be clear what you are talking about here, when you say _”a woman's right to choose.”_ Those who use that absurd euphemism are always too cowardly and too deceitful to honestly say what they really mean.
> 
> You're talking about murdering innocent children in cold blood; and asserting a right to do exactly that. And not only do you assert this as a right, but you condemn anyone who dares to disagree, who would stand up for the right of these innocents not to be slaughtered. To you, it's not the murderer who is to be condemned, but those who dare to speak out against murder.



Fetuses aren't children.  And one more time, I would be a LOT more impressed with you guys if you stopped trying to yank food out of the mouths of hungry children to give tax breaks to billionaires.. then I'd be impressed with your concern for "the children". 

Anti-choice has always been about the misogyny. How dare those women control their own bodies?  



Bob Blaylock said:


> So, of course, it makes sense, that with regard to other sorts of murder, you refuse to hold the perpetrator responsible, instead blaming the tool used to commit that murder, and by extension, anyone who wants to possess a similar tool strictly for legitimate reasons.



The thing is, if you aren't a solider, you don't have a "legitimate reason" to own an assault rifle.  I'm all for holding people responsible.  But giving crazy people the tools to do mass murder... that's just nuts.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 30, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It is precisely your point. Your point is that if a killer does not have the means then he can't carry out his intent. This much is true (although one's bare hands can and have been used times beyond count to kill). The problem here is that you see the means as the devil when the real devil is the intent.
> ...



Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent. I don't know about Cruz but I will say that the mental and emotional problems they both suffered from do not affect intelligence in any way. They were not retarded, stupid, slow or dim witted, they just had trouble dealing with their emotions and interacting with other people. 



> The Paris attack was pulled off by an organized terror group.



I didn't say anything about the Paris attacks.



> McVeigh was a highly trained military man.



Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.  



> Easy access to guns means any loser can do a mass shooting, and that's the problem.



Any person can get behind the wheel and kill others by driving while impaired or distracted. It happens every day.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No, they didn't. His actions were in response to some stranger getting in his face for no reason.





> YOu mean it was okay that he was a rude, smirking little punk...  Yes, how dare this uppity person of color get into his face.



Phillips still approached him for no reason, person of color or not. A fact you continue to avoid and refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 31, 2019)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent.



He was an autistic retard.... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.



Who learned those skills in the Army.  Also, McVeigh was 11B, and went to Special Forces Training.  

Sandman was still an entitled smirking punk.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Dec 31, 2019)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Just how difficult do you think it is to drive a truck? Besides, Lanza was, by all accounts, very intelligent.
> ...



Sources and links.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever his training, McVeigh didn't learn bomb making in the Army. He was taught by his friend Terry Nichols and Nichols' brother.





> Who learned those skills in the Army.



No, he did not learn it in the Army. From a CNN article - Terry Nichols Fast Facts - CNN:

_"Nichols learned how to mix fuel and fertilizer to make bombs *while growing up on a farm*. His father, a farmer, used such bombs to blow up tree stumps."
_


> Also, McVeigh was 11B, and went to Special Forces Training.



Irrelevant. He learned bomb making from Nichols and Nichols learned it from working on the family farm. 

It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.



> Sandman was still an entitled smirking punk.



Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.

Some things you need to remember here:

1) Both Phillips and the Black Israelites were the adults in this situation so they both should have behaved like adults. Meaning, the BAs should not have been insulting and heckling people and Phillips should have minded his own business and not inserted himself into a situation that didn't involve him.

2) Both Phillips and the BAs allowed themselves - in a decidedly un-adult manner - to be triggered by the MAGA hats. The hats were the only pertinent and causal factor in the entire incident and is the only reason the story went viral in the first place. Not Sandmann's religion; not the BAs' race and not Phillips' ethnicity.

2) The BAs disrespected Phillips and his entire group long before Sandmann entered the picture. And, _they_ didn't know Phillips was a veteran either.

3) The BAs heckled Phillips and his group because of...wait for it....their ethnicity.

4) Phillips contradicted himself in interviews as to why he approached the Covington group.

All the adults in this story, from Phillips to the BAs to the celebrities to all the SJWs across the country, behaved terribly and did and said things they should not have. Phillips stuck his nose in a situation he had no business getting involved in; the BAs heckled and insulted people all afternoon and all the SJWs and celebrities insulted the group and threatened or suggested violence to the point where the school had to shut down for a time.

All these adults saw the MAGA hat and had grand mal seizures and behaved like children by issuing threats and insults because an _actual_ child - who never uttered a single fucking word during the incident - had the temerity to smile in response to an unprovoked intrusion.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.



Oh, these guys were nuts.  They were HIGHLY TRAINED NUTS, that was the problem.  The Army should have given them bad conduct discharges before they learned anything.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.



Oh, poor little white entitled baby...  how dare this person of color get into his face when he was a fucking bigot. 

This kind of explains the whole MAGA movement, a bunch of stupid white bigots who just find their whole behavior isn't acceptable.  Kind of their last desperate cry for attention.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It might interest you to know that both McVeigh and Nichols had an interest in guns and survivalism. In other words, going by your criteria, they were waiting for the Zombie Apocalypse. I suppose they learned this in the Army too.
> ...



Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who only smirked when Phillips approached and got in his face. If Phillips had not been triggered by the MAGA hat and not approached the Covington kids, there never would have been a "smirking punk" for snowflakes to revile and threaten with violence (which also, by the way, is a rather non-adult behavior). The whole thing would not have happened and would have been a non-event.





> Oh, poor little white entitled baby...  how dare this person of color get into his face when he was a fucking bigot.



Oh poor little snowflake baby. How dare this white kid force me to leave my designated protest area by exercising his rights to have an opinion and support a politician that I hate while waiting for a bus to go home. Doesn't he know that liberals have granted minorities like myself the right to not be responsible for our actions? 
Doesn't he know that SJWs are physically and mentally incapable of not allowing themselves to be triggered and threatening and committing violence even against children and minors?
Doesn't he know that even when the truth comes out that I got in his face and not the other way around that brainless assholes will hate him anyway just for being Catholic?

The nerve of some white kids, huh?



> This kind of explains the whole MAGA movement, a bunch of stupid white bigots who just find their whole behavior isn't acceptable.  Kind of their last desperate cry for attention.



The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what?



For being racists....  and before they learned how to kill people. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.



Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.



  So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?

  And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable.  You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Bad conduct discharges for what? And before they learned what?
> ...



Perhaps. But that probably would have only increased his hatred of the government and he still probably would have blown up a federal building.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The Black Israelites were heckling and taunting people all afternoon and Phillips left his group to beat his drum in someone's face while Sandmann simply stood there wearing a hat and not saying a fucking thing. Tell me again who was looking for attention.





> Again, shouldn't have been out there at all, considering he was protesting a woman's right to choose.



Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.

Don't you just hate it when they apply rights and liberties to _all_ Americans, including the ones _you_ hate? This must be maddening for you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?



Works for me. Here's a better idea....If you don't have a uterus, don't tell other people what to do with theirs. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable. You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.



Again, Fetuses aren't people, and I don't get worked up about how medical waste is disposed of. I'm tired of religious nuts trying to impose themselves on the rest of us. 

I'm sorry that you are such a dupe that you let that get you so upset that you let the rich destroy the middle class. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.



Naw, I think what we need to so is develop a method to take unwanted fetuses and transplant them into self-righteous religious assholes like Sandmann and Mormon Bob... then they won't be so keen on the rights of fetuses.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > So, people should only be allowed to go out and protest for causes that you agree with?
> ...





Bob Blaylock said:


> And once again, I'll point out here that in this case, you objection seems to be that he was protesting against the murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, which only underscores how evil and soulless you are, to find that objectionable. You surely would have approved if he was there to protest in support of this savage slaughter of innocents.





> Again, Fetuses aren't people, and I don't get worked up about how medical waste is disposed of. I'm tired of religious nuts trying to impose themselves on the rest of us.
> 
> I'm sorry that you are such a dupe that you let that get you so upset that you let the rich destroy the middle class.





Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? If a woman has the right to kill a child then any other person has the right to disagree with it and say so.





> Naw, I think what we need to so is develop a method to take unwanted fetuses and transplant them into self-righteous religious assholes like Sandmann and Mormon Bob... then they won't be so keen on the rights of fetuses.



Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Sandmann's right to disagree with abortionists.

You're not very good at this deflection thing, are you?

You might be interested to know that, according to a recent poll by Gallup for 2019, pro-life women outnumber pro-life men by a margin of 5%. Even if they don't outnumber men in years before or after that, the margin is so small as to not make any difference. So the least we can say is that roughly half of all pro-life advocates are women. Which means just as many people of the child-bearing gender are telling others of the child-bearing gender what to do with their bodies.

It never occurs to you clowns talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies that there are just as many women saying the same goddamned thing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 1, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Sandmann's right to disagree with abortionists.
> 
> You're not very good at this deflection thing, are you?





Ghost of a Rider said:


> You might be interested to know that, according to a recent poll by Gallup for 2019, pro-life women outnumber pro-life men by a margin of 5%.



What you guys are suddenly into polls.. Abortions are like lawyers, everyone is against them... until they need one.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It never occurs to you clowns talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies that there are just as many women saying the same goddamned thing.



Those bitches need to mind their own fucking business, too.  If you are a woman and don't like abortion, don't have one. Except, of course, "Christian" and "Conservative" women are MORE likely to have them, because they don't use contraception.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with Sandmann's right to disagree with abortionists.
> ...



What, suddenly you have a problem with polls when they negate your argument?

It's a lame argument and a moot point considering half of pro-lifers are women. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It never occurs to you clowns talking about men telling women what to do with their bodies that there are just as many women saying the same goddamned thing.





> Those bitches need to mind their own fucking business, too.



You mean like Phillips did?



> If you are a woman and don't like abortion, don't have one. Except, of course, "Christian" and "Conservative" women are MORE likely to have them, because they don't use contraception.



Catholicism is the only Christian sect I know of that is against contraception. Most others have no problem with it. They have no problem _preventing_ conception, they just have a problem with killing a child _after_ conception.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What, suddenly you have a problem with polls when they negate your argument?
> 
> It's a lame argument and a moot point considering half of pro-lifers are women.



I don't buy those polls.  

Only  about 20% of the population are anti-choice nuts. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Catholicism is the only Christian sect I know of that is against contraception. Most others have no problem with it. They have no problem _preventing_ conception, they just have a problem with killing a child _after_ conception.



You need to educate yourself. 

Religion and birth control - Wikipedia


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What, suddenly you have a problem with polls when they negate your argument?
> ...



It wasn't a poll comparing how many Americans were pro-life or pro-choice, it only compared the numbers of pro-lifers by age and gender.

You would know this if you had looked at it. But wait, I didn't post a link, did I? No. But wait, if I had, would you have clicked on it? No.

Even though they've been a respected organization for seventy years, you would have simply labelled Gallup as a right wing nut organization and refused to look at it. So, I didn't post a link and once again you remain uninformed and ignorant due to your own intransigence.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Catholicism is the only Christian sect I know of that is against contraception. Most others have no problem with it. They have no problem _preventing_ conception, they just have a problem with killing a child _after_ conception.





> You need to educate yourself.
> 
> Religion and birth control - Wikipedia



First of all, I said _"most others"_, not_ "all others"_. Secondly, I validated my comment with the qualifier _"..that I know of..."._

These are the kinds of distinctions and details that always escape you or you willfully overlook. It is why you've been proven wrong again and again in this discussion and is why you continue to see Sandmann as the bad guy in spite of all the evidence to the contrary proving that all the other principals in the story were the ones who exhibited bad or irresponsible behavior and instigated the incident.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> It wasn't a poll comparing how many Americans were pro-life or pro-choice, it only compared the numbers of pro-lifers by age and gender.



Again, don't waste my time on garbage.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, I said _"most others"_, not_ "all others"_. Secondly, I validated my comment with the qualifier _"..that I know of..."._
> 
> These are the kinds of distinctions and details



Guy, I've been dealing with shithouse lawyers since I was in the Army...  that's what most of your argument fall into.  

The reality- Christian bitches end up at the Abortion Clinics because they buy into the whole "saving it for marriage" crap and don't really know how to use contraception..    I mean, better than the old days when you flew Little Sally out of state to have her baby in secret and dump it off on someone else.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It wasn't a poll comparing how many Americans were pro-life or pro-choice, it only compared the numbers of pro-lifers by age and gender.
> ...



Don't waste _my_ time with moot and irrelevant arguments and falsehoods. In a word: garbage.

First, no one's forcing you to come back. Second, as always, you misconstrued what I said. I said that the poll showed that pro-life women outnumbered pro-life men by a margin of five percent. I never said anything about pro-choice, numbers or otherwise.

All of this could have been avoided. If you hadn't used the tired old lame argument about men telling women what to do with their bodies and then in turn completely getting wrong what I said about the poll, none of this would have happened.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, I said _"most others"_, not_ "all others"_. Secondly, I validated my comment with the qualifier _"..that I know of..."._
> 
> These are the kinds of distinctions and details



Guy, I've been dealing with shithouse lawyers since I was in the Army...  that's what most of your argument fall into.[/quote]

Your dealings with "shithouse lawyers" is irrelevant; I was not wrong. This may bug the shit out of you but it's true.



> The reality- Christian bitches end up at the Abortion Clinics because they buy into the whole "saving it for marriage" crap and don't really know how to use contraception..    I mean, better than the old days when you flew Little Sally out of state to have her baby in secret and dump it off on someone else.



Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with what or how many Christian sects disagree with contraception.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First, no one's forcing you to come back. Second, as always, you misconstrued what I said. I said that the poll showed that pro-life women outnumbered pro-life men by a margin of five percent. I never said anything about pro-choice, numbers or otherwise.



In short, you presented garbage.  The vast majority of women in this country are Pro-Choice.  







Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your dealings with "shithouse lawyers" is irrelevant; I was not wrong. This may bug the shit out of you but it's true.



Nope, you are totally full of shit and try to find nuances to make your silly positions work.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 3, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > First, no one's forcing you to come back. Second, as always, you misconstrued what I said. I said that the poll showed that pro-life women outnumbered pro-life men by a margin of five percent. I never said anything about pro-choice, numbers or otherwise.
> ...



Jesus Christ, even after I clarify it for you, you get it wrong. Once again, the poll I cited did not compare numbers of pro-choice vs. pro-life women. It compared numbers of pro-life women vs. pro-life men. In other words, among pro-lifers, 51% are women and 46% are men. Got it?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your dealings with "shithouse lawyers" is irrelevant; I was not wrong. This may bug the shit out of you but it's true.





> Nope, you are totally full of shit and try to find nuances to make your silly positions work.



And you _overlook_ nuances, distinctions, details and specifics to make _your_ silly positions work. Never mind my verbiage, you overlook every important detail of an issue because it makes it more difficult to focus your hate. It was the only way you could continue to malign the pro-life Catholic kid even after it became clear to pretty much everyone else that the BAs were the ones openly exhibiting racist behavior and that Phillips instigated the confrontation.

After the second video came out, many celebrities deleted their Tweets criticising and/or calling for violence against Sandmann and the school (ex. Kathy Griffin and Ron Perlman) and a few openly apologized for their ugly Tweets and comments (ex. Jamie Lee Curtis and Kirstie Alley). A few stubborn knotheads refused to apologize (ex. Pink and Alyssa Milano) but that was to be expected.
Online magazines and newspapers issued corrections, retractions and apologies.

After all these details were apprehended by you and then summarily dismissed, you stubbornly clung to the one irrelevant detail you could use against Sandmann: he was a Catholic pro-lifer.

And, I was still not wrong.

Fact: Catholicism was the only Christian sect I knew of that is against contraception, i.e., I was not aware of any others.

Fact: Most other Christian sects are not against contraception, your Wikipedia article notwithstanding. The article you cited only referred to Protestant sects; it did not give any specifics such as _which_ sects or how many.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> After all these details were apprehended by you and then summarily dismissed, you stubbornly clung to the one irrelevant detail you could use against Sandmann: he was a Catholic pro-lifer.



And a smirking little entitled punk who disrespected a vet.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Fact: Most other Christian sects are not against contraception, your Wikipedia article notwithstanding. The article you cited only referred to Protestant sects; it did not give any specifics such as _which_ sects or how many.



Naw, they aren't against contraception, but they are against sex outside of marriage, which is what causes most Abortions...  

"I thought he loved me!!!"  SUUUUUUCK PLOP


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 3, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > After all these details were apprehended by you and then summarily dismissed, you stubbornly clung to the one irrelevant detail you could use against Sandmann: he was a Catholic pro-lifer.
> ...



He didn't know he was a vet and you damn well know it. Why do you persist with this lie?  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Fact: Most other Christian sects are not against contraception, your Wikipedia article notwithstanding. The article you cited only referred to Protestant sects; it did not give any specifics such as _which_ sects or how many.





> Naw, they aren't against contraception, but they are against sex outside of marriage, which is what causes most Abortions...
> 
> "I thought he loved me!!!"  SUUUUUUCK PLOP



I would be offended if I didn't know you were an idiot and only trying to get a rise out of me. 

Grow up for Christ's sake.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> He didn't know he was a vet and you damn well know it. Why do you persist with this lie?



Maybe he should have found out before he acted like a smirking punk?  Heck, I was told to respect my elders at that age..  If I pulled shit like that, my dad would have slapped my ass into a new Zip Code.  

His parents, "My poor baby, people are saying bad things about him. let's hire lawyers and publicists."  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I would be offended if I didn't know you were an idiot and only trying to get a rise out of me.
> 
> Grow up for Christ's sake.



I am.  I'm grown up enough to know that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant. It's all you anti-choice nutters who get a chubby when you watch "A Handmaid's Tale".


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 4, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't know he was a vet and you damn well know it. Why do you persist with this lie?
> ...



And maybe Phillips should not have approached the group in the first place.
Maybe he should have joined in with the Covington group in drowning out the racist diatribe coming from the Black Israelites, since the BAs had also hectored _his_ group already. 
Maybe he should have found out there was more to the situation than kids wearing MAGA hats. 
Maybe he should have found out they were, in fact, _not_ chanting "Build that wall" before falsely claiming they did.
Maybe he should have stuck to his original story that he was trying to de-escalate the situation instead of later changing it to his trying to get up the memorial steps.
Maybe he should have never approached the group and deliberately placed himself there in the first fucking place instead of later claiming disingenuously that he "found" himself surrounded and in a hairy situation.
Maybe...
Maybe..
Maybe.

There were a million things Phillips could have done to avoid the situation whereas Sandmann only had to continue standing where he had been the whole time. Except maybe (according to you and other leftists in the agonizing throes of liberal meltdown) the one thing he could have done was...wait for it...not smile.

The most ludicrous and asinine thing about all this is that, even if Sandmann had not smiled, the video would _still_ have gone viral and leftists _still_ would have vilified, insulted and threatened him. Why? Because Phillips was a Native American and Sandmann wore a MAGA hat.

Now, if Phillips being a vet was a factor or pertinent to the situation in any way (it wasn't), being the instigator of the incident, the burden of disclosure would have fallen on him. Sandmann was under no obligation whatsoever to try to find out a damn thing. 



> Heck, I was told to respect my elders at that age..  If I pulled shit like that, my dad would have slapped my ass into a new Zip Code.



I was told to respect _everybody_. If I had pulled shit like what Phillips did - getting in someone's face unprovoked and for no words or actions on the other person's part - my Dad would have slapped my ass into a new Zip Code. He then would have drop kicked me to another continent if I had lied and said Sandmann and the Covington group were chanting "Build that wall!" as Phillips did.

Sandmann did and said absolutely nothing to cause any of this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I would be offended if I didn't know you were an idiot and only trying to get a rise out of me.
> 
> Grow up for Christ's sake.





> I am.  I'm grown up enough to know that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.



Apparently you're not grown up enough to realize you just inadvertently gave one of the best arguments _against_ abortion. This means that women who have abortions either _did_ want to get pregnant but aborted the child anyway, or they were just too lazy or careless to give a fuck. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on pro-choicers or bolster their argument.



> It's all you anti-choice nutters who get a chubby when you watch "A Handmaid's Tale".



What?

For the record, I'm not against a woman having the choice to abort, I just think there's a better way to correct (or avoid) a mistake that doesn't involve snuffing out a life.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> And maybe Phillips should not have approached the group in the first place.



Philips wasn't required to do anything.  

Smirking Punk should have minded his fucking manners. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Apparently you're not grown up enough to realize you just inadvertently gave one of the best arguments _against_ abortion. This means that women who have abortions either _did_ want to get pregnant but aborted the child anyway, or they were just too lazy or careless to give a fuck. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on pro-choicers or bolster their argument.



No, guy, why a woman gets pregnant is irrelevant.  I mean if you want to be a bunch of conduct Nazis, we can take it a lot further.  

You smoke. Well, no heart surgery for you!  Your own damned fault, you knew it was dangerous... enjoy those grasping chest pains.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What?
> 
> For the record, I'm not against a woman having the choice to abort, I just think there's a better way to correct (or avoid) a mistake that doesn't involve snuffing out a life.



Fetuses aren't people, and abortion is the only form of contraception that is 100% effective.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> He then would have drop kicked me to another continent if I had lied and said Sandmann and the Covington group were chanting "Build that wall!" as Phillips did.



They were chanting "Build that Wall", and wearing MAGA hats..   I mean, if there were Swastika Armbands available, they'd have probably wore those, too.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 4, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > And maybe Phillips should not have approached the group in the first place.
> ...



Phillips was required to mind his own fucking business. He approached Sandmann and initiated the confrontation, dumbass. What is it about this fact that you can't even acknowledge it by answering a simple yes or no question and continue to blame the kid when the adult was responsible for the entire thing? Why do you not lay any responsibility at all at the feet of Phillips when he was the one who initiated it?

This may come as a surprise to you but respect is a two way street. Adults have an obligation to show respect as well. This is especially true with children and young people because they learn respect for elders* from their elders*.
Phillips displayed improper etiquette and showed disrespect for Sandmann and his group by approaching them unprovoked and for no reason at all other than that they were wearing MAGA hats. Furthermore, he makes it look like the Covington kids were being hostile and that he was scared, after the dipshit deliberately and willingly _placed himself directly in their midst. 
_
Phillips is full of shit and a lying douchebag. Yes, I watched your stupid video in the other post and the guy who did it is full of shit. I never heard "Build that wall" in any of the three or four examples he showed. In fact, I couldn't make out a goddamn thing they were saying. The guy who made that video is just as full of shit as Phillips.

If the roles were reversed and it had been Sandmann who had gotten in Phillips' face, Sandmann would still have gotten all the hate and Phillips would be considered a hero for standing up to him.

You fucking well know it and so do I.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Apparently you're not grown up enough to realize you just inadvertently gave one of the best arguments _against_ abortion. This means that women who have abortions either _did_ want to get pregnant but aborted the child anyway, or they were just too lazy or careless to give a fuck. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on pro-choicers or bolster their argument.





> No, guy, why a woman gets pregnant is irrelevant.



If the reason a woman got pregnant was irrelevant then that would mean women would be having abortions for any reason at all or no reason at all or giving birth for any or no reason at all.

Of course the reason is relevant you idiot. The reason she got pregnant but wants an abortion was because she was careless or didn't give a shit.



> I mean if you want to be a bunch of conduct Nazis, we can take it a lot further.



This coming from a guy who feels that a kid doing the right thing and doing and saying nothing while a stranger beats a drum in his face is worthy of contempt. Don't talk to me about conduct nazis after you crucify a kid for smiling. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What?
> 
> For the record, I'm not against a woman having the choice to abort, I just think there's a better way to correct (or avoid) a mistake that doesn't involve snuffing out a life.





> Fetuses aren't people, and abortion is the only form of contraception that is 100% effective.



Abortion is not a contraception dumbass. A contraceptive _prevents_ conception. It doesn't kill the child _after_ conception.

I would be inclined to agree with you if fetuses were complete lifeforms unto themselves. But alas, they are not. Fetuses are a stage in _human _development. Kill the fetus and you kill what would otherwise become a human being. There's just no getting around that.

Imagine, if you will, that we had the technology to project what a fetus would look like as a child, a teenager and an adult. Imagine we could also see the arc of his/her life and what type of person they would become and what they would accomplish. Would you still feel the same way if the fetus of say, Greta Thunberg was on the chopping block? Martin Luther King? Abraham Lincoln? The doctor who finds a cure for cancer?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Phillips was required to mind his own fucking business.



He was. His group had reserved that space. The MAGA Nazis started hassling them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I never heard "Build that wall" in any of the three or four examples he showed. In fact, I couldn't make out a goddamn thing they were saying. The guy who made that video is just as full of shit as Phillips.



Get your hearing checked, buddy.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Of course the reason is relevant you idiot. The reason she got pregnant but wants an abortion was because she was careless or didn't give a shit.



Nope. Her body, her choice.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This coming from a guy who feels that a kid doing the right thing and doing and saying nothing while a stranger beats a drum in his face is worthy of contempt. Don't talk to me about conduct nazis after you crucify a kid for smiling.



Naw, I hate the kid because he's a smirking little entitled Catholic Bastard.  $6000 a year and they don't teach him manners. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Abortion is not a contraception dumbass. A contraceptive _prevents_ conception. It doesn't kill the child _after_ conception.
> 
> I would be inclined to agree with you if fetuses were complete lifeforms unto themselves. But alas, they are not. Fetuses are a stage in _human _development. Kill the fetus and you kill what would otherwise become a human being. There's just no getting around that.



Sure there is, fetuses aren't people.  Suck them into the sink if you don't want them. Again, until the right wing supports cradle to grave welfare benefits without shame, then I don't want to there them whining about "the babies", when they don't give a flying fuck about those kids the minute the umbilical cord is cut. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Imagine, if you will, that we had the technology to project what a fetus would look like as a child, a teenager and an adult. Imagine we could also see the arc of his/her life and what type of person they would become and what they would accomplish. Would you still feel the same way if the fetus of say, Greta Thunberg was on the chopping block? Martin Luther King? Abraham Lincoln? The doctor who finds a cure for cancer?



By that same logic, then, if that fetus was going to grow up to be Hitler or Ted Bundy or Donald Trump, abortion would be a wonderful thing, then.  Whew, dodged a bullet on that one.  

I wish I had a blue box to go back to 1946 and abort Trump.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Phillips was required to mind his own fucking business.
> ...



Now I know for sure you're just trolling. Either that or you're desperately grasping at straws. You know the kids never hassled the NA group and you also know it's not why Phillips approached them. You also know that the NAs had a space reserved to _protest_. It does not mean other people or even other groups can't be there and it certainly does not mean Phillips had legitimate cause or reason to approach them and get in Sandmann's face. Everyone has a right to occupy space at any place in D.C.. What they _don't_ have a right to do (without a permit) is occupy space to demonstrate, march or protest.

In other words, the Covington group had just as much right to be there as the NA group. They just didn't have a permit to demonstrate, which they weren't doing anyway. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I never heard "Build that wall" in any of the three or four examples he showed. In fact, I couldn't make out a goddamn thing they were saying. The guy who made that video is just as full of shit as Phillips.





> Get your hearing checked, buddy.



There's nothing more to tell you other than that I watched and listened to the video you linked and I didn't hear what he heard. At least I clicked on it and listened. I could have just summarily labelled it left wingnut horseshit like you always do and ignored it. But that's the difference between you and me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Of course the reason is relevant you idiot. The reason she got pregnant but wants an abortion was because she was careless or didn't give a shit.





> Nope. Her body, her choice.



Right, she had the choice to use contraception or be careless and not give a shit and she chose to be careless and not give a shit. What is it about this you don't understand?  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This coming from a guy who feels that a kid doing the right thing and doing and saying nothing while a stranger beats a drum in his face is worthy of contempt. Don't talk to me about conduct nazis after you crucify a kid for smiling.





> Naw, I hate the kid because he's a smirking little entitled Catholic Bastard.  $6000 a year and they don't teach him manners.



None of which has anything to do with the events in D.C. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Abortion is not a contraception dumbass. A contraceptive _prevents_ conception. It doesn't kill the child _after_ conception.
> 
> I would be inclined to agree with you if fetuses were complete lifeforms unto themselves. But alas, they are not. Fetuses are a stage in _human _development. Kill the fetus and you kill what would otherwise become a human being. There's just no getting around that.





> Sure there is, fetuses aren't people.



How convenient for you. 

Fetuses are not some parasite or lifeform that managed to insert itself into a woman's womb. They are a direct and inevitable result of the choice of having sex without protection and a human being is a direct and inevitable result of a fetus. Every single fetus throughout history that was _not_ aborted became a human being. 

When you abort a fetus, all you're doing is killing a human being at an early stage of development.



> Suck them into the sink if you don't want them. Again, until the right wing supports cradle to grave welfare benefits without shame, then I don't want to there them whining about "the babies", when they don't give a flying fuck about those kids the minute the umbilical cord is cut.



If it's not the right wing's responsibility or authority to make the choice for against abortion then it's not the right wing's responsibility to care for the child if the mother chooses to give birth to a child she is unable to properly care for. You want to give the choice to a woman to abort or have a child she can't properly provide for and then criticize those who choose to allow her to live with the choice _she_ made.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Imagine, if you will, that we had the technology to project what a fetus would look like as a child, a teenager and an adult. Imagine we could also see the arc of his/her life and what type of person they would become and what they would accomplish. Would you still feel the same way if the fetus of say, Greta Thunberg was on the chopping block? Martin Luther King? Abraham Lincoln? The doctor who finds a cure for cancer?





> By that same logic, then, if that fetus was going to grow up to be Hitler or Ted Bundy or Donald Trump, abortion would be a wonderful thing, then.  Whew, dodged a bullet on that one.



As usual, _whoosh_, right over your head.

It goes without saying that if this were the case then we would see future evil people and perhaps abortion would be an easy choice in that case. But what if we see that the child will grow up to cure cancer but the mother wants to abort? Or better yet, given your obsession with the topic, someone who eliminates childhood poverty? Would you still be as inclined to be in favor of abortion if you knew one of these fetuses would cure childhood leukemia? For all we know, that fetus has already been aborted and we lost that opportunity.



> I wish I had a blue box to go back to 1946 and abort Trump.



Perhaps you should just go back and abort yourself since you seem unable to deal with the harsh realities of this world and you would never have become as bitter and vindictive as you are.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Now I know for sure you're just trolling. Either that or you're desperately grasping at straws. You know the kids never hassled the NA group and you also know it's not why Phillips approached them.



I know what I saw on TV. A bunch of little entitled Catholic bastards harassing people of color. 

All Mommy and Daddy's Money in the world isn't going to change that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If it's not the right wing's responsibility or authority to make the choice for against abortion then it's not the right wing's responsibility to care for the child if the mother chooses to give birth to a child she is unable to properly care for. You want to give the choice to a woman to abort or have a child she can't properly provide for and then criticize those who choose to allow her to live with the choice _she_ made.



But that's the point here. The right wing WANTS to force women to have babies they don't want.  

Me, I want them to have abortions. Seriously.  If you can't afford, don't have it.  Our jails are full of abortions that should have have happened. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It goes without saying that if this were the case then we would see future evil people and perhaps abortion would be an easy choice in that case. But what if we see that the child will grow up to cure cancer but the mother wants to abort? Or better yet, given your obsession with the topic, someone who eliminates childhood poverty? Would you still be as inclined to be in favor of abortion if you knew one of these fetuses would cure childhood leukemia? For all we know, that fetus has already been aborted and we lost that opportunity.



Poor people not having babies they can't afford or care for would totally eliminate poverty.   

As far as cancer, it's well known big pharma found the cure for cancer years ago. There's just no money to be made in it compared to Chemo drugs, which are much more profitable. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Perhaps you should just go back and abort yourself since you seem unable to deal with the harsh realities of this world and you would never have become as bitter and vindictive as you are.



I'm dealing with it just fine, thanks.  

Just have to realize who the fucking enemy is.. and their useful idiots.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Now I know for sure you're just trolling. Either that or you're desperately grasping at straws. You know the kids never hassled the NA group and you also know it's not why Phillips approached them.
> ...



You don't believe that any more than I do. If you did, you would have brought it up before now. You're grasping.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If it's not the right wing's responsibility or authority to make the choice for against abortion then it's not the right wing's responsibility to care for the child if the mother chooses to give birth to a child she is unable to properly care for. You want to give the choice to a woman to abort or have a child she can't properly provide for and then criticize those who choose to allow her to live with the choice _she_ made.





> But that's the point here. The right wing WANTS to force women to have babies they don't want.



And what about the babies they have that they don't want, _without_ being forced to? It may or may not be true that conservatives want to force women to have abortions but at the present time, with women having the right to choose abortion, it is irrelevant. 

You want to give them the right to choose but if they make the unwise choice of sex without protection and then choose to have the baby without the means to properly care for it, the left wing wants to force US to pay for their poor choices. 

You can't have it both ways. If they should have the right to choose then we should have the right to let them live with the consequences of their choices.



> Me, I want them to have abortions. Seriously.  If you can't afford, don't have it.  Our jails are full of abortions that should have have happened.



And trashcans, back alleys and gutters are full of abortions that should _never_ have happened.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It goes without saying that if this were the case then we would see future evil people and perhaps abortion would be an easy choice in that case. But what if we see that the child will grow up to cure cancer but the mother wants to abort? Or better yet, given your obsession with the topic, someone who eliminates childhood poverty? Would you still be as inclined to be in favor of abortion if you knew one of these fetuses would cure childhood leukemia? For all we know, that fetus has already been aborted and we lost that opportunity.





> Poor people not having babies they can't afford or care for would totally eliminate poverty.



No it wouldn't. If having children _put_ people into poverty, I might understand. But that is not the case. Poor people who choose to have children were poor _before_ they had children. That's a stupid argument. 



> As far as cancer, it's well known big pharma found the cure for cancer years ago. There's just no money to be made in it compared to Chemo drugs, which are much more profitable.



If this is true then the person or persons who developed the cure were not aborted. And, the one person who might have grown up to effectively challenge the big pharma monopoly may have been aborted.

In any case, this is just conspiracy theory mooseshit. I'll need you to provide sources and links. And not from conspiracy theory or propaganda websites. From respected medical journals and publications.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Perhaps you should just go back and abort yourself since you seem unable to deal with the harsh realities of this world and you would never have become as bitter and vindictive as you are.





> I'm dealing with it just fine, thanks.



Yeah, sure. Hating whole groups of people is not  "dealing with it just fine".



> Just have to realize who the fucking enemy is.. and their useful idiots.



You "realize" more enemies than most people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> ou want to give them the right to choose but if they make the unwise choice of sex without protection and then choose to have the baby without the means to properly care for it, the left wing wants to force US to pay for their poor choices.



Oh, poor baby... you might have to give some money to a poor person...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> In any case, this is just conspiracy theory mooseshit. I'll need you to provide sources and links. And not from conspiracy theory or propaganda websites. From respected medical journals and publications.



It wouldn't be a good conspiracy if you could prove it...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > ou want to give them the right to choose but if they make the unwise choice of sex without protection and then choose to have the baby without the means to properly care for it, the left wing wants to force US to pay for their poor choices.
> ...



Oh poor baby, someone might have to pay for their own mistakes.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, this is just conspiracy theory mooseshit. I'll need you to provide sources and links. And not from conspiracy theory or propaganda websites. From respected medical journals and publications.
> ...



You said the cure for cancer is out there, so what is it? If you don't know what it is, how do you know it exists?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 6, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Oh poor baby, someone might have to pay for their own mistakes.



Hey, personally, I'd love if the government paid for abortions....  We'd solve so many problems that way. 

Instead we pay for poor women to have babies they can't take care of, and so many of them end up in prison for life. 

$300 abortion verses hundreds of thousands in welfare/incarceration.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 6, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Oh poor baby, someone might have to pay for their own mistakes.
> ...



You just criticized me for not wanting to give money to the poor and here you are saying the exact same thing.



> and so many of them end up in prison for life.
> 
> $300 abortion verses hundreds of thousands in welfare/incarceration.



I thought this was about a woman's choice? 

It's clear to me now that you don't give a shit about a woman having choice, you just _prefer_ they choose abortion so you don't have to pay for their welfare and food stamps. 

You can't have it both ways. If you give women the option to choose abortion or giving birth, you can't very well complain if they choose to give birth. What you have right now is exactly what you and Norma McCorvey (A.K.A. Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) wanted: women having choice. The inevitable result of their having that choice is that some are going to choose to give birth, even if they can ill afford to raise a child.

So all of your pseudo-morality arguments about women having choice and people like me not caring about poor children are just props and smokescreen to disguise the fact that _you_ don't want to pay for their mistakes any more than I do. And whereas I prefer they just use contraception to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, you prefer they choose abortion to erase the mistake already made.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You just criticized me for not wanting to give money to the poor and here you are saying the exact same thing.



The difference is, you want to force them to have babies they never wanted.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> t's clear to me now that you don't give a shit about a woman having choice, you just _prefer_ they choose abortion so you don't have to pay for their welfare and food stamps.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. If you give women the option to choose abortion or giving birth, you can't very well complain if they choose to give birth. What you have right now is exactly what you and Norma McCorvey (A.K.A. Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) wanted: women having choice. The inevitable result of their having that choice is that some are going to choose to give birth, even if they can ill afford to raise a child.



Stop with the shithouse lawyer tactics, buddy.  What we have right now is rich white women having abortions, but poor women of color often can't afford them.  What we should do is have the government fund both abortions and cradle to grave benefits.  

This is what they do in France, and funny thing, they have an abortion rate half per capita of what we have. 

Now, if you wingnuts had your way, we'd be like the Philippines...  Abortion is "illegal", but they have more per capita than we have.  They have 3 million abandoned children.  But they be Right With Jesus, and that's the important thing. That and Grinding fucking poverty. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So all of your pseudo-morality arguments about women having choice and people like me not caring about poor children are just props and smokescreen to disguise the fact that _you_ don't want to pay for their mistakes any more than I do. And whereas I prefer they just use contraception to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, you prefer they choose abortion to erase the mistake already made.



No, guy, I realize that contraception is imperfect.  The pills fuck with women's emotional states.  The rubbers are uncomfortable. IUD's have health risks. And sometimes, and I know you don't get this, people just get caught up in the heat of the moment and have sex.  

Abortion is exactly what it is... another form of birth control. Which I'm just fine with.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 7, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You just criticized me for not wanting to give money to the poor and here you are saying the exact same thing.
> ...



Actually I don't. I don't like the idea of forcing women to have abortions and I don't necessarily agree with repealing Roe vs. Wade. I just wish more women (and men) exercised more personal responsibility and good judgment.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> t's clear to me now that you don't give a shit about a woman having choice, you just _prefer_ they choose abortion so you don't have to pay for their welfare and food stamps.
> 
> You can't have it both ways. If you give women the option to choose abortion or giving birth, you can't very well complain if they choose to give birth. What you have right now is exactly what you and Norma McCorvey (A.K.A. Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) wanted: women having choice. The inevitable result of their having that choice is that some are going to choose to give birth, even if they can ill afford to raise a child.





> Stop with the shithouse lawyer tactics, buddy.



None of what I said is untrue.



> What we have right now is rich white women having abortions, but poor women of color often can't afford them.



Then how do you account for the fact that blacks and Hispanics have abortions out of proportion to their population numbers? The 2010 census puts blacks at 12.6% of the population, Hispanics at 16.3% and whites at 72.4%. Yet blacks account for 28% of abortions and Hispanics account for 25% while whites account for 39%.  

Percentage wise, black and Hispanic abortions far outnumber white abortions. This means that if you have three communities of a hundred women each, where one community is all white, one is all black and one is all Hispanic, the white community will have about 50 to 60 abortions, the black community: 210 abortions and the Hispanic community: 110 abortions. This in turn means that blacks are having abortions at more than twice their population numbers, i.e., all the women in the black community will have two abortions and ten will have three.  

So it appears that if women of color can't afford abortions, they're managing to have them anyway at or near the rate of over twice their numbers. 



> What we should do is have the government fund both abortions and cradle to grave benefits.



What we should do is have the government fund programs and initiatives to inform and educate young people on sex and the potential consequences, hardships and pitfalls of unwanted pregnancies. They need to know how much more difficult it is to achieve what they want in life while having to care for a child. 



> This is what they do in France, and funny thing, they have an abortion rate half per capita of what we have.



France doesn't have fewer abortions because the government is paying for them, they have fewer abortions because their young women are more informed, educated and aware. 



> Now, if you wingnuts had your way, we'd be like the Philippines...  Abortion is "illegal", but they have more per capita than we have.  They have 3 million abandoned children.  But they be Right With Jesus, and that's the important thing. That and Grinding fucking poverty.



You have it all bass ackwards. Excessive pregnancies and abortions to not cause poverty, it is _because_ of poverty. If one has or perceives fewer opportunities to achieve success and make something of oneself, there's not much more to life than working menial jobs, having children and suckling off the government teat.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So all of your pseudo-morality arguments about women having choice and people like me not caring about poor children are just props and smokescreen to disguise the fact that _you_ don't want to pay for their mistakes any more than I do. And whereas I prefer they just use contraception to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, you prefer they choose abortion to erase the mistake already made.





> No, guy, I realize that contraception is imperfect.  The pills fuck with women's emotional states.  The rubbers are uncomfortable. IUD's have health risks. And sometimes, and I know you don't get this, people just get caught up in the heat of the moment and have sex.



Well that's just tough shit, isn't it? I can't do anything about any of these things so what does any of it have to do with me or society?

When it comes to having sex, one has three choices: 1) Use protection. 2) Abstain or 3) Have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy. None of these choices taken by someone else other than myself or my partner has anything to do with me and is not my responsibility or society's. It's also not my responsibility if they use protection and it fails. Every condom package and contraceptive warns that condoms are not always 100% effective and everyone knows this anyway.



> Abortion is exactly what it is... another form of birth control. Which I'm just fine with.



Birth control, by definition, is preventing conception. Killing the child after the fact is nothing more than a cheap and easy way to erase a mistake.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually I don't. I don't like the idea of forcing women to have abortions and I don't necessarily agree with repealing Roe vs. Wade. I just wish more women (and men) exercised more personal responsibility and good judgment.



Hope isn't a policy strategy. 

Maybe you guys should stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood and the sensible contraception they provide to underserved communities. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Birth control, by definition, is preventing conception.



No, birth control by definition is preventing BIRTH.  Abortion prevents birth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then how do you account for the fact that blacks and Hispanics have abortions out of proportion to their population numbers?



because they have less access to other forms of birth control. We've been over this. 

Abortion is the birth control of last resort.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 7, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I don't. I don't like the idea of forcing women to have abortions and I don't necessarily agree with repealing Roe vs. Wade. I just wish more women (and men) exercised more personal responsibility and good judgment.
> ...



Well then, maybe you better stop hoping more conservatives agree to just throw money at the problem. Because that ain't gonna happen.



> Maybe you guys should stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood and the sensible contraception they provide to underserved communities.



I don't have a problem with Planned Parenthood being funded to educate, I have a problem with it being funded to give abortions, which is an elective procedure and in most cases, is not a health risk. I just don't think that people who play it loose with contraception deserve to have someone else pay for their mistake.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Birth control, by definition, is preventing conception.





> No, birth control by definition is preventing BIRTH.  Abortion prevents birth.



From MedicineNet.com, the definition of birth control:_ "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to *prevent pregnancy *from occurring in a sexually active woman."
_
From MedicinePlus.gov.: "_Birth control, also known as contraception, is designed to *prevent pregnancy*. Birth control methods may work in a number of different ways:
_

_*Preventing sperm from getting to the eggs*. Types include condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps, and contraceptive sponges._
_Keeping the woman's ovaries from releasing eggs that could be fertilized. Types include birth control pills, patches, shots, vaginal rings, and emergency contraceptive pills._
_IUDs, devices which are implanted into the uterus. They can be kept in place for several years._
_Sterilization, which permanently prevents a woman from getting pregnant or a man from being able to get a woman pregnant"_
From Merriam-Webster.com: _": control of the number of children or offspring born especially by *preventing or lessening the frequency of conception *: CONTRACEPTION.
_
I looked at a few other sites as well and nowhere is abortion listed as a method of birth control.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 7, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Then how do you account for the fact that blacks and Hispanics have abortions out of proportion to their population numbers?
> ...



That is not at all what you said. You said poor women of color often can't afford _abortions_. You didn't say anything about not affording birth control or contraceptives. I quote: "_What we have right now is rich white women having abortions, but poor women of color often can't afford them."
_
And what forms of birth control do they have less access to anyway?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Well then, maybe you better stop hoping more conservatives agree to just throw money at the problem. Because that ain't gonna happen.



Naw, I'll just wait for all the old stupid white people to die off, then we can get real economic justice in this country. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't have a problem with Planned Parenthood being funded to educate, I have a problem with it being funded to give abortions, which is an elective procedure and in most cases, is not a health risk. I just don't think that people who play it loose with contraception deserve to have someone else pay for their mistake.



Yes, yes, we know, the ladies controlling their own bodies just horrifies you nuts. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> From MedicineNet.com, the definition of birth control:_ "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to *prevent pregnancy *from occurring in a sexually active woman."_



Awesome. Abortion prevents pregnancy by ending it.  We totally need more of them.. just because they piss religious assholes off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> That is not at all what you said. You said poor women of color often can't afford _abortions_. You didn't say anything about not affording birth control or contraceptives. I quote: "_What we have right now is rich white women having abortions, but poor women of color often can't afford them."
> _
> And what forms of birth control do they have less access to anyway?



Most of them, if they are uninsured, and can't get in to see a doctor to get pills or an IUD.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, maybe you better stop hoping more conservatives agree to just throw money at the problem. Because that ain't gonna happen.
> ...


 you'll die along with all the stupid old white people


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, maybe you better stop hoping more conservatives agree to just throw money at the problem. Because that ain't gonna happen.
> ...


Technically an abortion terminates a pregnancy it doesn't prevent it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2020)

Blues Man said:


> Technically an abortion terminates a pregnancy it doesn't prevent it.



Technically, it keeps a woman from having to deal with a mewling little brat...  Works for me. 

Added bonus. It pisses off religious assholes.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Well then, maybe you better stop hoping more conservatives agree to just throw money at the problem. Because that ain't gonna happen.
> ...



Paying for other peoples' mistakes is not economic justice. And indulging in self loathing because you're white will not bring about economic justice; accomplishes nothing and doesn't impress anyone, least of all minorities.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't have a problem with Planned Parenthood being funded to educate, I have a problem with it being funded to give abortions, which is an elective procedure and in most cases, is not a health risk. I just don't think that people who play it loose with contraception deserve to have someone else pay for their mistake.





> Yes, yes, we know, the ladies controlling their own bodies just horrifies you nuts.



Why do I always have to repeat myself to you? I told you already, I'm not against a woman's right to choose, I just wish more of them (and men) exercised better judgment so we could have far fewer abortions and be more like, say, France.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> From MedicineNet.com, the definition of birth control:_ "Birth control is the use of any practices, methods, or devices to *prevent pregnancy *from occurring in a sexually active woman."_





> Awesome. Abortion prevents pregnancy by ending it.  We totally need more of them.. just because they piss religious assholes off.



If a woman becomes pregnant then you haven't prevented it, dumbass. Stopping and preventing are two entirely different things. By the same principle, my correcting you on your falsehoods, lies and factual errors after you've said them never prevented you from saying them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > That is not at all what you said. You said poor women of color often can't afford _abortions_. You didn't say anything about not affording birth control or contraceptives. I quote: "_What we have right now is rich white women having abortions, but poor women of color often can't afford them."
> ...



If they can afford to have $300 abortions at over twice the rate of whites then I'd have to say that affording contraceptives is likely not a problem for them.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Paying for other peoples' mistakes is not economic justice. And indulging in self loathing because you're white will not bring about economic justice; accomplishes nothing and doesn't impress anyone, least of all minorities.



No self loathing at all.... all the dumb white trash in the MAGA hats, I know I am so much better.. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why do I always have to repeat myself to you? I told you already, I'm not against a woman's right to choose, I just wish more of them (and men) exercised better judgment so we could have far fewer abortions and be more like, say, France.



Okay. Let's be like France
Government provides free health care to everyone
Abortions are paid for.  
Contraception is readily available. 
No religious stupidity
Employers are required to give PAID family leave for 12 weeks.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If a woman becomes pregnant then you haven't prevented it, dumbass. Stopping and preventing are two entirely different things. By the same principle, my correcting you on your falsehoods, lies and factual errors after you've said them never prevented you from saying them.



Cartoon boy, you haven't corrected anything, including your OCD. Dance, my puppet.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Paying for other peoples' mistakes is not economic justice. And indulging in self loathing because you're white will not bring about economic justice; accomplishes nothing and doesn't impress anyone, least of all minorities.
> ...



Then make some goddamn sense and suggest realistic, common sense and fair solutions without making it about white people.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why do I always have to repeat myself to you? I told you already, I'm not against a woman's right to choose, I just wish more of them (and men) exercised better judgment so we could have far fewer abortions and be more like, say, France.





> Okay. Let's be like France
> Government provides free health care to everyone
> Abortions are paid for.
> Contraception is readily available.
> ...



You don't need to do any of that to reduce the number of abortions. Also, if women of color can afford three hundred dollar abortions at a rate of over twice their population percentage, why can't they afford contraceptives, which are far cheaper? Also, Obamacare already provides for birth control coverage (a major thorn in the side of many Christian conservatives) in many cases and women on welfare, Medicare and other government programs already get reduced costs for health care.

So obviously handing out free shit and cheap shit doesn't work. The problem is a cultural one and no amount of money and free shit is going to change that.

Besides, since you and pro-choice nuts don't seem to have any moral qualms about abortion anyway, what difference does it make whether they use contraceptives or not? And if you feel that strongly about it, why don't you quit your fucking pseudo-righteous preaching about how everyone else should be paying for their abortions and contraceptives and march on down to the nearest Planned Parenthood and hand them your paycheck?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If a woman becomes pregnant then you haven't prevented it, dumbass. Stopping and preventing are two entirely different things. By the same principle, my correcting you on your falsehoods, lies and factual errors after you've said them never prevented you from saying them.





> Cartoon boy, you haven't corrected anything, including your OCD. Dance, my puppet.



My OCD, huh? I love how you keep insinuating that I'm obsessed or something when you have responded to every single one of my posts up to this point as much as I have responded to every one of yours. Except of course, the one where I asked you if Phillips approached Sandmann. 

Anyway, I've had to correct you numerous times on things relating to Sandy Hook, Nick Sandmann and now abortion. I've had to correct you numerous times regarding my views on abortion in spite of the fact I told you these things two or three times already. I just had to correct you in my last post on something _you_ said. Specifically, saying women of color not affording abortions and then later saying you were talking about contraceptives.

You can't even keep track of your own comments and arguments, it's no wonder you always get shit wrong; like Phillips being at a veterans march; Sandmann knowing Phillips was a vet; the Covington kids heckling the NA group; the definition of birth control; etc., etc., ad nauseum...

You have no fucking idea what actually goes on in minority communities yet you, a self-flagellating, white-hating honky wants to lecture everyone else about their plight. Grow the fuck up. Whatever hardships minority communities are suffering is not due to whites not paying for their abortions or their contraceptives. And if we did, it wouldn't change a goddamned thing.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 8, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> No self loathing at all.... all the dumb white trash in the MAGA hats, *I know I am so much better*..



  Has there ever been a more spectacular demonstration, than this, of the Dunning-Kruger effect?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You don't need to do any of that to reduce the number of abortions. Also, if women of color can afford three hundred dollar abortions at a rate of over twice their population percentage, why can't they afford contraceptives, which are far cheaper? Also, Obamacare already provides for birth control coverage (a major thorn in the side of many Christian conservatives) in many cases and women on welfare, Medicare and other government programs already get reduced costs for health care.



Are you some kind of retard? Of course, no one thinks, "I better take contraceptives because they are cheaper than abortion."  When they get knocked up, then they get a lot more desperate a lot faster. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So obviously handing out free shit and cheap shit doesn't work. The problem is a cultural one and no amount of money and free shit is going to change that.



It works just fine in every other industrialized country, where this isn't even an issue, and they have half the abortions we do. 

Universal health care, gun control, abortion---  There's someone who got it right, and you guys pretend they don't exist. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Besides, since you and pro-choice nuts don't seem to have any moral qualms about abortion anyway, what difference does it make whether they use contraceptives or not? And if you feel that strongly about it, why don't you quit your fucking pseudo-righteous preaching about how everyone else should be paying for their abortions and contraceptives and march on down to the nearest Planned Parenthood and hand them your paycheck?



Well, while their is nothing wrong with abortion because fetuses aren't people, it's still kind of an unpleasant procedure, so it would be nice to avoid it.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have no fucking idea what actually goes on in minority communities yet you, a self-flagellating, white-hating honky wants to lecture everyone else about their plight. Grow the fuck up. Whatever hardships minority communities are suffering is not due to whites not paying for their abortions or their contraceptives. And if we did, it wouldn't change a goddamned thing.



Naw, their plight is due to 400 years of institutionalized racism.  But you got white folks acting like they are the victims.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to do any of that to reduce the number of abortions. Also, if women of color can afford three hundred dollar abortions at a rate of over twice their population percentage, why can't they afford contraceptives, which are far cheaper? Also, Obamacare already provides for birth control coverage (a major thorn in the side of many Christian conservatives) in many cases and women on welfare, Medicare and other government programs already get reduced costs for health care.
> ...


Here you go again talking about racism when you know nothing about it 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 9, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need to do any of that to reduce the number of abortions. Also, if women of color can afford three hundred dollar abortions at a rate of over twice their population percentage, why can't they afford contraceptives, which are far cheaper? Also, Obamacare already provides for birth control coverage (a major thorn in the side of many Christian conservatives) in many cases and women on welfare, Medicare and other government programs already get reduced costs for health care.
> ...



Exactly, no one thinks. That is the problem right there in a nutshell.

And, if no one thinks to take contraceptives because they are cheaper than abortion then why bother offering them free contraceptives or even bring up cost at all? If they don't even think about these things before having sex then the cost of contraceptives is a moot point.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So obviously handing out free shit and cheap shit doesn't work. The problem is a cultural one and no amount of money and free shit is going to change that.





> It works just fine in every other industrialized country, where this isn't even an issue, and they have half the abortions we do.
> 
> Universal health care, gun control, abortion--- There's someone who got it right, and you guys pretend they don't exist.



I don't pretend these societies don't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that other countries have fewer gun crimes and fewer abortions. I just don't pretend, and do not agree, that they have fewer gun crimes because of gun control or fewer abortions because they're free. It's culture, culture and culture. Besides, it doesn't make sense that they have fewer abortions because it's free. This is a non sequitur.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Besides, since you and pro-choice nuts don't seem to have any moral qualms about abortion anyway, what difference does it make whether they use contraceptives or not? And if you feel that strongly about it, why don't you quit your fucking pseudo-righteous preaching about how everyone else should be paying for their abortions and contraceptives and march on down to the nearest Planned Parenthood and hand them your paycheck?





> Well, while their is nothing wrong with abortion because fetuses aren't people, it's still kind of an unpleasant procedure, so it would be nice to avoid it.



There are three ways to avoid the unpleasantness of abortion, two of which are 100% effective:

1) Use protection.
2) Don't have sex.
3) Don't have an abortion.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You have no fucking idea what actually goes on in minority communities yet you, a self-flagellating, white-hating honky wants to lecture everyone else about their plight. Grow the fuck up. Whatever hardships minority communities are suffering is not due to whites not paying for their abortions or their contraceptives. And if we did, it wouldn't change a goddamned thing.





> Naw, their plight is due to 400 years of institutionalized racism.



There is much truth to this. However, the poor black community is never going to develop a sense of self worth, self sufficiency and personal responsibility by giving them free shit.



> But you got white folks acting like they are the victims.



Tell me again how things are going to get better when old white folks die off and then tell me again about some whites acting like they're victims.
Tell me again how Sandmann is the villain just because he's a rich white Catholic kid and then tell me again about some whites acting like they're victims.
Tell me about all the snowflakes losing their minds and calling for violence on Sandmann just because he was the white person in the pictures and videos.
Tell me again how evil rich white people are just for being rich and white.
Tell me how you bring up race in every discussion even when race has nothing to do with the topic.
Tell me how you assume I'm racist merely because Phillips is a Native American and I never broached the issue of race.
Finally, tell me how you can't even acknowledge the fact that Phillips, the Native American, was the one who approached Sandmann, the white kid, and instigated the incident. 

Sandmann didn't do what he did because he's white. But everyone else reacted the way they did...because he's white. So you tell me why some white people are pissed off.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> And, if no one thinks to take contraceptives because they are cheaper than abortion then why bother offering them free contraceptives or even bring up cost at all? If they don't even think about these things before having sex then the cost of contraceptives is a moot point.



Again, are you some kind of retard.   The Europeans ALREADY give out free contraception and free health care and they don't have these problems.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Tell me again how things are going to get better when old white folks die off a



See... white victimhood....  It's hilarious to watch when someone calls you guys on being awful.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't pretend these societies don't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that other countries have fewer gun crimes and fewer abortions. I just don't pretend, and do not agree, that they have fewer gun crimes because of gun control or fewer abortions because they're free. It's culture, culture and culture. Besides, it doesn't make sense that they have fewer abortions because it's free. This is a non sequitur.



Sure it does. Contraception is free... health care is free...  abortion is free.   So people are picking 1 and 2 over 3, and they have less of them.  

The problem with this country is we don't make contraception as available as we should, and then when it is not used or fails, we stick women with the choice between a lifetime of poverty or a $300 abortion.  

I'll take abortion for 300 Alex.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 9, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Sure it does. Contraception is free... health care is free...  abortion is free.   So people are picking 1 and 2 over 3, and they have less of them.



  None of those things are free.  When you say _“free”_, what you really mean is that someone else's pocket is being picked to pay for it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 9, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > And, if no one thinks to take contraceptives because they are cheaper than abortion then why bother offering them free contraceptives or even bring up cost at all? If they don't even think about these things before having sex then the cost of contraceptives is a moot point.
> ...



First of all, the Europeans don't have fewer abortions because they're free, they have fewer abortions because they generally exercise a little more forethought and self discipline than many people in the poor minority communities in this country.
Secondly, your entire pro-choice position collapses under its own weight because your arguments contradict each other. On the one hand you say offering free contraceptives will reduce the number of abortions and on the other hand you say they don't even think about the cost of contraceptives before having sex. So which is it?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Tell me again how things are going to get better when old white folks die off a





> See... white victimhood....  It's hilarious to watch when someone calls you guys on being awful.



That's like punching someone in the face and then telling them not to act like an assault victim. Jesus, what a moron.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't pretend these societies don't exist. I am fully aware of the fact that other countries have fewer gun crimes and fewer abortions. I just don't pretend, and do not agree, that they have fewer gun crimes because of gun control or fewer abortions because they're free. It's culture, culture and culture. Besides, it doesn't make sense that they have fewer abortions because it's free. This is a non sequitur.





> Sure it does. Contraception is free... health care is free...  abortion is free.   So people are picking 1 and 2 over 3, and they have less of them.



And what is the abortion rate in these countries? How much or how many contraceptives do these governments dole out and are there statistics to support your claim that free shit = fewer abortions? Have you actually looked into and researched why European countries have fewer abortions? Or did you just employ the dry old erroneous tactic of correlative assumption? 



> The problem with this country is we don't make contraception as available as we should, and then when it is not used or fails, we stick women with the choice between a lifetime of poverty or a $300 abortion.



Assuming for a moment this is true, even though these women are fully aware that not using contraception will most likely result in an unwanted $300 expense or a lifetime of poverty later, they choose to do it anyway because they can't afford the $300 dollars for an IUD _now_. Is that what you're saying?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> None of those things are free. When you say _“free”_, what you really mean is that someone else's pocket is being picked to pay for it.



by "someone else", you mean that society is paying for it.  

Society always ends up Paying, Mormon Bob.   It's just they have the good sense to pay for these problems up front instead of the back end like we do.  "Well, we didn't pay for your abortion, but we ARE going to pay for 18 years of welfare AND 20 years of keeping little Timmy in prison because he was kind of a fuckup with no Dad and a mom who didn't want him."  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, the Europeans don't have fewer abortions because they're free, they have fewer abortions because they generally exercise a little more forethought and self discipline than many people in the poor minority communities in this country.



Wow, scratch a conservative, find the racism, eventually.   

Here's the thing.  By Conservative standards, the Europeans should be pretty messed up.  They don't really believe in Magic Sky Fairies the way Americans do, they aren't sexually repressed like we are.  So by the logic you just laid out, they should be having MORE abortions because "anything goes" and the government pays for them.  but they have- Less. A lot less.  About half of what we have.  

Not to worry, we always have the conservative go to - blame minorities for being minorities.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> That's like punching someone in the face and then telling them not to act like an assault victim. Jesus, what a moron.



Yeah, guy, if you consider criticism of racism to be an "assault", that' on you.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And what is the abortion rate in these countries? How much or how many contraceptives do these governments dole out and are there statistics to support your claim that free shit = fewer abortions? Have you actually looked into and researched why European countries have fewer abortions? Or did you just employ the dry old erroneous tactic of correlative assumption?



Yes, I have....  The combination of policies I describe mean that you have less unplanned pregnancies.... and less abortions. 








Ghost of a Rider said:


> Assuming for a moment this is true, even though these women are fully aware that not using contraception will most likely result in an unwanted $300 expense or a lifetime of poverty later, they choose to do it anyway because they can't afford the $300 dollars for an IUD _now_. Is that what you're saying?



No, but if Explain it to you again, you still won't fucking understand it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 10, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> First of all, the Europeans don't have fewer abortions because they're free, they have fewer abortions because they generally exercise a little more forethought and self discipline than many people in the poor minority communities in this country.





> Wow, scratch a conservative, find the racism, eventually.



Don't give me that shit. You've been calling me racist long before this and for nothing more than criticizing Nathan Phillips' actions. You're the one who brought up his ethnicity, not me. And when I ask you what his ethnicity had to do with those events, you either refuse to answer or when you do, you cite circumstantial factors that only explain why he was in D.C. that day but not why he approached Sandmann. You even refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.



> Here's the thing.  By Conservative standards, the Europeans should be pretty messed up.  They don't really believe in Magic Sky Fairies the way Americans do, they aren't sexually repressed like we are.



So they're having more sex than we are but still have fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Hmm, interesting...



> So by the logic you just laid out, they should be having MORE abortions because "anything goes" and the government pays for them.  but they have- Less. A lot less.  About half of what we have.



The logic I "laid out" is what I specifically stated; that they are generally more self disciplined as a culture on such things.

If you think it's as simple as: "Give them free shit and they'll stop acting like animals", you are hopelessly naive and uninformed. 



> Not to worry, we always have the conservative go to - blame minorities for being minorities.



Your go-to argument in _any_ discussion is racism.

These people - the poor, undisciplined and unprincipled members of minority communities are not poor, undisciplined and unprincipled because they're minorities. They are this way because they allowed ennui, laziness and a sense of entitlement from the white man to infect their communities. It is not endemic to their race or skin color, neither was it inevitable and it doesn't have to be this way.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> That's like punching someone in the face and then telling them not to act like an assault victim. Jesus, what a moron.





> Yeah, guy, if you consider criticism of racism to be an "assault", that' on you.



You don't _criticize_ racism, you use it as a weapon to demonize anyone who disagrees with you on any issue, even when race has nothing to do with it. You look at the world and approach every discussion through one dichotomy: racist/not racist. You're so brainwashed that you are blind to any other possibilities and you came to embody the very thing you hate: judging people by skin color. You allowed yourself to get sucked into the steaming cesspool of racial hysteria and now you can't even think for yourself.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And what is the abortion rate in these countries? How much or how many contraceptives do these governments dole out and are there statistics to support your claim that free shit = fewer abortions? Have you actually looked into and researched why European countries have fewer abortions? Or did you just employ the dry old erroneous tactic of correlative assumption?





> Yes, I have....  The combination of policies I describe mean that you have less unplanned pregnancies.... and less abortions.



Brace yourself, here comes some more "shithouse lawyer tactics": This does not say anything about _why_ Europeans have fewer abortions, it only says they have fewer abortions. Your contention that free shit is the reason for this is just an opinion and the graph alone does not support this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Assuming for a moment this is true, even though these women are fully aware that not using contraception will most likely result in an unwanted $300 expense or a lifetime of poverty later, they choose to do it anyway because they can't afford the $300 dollars for an IUD _now_. Is that what you're saying?





> No, but if Explain it to you again, you still won't fucking understand it.



You haven't explained anything. As I said, your arguments contradict each other and is why I ask these things. On one hand you paint a picture of people who are apparently incapable of making certain choices because the government doesn't give them free shit and on the other hand, you paint a picture of people who _can_ make these choices but choose irresponsibly "in the heat of the moment". 

Logic dictates that self discipline and personal responsibility has to enter the picture somewhere and is a factor whether you want to see it or not.

Here's the difference between you and me: You see these people as helpless, undisciplined children that can't survive and thrive without help from the white man and the government. Whereas I see them as capable adults responsible for their own choices. I think, hell, I know, the poor minority communities are capable of thriving and I wish they did.

So, you see them as helpless and incapable and I do not. But because I don't view them as helpless, _I'm_ the racist.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Jan 10, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > And, if no one thinks to take contraceptives because they are cheaper than abortion then why bother offering them free contraceptives or even bring up cost at all? If they don't even think about these things before having sex then the cost of contraceptives is a moot point.
> ...


25 years ago we were on our honeymoon in Key West. We were offered FREE contraceptives in a couple of bars. Mrs T told them "thanks but no thanks" we are trying for a family. That was news to me because we had never discussed it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don't give me that shit. You've been calling me racist long before this and for nothing more than criticizing Nathan Phillips' actions. You're the one who brought up his ethnicity, not me. And when I ask you what his ethnicity had to do with those events, you either refuse to answer or when you do, you cite circumstantial factors that only explain why he was in D.C. that day but not why he approached Sandmann. You even refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.



Enitled white punk disrespecting a person of color.... and you guys all swarmed to his defense.  

Let's reverse the situation. Black kid with a BLM hat disrespecting an elderly white veteran... you guys would be calling for a noose. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your go-to argument in _any_ discussion is racism.
> 
> These people - the poor, undisciplined and unprincipled members of minority communities are not poor, undisciplined and unprincipled because they're minorities. They are this way because they allowed ennui, laziness and a sense of entitlement from the white man to infect their communities. It is not endemic to their race or skin color, neither was it inevitable and it doesn't have to be this way.



Yup, more racism from an entitled white person.  They just want them welfare dollars... you keep telling yourself that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This does not say anything about _why_ Europeans have fewer abortions, it only says they have fewer abortions. Your contention that free shit is the reason for this is just an opinion and the graph alone does not support this.



Yes, that was a shithouse lawyer tactic.   The Thing Speaks for Itself.  When you have free health care, free contraception and strong social policies, you have less abortions.  This is established.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Here's the difference between you and me: You see these people as helpless, undisciplined children that can't survive and thrive without help from the white man and the government. Whereas I see them as capable adults responsible for their own choices. I think, hell, I know, the poor minority communities are capable of thriving and I wish they did.



Uh, yeah, guy, we broke both of their legs and said, "Lean on me".   They don't thrive because we have 400 years of institutionalized racism holding them back.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give me that shit. You've been calling me racist long before this and for nothing more than criticizing Nathan Phillips' actions. You're the one who brought up his ethnicity, not me. And when I ask you what his ethnicity had to do with those events, you either refuse to answer or when you do, you cite circumstantial factors that only explain why he was in D.C. that day but not why he approached Sandmann. You even refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.
> ...


You need to watch the entire video.

That guy walked all the way across the area to bang a drum in the face of a high school kid because he was too chicken shit to bang his drum in the face of an adult black man

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2020)

Blues Man said:


> You need to watch the entire video.
> 
> That guy walked all the way across the area to bang a drum in the face of a high school kid because he was too chicken shit to bang his drum in the face of an adult black man



I didn't watch the video.... He confronted smirking little Nazis wearing MAGA hats and chanting "Build the Wall".


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > You need to watch the entire video.
> ...


Of course you didn't you just repeat the same shit you are spoon fed 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2020)

Blues Man said:


> Of course you didn't you just repeat the same shit you are spoon fed



Yes, I did... Frankly, there's no way Smirky McPunchface looks good.  That's why his mommy and daddy had to hire image consultants and trot him out on TV to look really sad puppy face.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you didn't you just repeat the same shit you are spoon fed
> ...


Well at least you'll admit that you don't bother to even try to learn about what actually happened



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2020)

Blues Man said:


> Well at least you'll admit that you don't bother to even try to learn about what actually happened



I know exactly what happened.  A bunch of Little Entitled Catholic Bastards started harrassing people of color. That's what happened.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > Well at least you'll admit that you don't bother to even try to learn about what actually happened
> ...


Yeah keep telling yourself that



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Don't give me that shit. You've been calling me racist long before this and for nothing more than criticizing Nathan Phillips' actions. You're the one who brought up his ethnicity, not me. And when I ask you what his ethnicity had to do with those events, you either refuse to answer or when you do, you cite circumstantial factors that only explain why he was in D.C. that day but not why he approached Sandmann. You even refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.
> ...



Incorrect and irrelevant. You still refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.

You will believe and propagate lies and falsehoods all the livelong day on this incident but refuse to acknowledge the one pertinent determining factor in the story: Phillips approached Sandmann. You won't acknowledge it because you know as well as I do that if he hadn't, Sandmann wouldn't have "disrespected" anyone. It never would have have happened and you would not even know this entitled white Little Catholic Bastard existed for you to hate and despise.

You don't hate Sandmann for anything (you think) he _did_, you hate him for what he _is_. 



> Let's reverse the situation. Black kid with a BLM hat disrespecting an elderly white veteran... you guys would be calling for a noose.



Why do you keep pushing the "disrespected a vet" narrative when you know damned well that Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?

Most people understand that the old man being a vet is not germane to the issue and is merely circumstantial. But yes, by all means, let's reverse the situation, but with one caveat: without your own personal spin, blandishments and assumptions. I.E., we'll stick to the indisputable facts of the original story and use those to create a hypothetical scenario. So instead of saying the black kid disrespected the white vet, we'll just say he responded to the white man's approach. The old man's being a vet is irrelevant because it's not why he's in D.C. and the black kid won't know the white man is a vet anyway.
Let's also recreate the setting and background leading up to the incident:

The BLM group is not demonstrating (their BLM march was earlier in the day on a different part of the Mall) and they're just waiting for their bus back to the hotel or back home.
The elderly white man is with a Jewish group demonstrating for awareness of some Jewish something or other and happens to be a veteran.
There's a KKK or white supremacist group between them that's been heckling both groups all day.
The BLM group responds to the heckling and wish to drown out the racist rhetoric coming from the KKK group by say, singing or maybe chanting some BLM phrase or slogan.
The elderly white man hears the commotion, sees the BLM hats and decides to approach them to defuse the situation, in spite of the fact that the BLM group is not addressing him or his group or interacted with them at all.
The white man approaches one black kid in particular and starts to perform a Jewish prayer, ritualistically bowing inches from the boy's face.
The black kid does not understand why the old man is there and decides to do and say nothing so as not to exacerbate the situation and just stands there and smiles.
The BLM kids are now circling around the old white man to get a better view and perhaps try to understand what the hell he's doing there.
The old man is now uncomfortable and disingenuously tells the media later that he "found" himself in a hairy situation and felt threatened, in spite of the fact that he put himself there.

Given all this, I would lay the blame squarely on the old white man. He had no business there and it was disrespectful of him to get in the kid's face without cause or provocation. As for the black kid, I can't think of one reason to criticize him when he was minding his own business, said not a word and did nothing but smile.

Maybe if I tried I could think of something to hate him for. I know, he's Catholic and pro-life! Yeah, that's the ticket! He's a misogynistic Little Catholic Black Bastard who had the gall to smile when an old white man (who later turned out to be a veteran - a plus for our side) got in his face. There, signed, stamped and available for use by anyone looking for a reason to hate the black kid. Take it and run with it and gleefully spread the misplaced animus with impunity.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your go-to argument in _any_ discussion is racism.
> 
> These people - the poor, undisciplined and unprincipled members of minority communities are not poor, undisciplined and unprincipled because they're minorities. They are this way because they allowed ennui, laziness and a sense of entitlement from the white man to infect their communities. It is not endemic to their race or skin color, neither was it inevitable and it doesn't have to be this way.





> Yup, more racism from an entitled white person.  They just want them welfare dollars... you keep telling yourself that.



What did I just say you idiot? I just told you they are not this way because of their skin color or race. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if I specifically point out that their race and skin color are irrelevant, you have to make it about race. You just can't help yourself, can you?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This does not say anything about _why_ Europeans have fewer abortions, it only says they have fewer abortions. Your contention that free shit is the reason for this is just an opinion and the graph alone does not support this.





> Yes, that was a shithouse lawyer tactic.   The Thing Speaks for Itself.  When you have free health care, free contraception and strong social policies, you have less abortions.  This is established.



No, it is not established. That is your opinion. The graph only shows that Europe has fewer abortions. It does not explain why white women have comparatively fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than black and Hispanic women in the U.S. And no, it's not because white women can better afford contraceptives. Even if that were the case, it begs the question as to why poor men and women of color are so reckless with their sexual activities just because they can ill afford contraceptives. It's like saying that if one can't afford tobacco cessation drugs or procedures, one just keeps smoking and then blames the white man and government when he gets lung cancer. It's ridiculous. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Here's the difference between you and me: You see these people as helpless, undisciplined children that can't survive and thrive without help from the white man and the government. Whereas I see them as capable adults responsible for their own choices. I think, hell, I know, the poor minority communities are capable of thriving and I wish they did.





> Uh, yeah, guy, we broke both of their legs and said, "Lean on me".   They don't thrive because we have 400 years of institutionalized racism holding them back.



Tell that to successful black people who came from poor backgrounds like Oprah Winfrey.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > You need to watch the entire video.
> ...



The kid wasn't "smirking" until the asshole got in his face you fucking idiot. You would know this if you had watched the video.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Incorrect and irrelevant. You still refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.



Smirky McPunchface instigated it by being there with his racist hat and his little entitled Catholic Bastard Buddies yelling "Build the Wall". 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why do you keep pushing the "disrespected a vet" narrative when you know damned well that Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?



He should have found out.  Hey, here's a crazy idea. Don't fucking disrespect your elders...  He should have learned this with his fancy $6000 Catholic Education...   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> he graph only shows that Europe has fewer abortions. It does not explain why white women have comparatively fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than black and Hispanic women



See, again with the racism... 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Tell that to successful black people who came from poor backgrounds like Oprah Winfrey.



Okay, the thing is, you can list these people on one hand and usually, they are very talented and charismatic.  

So...um, how about everyone else?  Maybe some folks aren't telegenic, but STILL don't deserve to be pulled over by a Cop for a Driving While Black.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What did I just say you idiot? I just told you they are not this way because of their skin color or race. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if I specifically point out that their race and skin color are irrelevant, you have to make it about race. You just can't help yourself, can you?



Come on, guy...  you can't pretend when you go on and on about lazy minorities, you aren't talking about their race.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 11, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect and irrelevant. You still refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.
> ...



You dumbass.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why do you keep pushing the "disrespected a vet" narrative when you know damned well that Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?





> He should have found out.  Hey, here's a crazy idea. Don't fucking disrespect your elders...  He should have learned this with his fancy $6000 Catholic Education...



That doesn't answer the question: Why do you keep pushing this narrative when you know Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?

But let's say for the sake of argument that maybe he should have found out. That being the case, you should be criticizing him for not finding it out. You can't very well criticize him for disrespecting a vet if he didn't know he was a vet. Duh.

I don't know why you make a big deal of his being a vet anyway. You don't seem to harbor warm feelings for the Army and I get the impression you were glad to get away. Also, being a vet is not a license to be an intrusive asshole. That's what Phillips is, a piece of shit lying asshole that put himself in that situation and then lied about why he was there and played on snowflake emotions by declaring he could "feel the hate" coming from the Covington kids when they had no fucking clue why he was there. How nauseatingly melodramatic can you get?

He played on your snowflake sensitivities and you bought it like the snowflake stooge you are. He's a fucking douchebag, pure and simple. His being Native American or a veteran be damned.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> he graph only shows that Europe has fewer abortions. It does not explain why white women have comparatively fewer unwanted pregnancies and abortions than black and Hispanic women





> See, again with the racism...



You've been telling me yourself that minorities have more abortions you idiot.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Tell that to successful black people who came from poor backgrounds like Oprah Winfrey.





> Okay, the thing is, you can list these people on one hand and usually, they are very talented and charismatic.
> 
> So...um, how about everyone else?  Maybe some folks aren't telegenic, but STILL don't deserve to be pulled over by a Cop for a Driving While Black.



Now who's the racist? Are you now saying that blacks can't be successful unless they're musically or comedically talented? I named just one successful black person who just happens to be in the entertainment industry. There are countless successful blacks out their in countless professions and from humble backgrounds.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What did I just say you idiot? I just told you they are not this way because of their skin color or race. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Even if I specifically point out that their race and skin color are irrelevant, you have to make it about race. You just can't help yourself, can you?





> Come on, guy...  you can't pretend when you go on and on about lazy minorities, you aren't talking about their race.



I never said or even implied that minorities are lazy. I said the _poor_ minority communities allowed laziness and ennui to infect their communities. And again, I specifically pointed out that they were not this way because of their skin color and race, it was not inevitable and it doesn't have to be this way.

Again, just can't help yourself, can you?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> That doesn't answer the question: Why do you keep pushing this narrative when you know Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?
> 
> But let's say for the sake of argument that maybe he should have found out. That being the case, you should be criticizing him for not finding it out. You can't very well criticize him for disrespecting a vet if he didn't know he was a vet. Duh.



Sure I can. I can criticize him for openly wearing a RACIST MAGA HAT when approaching groups of people of color.  

It's like walking into a synagogue with a swastika armband. 

He knew EXACTLY what he was doing. 

It's why his mommy and daddy had to hire the image consultants to not make him look like a racist douche. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Now who's the racist? Are you now saying that blacks can't be successful unless they're musically or comedically talented? I named just one successful black person who just happens to be in the entertainment industry. There are countless successful blacks out their in countless professions and from humble backgrounds.



And there are MILLIONS living in poverty because we have a racist system that oppresses them from the minute their umbilical cords are cut (the moment conservatives stop caring about them) to the day they die.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I never said or even implied that minorities are lazy. I said the _poor_ minority communities allowed laziness and ennui to infect their communities.



Distinction without a difference.  Funny you don't make these kinds of comments about the poor white trash who live in trailer parks and wear MAGA hats.  Except they kind of deserve the scorn because they keep voting for the people who screw them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Ghost of a Rider said:
> ...



Joe needs real help...I hope he finds it one day...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Joe needs real help...I hope he finds it one day...



Hey, 2AGuy, Marty Robbins wrote a song about you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Joe needs real help...I hope he finds it one day...



  Unfortunately, Dr. Kevorkian is no longer available, so it is difficult to imagine where JoeB131 can find the help that he needs.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Unfortunately, Dr. Kevorkian is no longer available, so it is difficult to imagine where JoeB131 can find the help that he needs.



Wishing death upon people is SOOOO Christian.  

Thanks for proving your hypocrisy, bud.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't answer the question: Why do you keep pushing this narrative when you know Sandmann didn't know he was a vet?
> ...



Sandmann didn't approach anyone. He and his group were waiting for their bus. Phillips approached them. 

Why do you now make an issue of approaching when before you couldn't even acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann? Not only do you not acknowledge this, you lie and say Sandmann approached. 



> It's like walking into a synagogue with a swastika armband.
> 
> He knew EXACTLY what he was doing.



Right. He knew exactly that he was waiting for his bus ride home. Also, the hat was a souvenir from their trip to D.C., that's it. When they had gone to a pro-life march a couple years earlier, he had bought an Obama hat to take home. And not one conservative got triggered by this.



> It's why his mommy and daddy had to hire the image consultants to not make him look like a racist douche.



I think you're triggered more by this than the hat. I don't know what difference this makes to you; you and every other snowflake would still have been triggered by the hat and sheep like you would still be hating him anyway even after the truth came out. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Now who's the racist? Are you now saying that blacks can't be successful unless they're musically or comedically talented? I named just one successful black person who just happens to be in the entertainment industry. There are countless successful blacks out their in countless professions and from humble backgrounds.





> And there are MILLIONS living in poverty because we have a racist system that oppresses them from the minute their umbilical cords are cut (the moment conservatives stop caring about them) to the day they die.



There are millions living in poverty because they don't have the gumption and determination of an Oprah Winfrey or any other successful African American who rose from poverty.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I never said or even implied that minorities are lazy. I said the _poor_ minority communities allowed laziness and ennui to infect their communities.





> Distinction without a difference.



I'm not surprised you don't see the difference. The difference is, I don't think blacks and Hispanics are inherently lazy and incapable of prospering. I believe any person of any color is capable of prospering if they apply themselves and work for it.



> Funny you don't make these kinds of comments about the poor white trash who live in trailer parks and wear MAGA hats.



That's because poor whites are generally not blaming blacks and Hispanics for their poverty. 



> Except they kind of deserve the scorn because they keep voting for the people who screw them.



Johnson was a Democrat you idiot.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sandmann didn't approach anyone. He and his group were waiting for their bus. Phillips approached them.



After they put on Nazi Hats and started chanting "Build the Wall".  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I think you're triggered more by this than the hat. I don't know what difference this makes to you; you and every other snowflake would still have been triggered by the hat and sheep like you would still be hating him anyway even after the truth came out.



I supposed of a jew objected to a Swastika, you'd say, "Well, it's just an armband... not sure what you are getting upset about." 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I'm not surprised you don't see the difference. The difference is, I don't think blacks and Hispanics are inherently lazy and incapable of prospering. I believe any person of any color is capable of prospering if they apply themselves and work for it.



Sure, all they have to do is be Uncle Tom sellouts, and they'll get the same success most white people get, working themselves to death to make a few assholes rich... oh, wait.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 12, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



He needs something alright.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> He needs something alright.



How I know I've won an argument. 

When they talk about me instead of the subject.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > He needs something alright.
> ...




No......we talk about you because talking to you is tiresome and gets old pretty quick...you are lucky we have a capacity to feel sorry for the foolish and the sick...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

2aguy said:


> No......we talk about you because talking to you is tiresome and gets old pretty quick...you are lucky we have a capacity to feel sorry for the foolish and the sick...



Again, Dick Tiny, you spew NRA propaganda and expect to be taken seriously...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Sandmann didn't approach anyone. He and his group were waiting for their bus. Phillips approached them.
> ...



Make up your fucking mind; did Sandmann approach Phillips or the other way around? And they never chanted "Build that wall". You don't hear it anywhere in the original video or in the doctored video you cited. On top of this, you never even watched the original video but you expect me to believe some dipshit who doctored the audio with fucking freeware where the parts he highlighted are about a half second long.

At this point it's pretty clear to me that you'll do or say whatever it takes to keep Sandmann in that box of ignominy in your mind.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I think you're triggered more by this than the hat. I don't know what difference this makes to you; you and every other snowflake would still have been triggered by the hat and sheep like you would still be hating him anyway even after the truth came out.





> I supposed of a jew objected to a Swastika, you'd say, "Well, it's just an armband... not sure what you are getting upset about."



Getting upset is one thing, infringing on someone's right to freedom of speech and expression is something else entirely. As an American citizen, a person has the right, and is entirely within the law, to wear a MAGA hat, a swastika or a Hello Kitty patch. Assaulting them for it is against the law and suggesting they shouldn't be able to express their views while expressing your own is hypocrisy.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I'm not surprised you don't see the difference. The difference is, I don't think blacks and Hispanics are inherently lazy and incapable of prospering. I believe any person of any color is capable of prospering if they apply themselves and work for it.





> Sure, all they have to do is be Uncle Tom sellouts, and they'll get the same success most white people get, working themselves to death to make a few assholes rich... oh, wait.



In other words, you don't want blacks to become successful if they do it the "white man's way" (whatever that means). Is that what you're saying?

Seems to me that with you, a black person has no chance. If he/she remains poor, it's the white man's fault. If he becomes successful, it's the white man's fault and it only means he sold out.

You'd rather they just sit at home accepting free shit from arrogant white fucks like you who look down their noses at them so they'll look upon you as some kind of savior.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Make up your fucking mind; did Sandmann approach Phillips or the other way around?



I made up my mind. He was a little smirking bitch and needed to be slapped around. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> As an American citizen, a person has the right, and is entirely within the law, to wear a MAGA hat, a swastika or a Hello Kitty patch. Assaulting them for it is against the law and suggesting they shouldn't be able to express their views while expressing your own is hypocrisy.



I wasn't aware of anyone wearing a Hello Kitty patch throwing anyone into a concentration camp, but if they did, I'd punch their fucking lights out, too. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Seems to me that with you, a black person has no chance. If he/she remains poor, it's the white man's fault. If he becomes successful, it's the white man's fault and it only means he sold out.



Most of them won't.  I'm not for "Lottery Equality".  We only give you equal rights if you are successful.  

I'm never going to be as rich as Oprah and don't want to be.  But I don't have to worry some cop is going to pull me over "just because" and then shoot me because he panicked.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You'd rather they just sit at home accepting free shit from arrogant white fucks like you who look down their noses at them so they'll look upon you as some kind of savior.



I'm always curious about this "Free Shit" you guys keep talking about.  That you only have value if you work to make some other asshole rich, and how dare you ask for anything else.   

Another Battered Housewife Republican heard from.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, Dick Tiny, you spew NRA propaganda and expect to be taken seriously...



  You certainly have an unhealthy obsession with someone else's genitalia, and with your own unfounded assumption of the size thereof (no doubt based on the reality of your own).

  Does it really not humiliate you in the least, to be waving your sexual inadequacies around in public, in such a manner?  I really don't think anyone else wants to hear of it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Make up your fucking mind; did Sandmann approach Phillips or the other way around?
> ...



You made up your mind he's a smirking little bitch and in order to maintain this fallacy, you have to make him the approacher or the approachee, depending on what you're responding to at the time. Short of actually watching the video, you'll say whatever you need to say to keep Sandmann in the Bad Guy slot.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> As an American citizen, a person has the right, and is entirely within the law, to wear a MAGA hat, a swastika or a Hello Kitty patch. Assaulting them for it is against the law and suggesting they shouldn't be able to express their views while expressing your own is hypocrisy.





> I wasn't aware of anyone wearing a Hello Kitty patch throwing anyone into a concentration camp, but if they did, I'd punch their fucking lights out, too.



Irrelevant. It's illegal to put people in concentration camps, it's not illegal to wish it or express that wish. Besides, no self-styled Nazi today wants to put people in concentration camps. In their minds, they just want everybody to stop demonizing the white race. I share their frustration in fact. I won't wear a swastika to that effect but I and a lot of other whites are getting sick and tired of being blamed for everything and having every issue be made about race. You are one of the more guilty ones.

Just one example:  

In the 2017 Miss Universe Pageant, Miss Jamaica won second runner up to Miss South Africa, who won the title. Many immediately got on Twitter and social media to criticize the win, saying they felt like Miss Jamaica should have won because, and I quote: "She rocks an afro." In other words, the black woman should have won.

So these people are saying that pageant judges should just chuck all the other talents and qualities that they judge by and give the win to this woman because she looks good in an afro. 

By itself this doesn't mean much and would be amusing under other circumstances. But there is a lot of shit like this going on in this country right now where whites are being made to feel ashamed of their skin color and the past deeds of other white people. Again, you are one of the more guilty ones.

I for one will not be ashamed of my skin color, nor will I apologize for slavery or institutionalized racism because I am guilty of neither. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Seems to me that with you, a black person has no chance. If he/she remains poor, it's the white man's fault. If he becomes successful, it's the white man's fault and it only means he sold out.





> Most of them won't.



So can you tell me which successful blacks sold out and which ones didn't?  



> I'm not for "Lottery Equality".  We only give you equal rights if you are successful.



So, successful blacks became successful _before_ having equal rights? And then got equal rights _after_ they became successful? Is that what you're telling me? Are successful blacks aware of this? 



> I'm never going to be as rich as Oprah and don't want to be.  But I don't have to worry some cop is going to pull me over "just because" and then shoot me because he panicked.



According to an FBI report, 44 police officers were murdered in the line of duty by suspects in 2019. There's a reason some of these cops panic. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You'd rather they just sit at home accepting free shit from arrogant white fucks like you who look down their noses at them so they'll look upon you as some kind of savior.





> I'm always curious about this "Free Shit" you guys keep talking about.



What exactly are you confused about? You're the one always promoting it: free contraceptives, free health care, etc.



> That you only have value if you work to make some other asshole rich, and how dare you ask for anything else.



Are you saying they shouldn't work because it'll just make some asshole rich? Is this why you want to keep minorities on the public dole, so they don't enrich another group you hate?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Incorrect and irrelevant. You still refused to acknowledge that Phillips approached Sandmann.
> ...



How long have you been a child abuser?

I guess an adult would kick the fuck out of you, so you have to abuse children....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You made up your mind he's a smirking little bitch



Yup. Pretty much from the first second I saw him.  All the little image consultants Mommy Could Buy doesn't make him anything else. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. It's illegal to put people in concentration camps, it's not illegal to wish it or express that wish. Besides, no self-styled Nazi today wants to put people in concentration camps.



Asshole, Trump is putting people in concentration camps now.  Shut the fuck up. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So, successful blacks became successful _before_ having equal rights? And then got equal rights _after_ they became successful? Is that what you're telling me? Are successful blacks aware of this?



I'm sure you've always had sellouts, even before Jim Crow ended... it doesn't take away from the racist foundations of this country. 

Racism is America's original sin.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> According to an FBI report, 44 police officers were murdered in the line of duty by suspects in 2019. There's a reason some of these cops panic.



Okay. Let's look at that.  44 Cops shot by suspects in LOD incidents.  Compared to 65 who were killed in traffic accidents.  I mean, it would be nice if we didn't let every maniac who wanted a gun have one, but again, tiny dicks need to be compensated for.  

BY COMPARISON- 900 Americans are shot every year by Police.  Many of them people of color. A lot of them were unarmed.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What exactly are you confused about? You're the one always promoting it: free contraceptives, free health care, etc.



None of that is "Shit", it's needed public services. The rest of the world has figured this out already.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you saying they shouldn't work because it'll just make some asshole rich? Is this why you want to keep minorities on the public dole, so they don't enrich another group you hate?



No, dummy. Here's the problem with that racist statement.  Most people on the dole ARE working.  44% of households that get SNAP have at least one person who is working.  Same with Section 8, Medicaid, or any of the other "on the dole" socialism you fuckheads whine about.   They work hard, some asshole gets rich, the government pays them just enough to keep them from rioting and burning the whole system to the ground.  

Now, if we had an equitable system.  Everyone has a job that pays enough for the basics.  Health care is a public service not linked to your ability to work. You don't have a concentration of the wealth at the top.  

LBJ figured you guys out a long time ago.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 12, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You made up your mind he's a smirking little bitch
> ...



Not even the truth that he heckled no one and never left his spot at the memorial, huh?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. It's illegal to put people in concentration camps, it's not illegal to wish it or express that wish. Besides, no self-styled Nazi today wants to put people in concentration camps.





> Asshole, Trump is putting people in concentration camps now.  Shut the fuck up.



Melodrama much? Asshole, mandatory immigration detention was authorized and started by Bill Clinton (Democrat) in 1996. For the next two years the number of immigrants in detention nearly doubled under his administration. By 2008 the number had reached over 30,000 under Bush Jr.. Trump is not doing any more than past presidents did. 

As for the facilities themselves, the largest facility in McAllen, Texas was opend in 2014 under the Obama administration. Another large detention facility is located in Clint, Texas and was opened in 2013, also under the Obama administration. 
All the detention centers we have were opened and operating long before Trump got into office. So if they're concentration camps then Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama built them. Trump is just using what was already there.

Shut the fuck up.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So, successful blacks became successful _before_ having equal rights? And then got equal rights _after_ they became successful? Is that what you're telling me? Are successful blacks aware of this?





> I'm sure you've always had sellouts, even before Jim Crow ended... it doesn't take away from the racist foundations of this country.



It doesn't negate the fact that, going by what you said, successful blacks became successful _in spite of_ not having equal rights. 



> Racism is America's original sin.



Yours is prevarication and willful ignorance.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> According to an FBI report, 44 police officers were murdered in the line of duty by suspects in 2019. There's a reason some of these cops panic.





> Okay. Let's look at that.  44 Cops shot by suspects in LOD incidents.  Compared to 65 who were killed in traffic accidents.  I mean, it would be nice if we didn't let every maniac who wanted a gun have one, but again, tiny dicks need to be compensated for.



Funny, when I mentioned that more people are killed in car accidents than by firearms, you dismissed it out of hand. You are a craven hypocrite. 



> BY COMPARISON- 900 Americans are shot every year by Police.  Many of them people of color. A lot of them were unarmed.



How many were armed? I'll bet you have no fucking idea and I'll also bet you won't bother to find out.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What exactly are you confused about? You're the one always promoting it: free contraceptives, free health care, etc.





> None of that is "Shit", it's needed public services. The rest of the world has figured this out already.



Great, let 'em do it their way if it works for them. I don't think it would work well here and they proved that with the way they fucked up the VA hospitals with the way they ran them. 

If you really gave a shit about veterans, you would go and protest at these places for _this_ is where vets really get disrespected. A smiling kid in a MAGA hat ain't shit compared to a guy with PTSD unable to get proper care. That sort of thing is only a problem for easily triggered snowflakes like yourself. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you saying they shouldn't work because it'll just make some asshole rich? Is this why you want to keep minorities on the public dole, so they don't enrich another group you hate?





> No, dummy. Here's the problem with that racist statement.



You said it, not me.



> Most people on the dole ARE working.  44% of households that get SNAP have at least one person who is working.  Same with Section 8, Medicaid, or any of the other "on the dole" socialism you fuckheads whine about.   They work hard, some asshole gets rich, the government pays them just enough to keep them from rioting and burning the whole system to the ground.



If they're working, what the fuck are you bitching about?



> Now, if we had an equitable system.  Everyone has a job that pays enough for the basics.  Health care is a public service not linked to your ability to work. You don't have a concentration of the wealth at the top.



You can't force businesses to hand out jobs they can't afford or don't want. And beyond minimum wage, you can't force them to pay a certain amount.



> LBJ figured you guys out a long time ago.



LBJ was a racist pig. He looked down his nose at blacks and was known to utter the word n***er all the time.

Sorry, but I don't think LBJ had a firm grasp on reality.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Melodrama much? Asshole, mandatory immigration detention was authorized and started by Bill Clinton (Democrat) in 1996. For the next two years the number of immigrants in detention nearly doubled under his administration. By 2008 the number had reached over 30,000 under Bush Jr.. Trump is not doing any more than past presidents did.



Bush and Clinton didn't create concentration camps for these people like Trump did where they are denied even personal hygeine products.   Also should point out that under Clinton, we had a million border apprehensions a year, compared to when the Fuhrer took office, it was down to 300K.   No need for vicious tactics. 

Other than to be a prick to be a prick's sake. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Great, let 'em do it their way if it works for them. I don't think it would work well here and they proved that with the way they fucked up the VA hospitals with the way they ran them.



The only thing that caused a  problem for VA hosptials is Bush got us into a 19 year war and then cut funding to them.  Before Bush fucked it up, the VA had the best record for a public system. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If they're working, what the fuck are you bitching about?



That they can't put food on the table or a roof over their heads.  This goes for poor white trash with MAGA hats as well.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You can't force businesses to hand out jobs they can't afford or don't want. And beyond minimum wage, you can't force them to pay a certain amount.



Sure we can. We can raise minimum wage.  If businesses can't pay a fair wage, then we start government programs to do the same functions and they pay a good wage.  This isn't complicated.  The Europeans have already figured this out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Funny, when I mentioned that more people are killed in car accidents than by firearms, you dismissed it out of hand. You are a craven hypocrite.



We need cars.  We don't need guns.   That a lot of cops drive like maniacs chasing speeders and get killed is also part of the problem.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many were armed? I'll bet you have no fucking idea and I'll also bet you won't bother to find out.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

933 were shot by police in 2019.  Only half of them had guns.  (539).  Supposedly.  I'm sure a lot of them were "found" with weapons after they were dead.  

The cops shot a mountain Lion here in Chicago a couple of years ago, and a columnist joked the cops put a gun in his paw.  
"That won't be necessary this time, Clancy!"


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 13, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Melodrama much? Asshole, mandatory immigration detention was authorized and started by Bill Clinton (Democrat) in 1996. For the next two years the number of immigrants in detention nearly doubled under his administration. By 2008 the number had reached over 30,000 under Bush Jr.. Trump is not doing any more than past presidents did.
> ...



Do you think these people are appearing out of thin air? They are coming here from their homes where they _have_ hygiene products and everything else they need. They can bring their own hygiene products for Christ's sake or they can just STAY HOME. Nobody's forcing them to come here. 

Here's the thing, you want free health care, which means it is provided by the government and funded with taxes. But you want us to just allow people to cross our borders undocumented and not have them pay their fair share of taxes to help fund the health care system or any other government-provided service. The government would have to raise _our_ taxes to continue to provide health care to the added people not contributing to it. 

Illegal immigrants are a drain on the system to the tune of $116 _billion_ dollars a year, according to a 2017 report by the Immigration Reform Law Institute. What's more, many of these people not paying taxes are sending the money they make to their families in their home countries. According to a Forbes article published in April of 2019, immigrants sent $148 billion dollars to their home countries in 2017. That's $148 billion dollars of income that was not taxed and will not be spent on American products and services which would in turn bolster the economy of the country they chose to enter illegally. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Great, let 'em do it their way if it works for them. I don't think it would work well here and they proved that with the way they fucked up the VA hospitals with the way they ran them.





> The only thing that caused a  problem for VA hosptials is Bush got us into a 19 year war and then cut funding to them.  Before Bush fucked it up, the VA had the best record for a public system.



Irrelevant. The point is, you fell over yourself scrambling to defend a veteran who _placed himself _in a situation where he had to experience - *_gasp* -_ the horror of a smiling teenager, but I'm betting you probably never said or did squat about the VA hospital situation. Even if you did, you probably did not lavish the kind of contempt for them that you reserved for the white Catholic kid. Tell me I'm wrong.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If they're working, what the fuck are you bitching about?





> That they can't put food on the table or a roof over their heads.  This goes for poor white trash with MAGA hats as well.



So they have jobs _and_ government assistance but can't buy food and don't have homes? That's quite a stretch.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You can't force businesses to hand out jobs they can't afford or don't want. And beyond minimum wage, you can't force them to pay a certain amount.





> Sure we can. We can raise minimum wage.  If businesses can't pay a fair wage, then we start government programs to do the same functions and they pay a good wage.  This isn't complicated.  The Europeans have already figured this out.



It's not as simple as raising minimum wage. If they do that, more businesses are going to lay off full time employees and hire part time because they can't afford the insurance and benefits. It's happening already.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 13, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Funny, when I mentioned that more people are killed in car accidents than by firearms, you dismissed it out of hand. You are a craven hypocrite.
> ...



I didn't say anything about cops dying in the line of duty. I'm talking about cops being _murdered_, dumbass. With that many officers being killed each year, it's no wonder some are jumpy and panic.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many were armed? I'll bet you have no fucking idea and I'll also bet you won't bother to find out.





> https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/
> 
> 933 were shot by police in 2019.  Only half of them had guns.  (539).  Supposedly.  I'm sure a lot of them were "found" with weapons after they were dead.



Where are you getting the 539 number from? I don't see it in the article you linked. And the Washington Post is so far left, I take what they say with a grain of salt.



> The cops shot a mountain Lion here in Chicago a couple of years ago, and a columnist joked the cops put a gun in his paw.
> "That won't be necessary this time, Clancy!"



A mountain lion? Really? Are you seriously suggesting they should have tried to physically subdue and handcuff a _mountain lion_? Jesus.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Illegal immigrants are a drain on the system to the tune of $116 _billion_ dollars a year, according to a 2017 report by the Immigration Reform Law Institute. What's more, many of these people not paying taxes are sending the money they make to their families in their home countries. According to a Forbes article published in April of 2019, immigrants sent $148 billion dollars to their home countries in 2017. That's $148 billion dollars of income that was not taxed and will not be spent on American products and services which would in turn bolster the economy of the country they chose to enter illegally.



Okay, this tired old canard again. 

Undocumented immigrants are an economic boost for the country overall, because they do the jobs that Americans won't do.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I didn't say anything about cops dying in the line of duty. I'm talking about cops being _murdered_, dumbass. With that many officers being killed each year, it's no wonder some are jumpy and panic.



44 cops a year?  Sorry, man, that's just not that big of a number to justify cases like Laquan McDonald or Tamir Rice or Sandra Bland.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Where are you getting the 539 number from? I don't see it in the article you linked. And the Washington Post is so far left, I take what they say with a grain of salt.



Sorry, the Daily Stormer doesn't cover this issue. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> A mountain lion? Really? Are you seriously suggesting they should have tried to physically subdue and handcuff a _mountain lion_? Jesus.



Wow - you missed the joke entirely, didn't you?  The joke, by Chicago Sun Times Neil Steinberg, was that the cops tried to plant a gun on the mountain lion because that's usually what they do when they shoot someone.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 13, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Undocumented immigrants are an economic boost for the country overall, because they do the jobs that Americans won't do.



  Whatever benefit this country can get from immigrants should be accomplished through legal immigration.  Our nation should enact and enforce policies which allow foreigners to legally enter and be presenting our country, in accordance with what is in the best interests of this country and its rightful citizens.

  Nothing about any potential benefit from immigration justifies surrendering our nation's security and sovereignty to gangs of invading foreign criminals, nor in treasonously giving any kind of aid, comfort, or even tolerance to these invaders or to any traitors who take their side.

  Any American citizen who knowingly assists such invaders—especially corrupt public servants who abuse the powers of their positions to do so—should be arrested, tried for treason, and on conviction, be either put to death, or thrown in prison for life with no possibility of parole.

  Filthy traitors, who take the side of foreign invaders against that of their own country and of their own fellow Americans, are the very lowest of criminals, and should be treated accordingly.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 13, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Illegal immigrants are a drain on the system to the tune of $116 _billion_ dollars a year, according to a 2017 report by the Immigration Reform Law Institute. What's more, many of these people not paying taxes are sending the money they make to their families in their home countries. According to a Forbes article published in April of 2019, immigrants sent $148 billion dollars to their home countries in 2017. That's $148 billion dollars of income that was not taxed and will not be spent on American products and services which would in turn bolster the economy of the country they chose to enter illegally.
> ...



Not good enough. If you and they want free health care then they're going to have to pay their fair share to get it. 

You know who benefits from illegal immigrant workers? Those rich assholes you hate so much. It's a win-win for the rich assholes and the illegals because the rich guys get cheap labor and the illegals get income they don't pay taxes on. In the meantime, the rest of _us_ are paying taxes to provide_ them_ with government services.

Fuck that shit. If overcrowded detention centers is what it takes to cut down on that illegal shit, keep cramming them in there. That or turn them away. As you can plainly see, we have our own problems. What with people wanting to feed seventeen year old kids into a wood chipper because they had no fucking clue what really happened.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I didn't say anything about cops dying in the line of duty. I'm talking about cops being _murdered_, dumbass. With that many officers being killed each year, it's no wonder some are jumpy and panic.





> 44 cops a year?  Sorry, man, that's just not that big of a number to justify cases like Laquan McDonald or Tamir Rice or Sandra Bland.



It's not a fucking contest you idiot.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Where are you getting the 539 number from? I don't see it in the article you linked. And the Washington Post is so far left, I take what they say with a grain of salt.





> Sorry, the Daily Stormer doesn't cover this issue.



I don't even know what the Daily Stormer is. And you didn't answer the question: where did you get the 539 number from?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> A mountain lion? Really? Are you seriously suggesting they should have tried to physically subdue and handcuff a _mountain lion_? Jesus.





> Wow - you missed the joke entirely, didn't you?  The joke, by Chicago Sun Times Neil Steinberg, was that the cops tried to plant a gun on the mountain lion because that's usually what they do when they shoot someone.



Sounds like this Steinberg is a moron.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 13, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, the Daily Stormer doesn't cover this issue.
> ...



  I'd never even heard of the Daily Stormer until some discussion, some months back, where some piece of *LI*b*E*ral filth persisted in repeatedly suggesting that it was the source from which I and the other sane people in the conversation were getting all the points with which that *LI*b*E*ral disagreed.

  It turns out to be some rather extreme neo-nazi/white supremacist web site, that none of us would ever have cited or in any way treated as credible.

  And interestingly, though it wasn't he who initiated that lie, look who it is that repeated it very shortly after I responded to it, followed by one of his usual bigoted and completely irrelevant digs at my religion.



JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see anyone crying because you mislabeled his favorite web site.
> ...



  A funny thing about JoeB131, as fond as he is of falsely accusing everyone else of bigotry, is how, even while doing so, he just cannot help waving his own bigotry around for everyone to see.  No self-awareness at all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Whatever benefit this country can get from immigrants should be accomplished through legal immigration. Our nation should enact and enforce policies which allow foreigners to legally enter and be presenting our country, in accordance with what is in the best interests of this country and its rightful citizens.



The problem with that is that your side has opposed common sense immigration reform since the 1990's.  Even the very sensible bill that John McCain and George W. Bush proposed. (Ah, remember when Republicans weren't a bunch of racist nazis?)  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Nothing about any potential benefit from immigration justifies surrendering our nation's security and sovereignty to gangs of invading foreign criminals, nor in treasonously giving any kind of aid, comfort, or even tolerance to these invaders or to any traitors who take their side.



Oooooh, invaders.  Hey, guy, invaders come with tanks and bombs and want to take your stuff. Undocumented immigrants come in with families and do shitty jobs you don't want to do. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Any American citizen who knowingly assists such invaders—especially corrupt public servants who abuse the powers of their positions to do so—should be arrested, tried for treason, and on conviction, be either put to death, or thrown in prison for life with no possibility of parole.



Wow- such anger...  Hey, Mormon Bob, tell us again what a good Christian you are, that shit never gets old.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> Filthy traitors, who take the side of foreign invaders against that of their own country and of their own fellow Americans, are the very lowest of criminals, and should be treated accordingly.



Again, Bob, it's fun to watch you spew and anger.  

150 years ago, some bigoted POS like you said this about the Irish
100 years ago, some bigoted POS like you said this about the Germans. It's why no one has pronounced my family name correction in 90 years.  (We had to "Americanize" the pronunciation) 
50 years ago, some bigoted POS like you said this about the Polish. I'm still old enough to remember Pollock jokes being a thing. 
Now you fume about the Mexicans... 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I'd never even heard of the Daily Stormer until some discussion, some months back, where some piece of *LI*b*E*ral filth persisted in repeatedly suggesting that it was the source from which I and the other sane people in the conversation were getting all the points with which that *LI*b*E*ral disagreed.
> 
> It turns out to be some rather extreme neo-nazi/white supremacist web site, that none of us would ever have cited or in any way treated as credible.



But oddly, you all say the same kinds of things... why is that?  



Bob Blaylock said:


> A funny thing about JoeB131, as fond as he is of falsely accusing everyone else of bigotry, is how, even while doing so, he just cannot help waving his own bigotry around for everyone to see. No self-awareness at all.



Not at all.  Either Joseph Smith was talking to God, or he was a two-bit conman who wanted to fuck little girls.  If you are dumb enough to believe the former, even when presented with history, then you've made a CHOICE.  I don't despise your cult for who you are, I despise you for what you believe.  The fact that you just spent a whole thread wanting to put people to DEATH for merely not going along with Trump's Nazi tactics says a lot about you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Fuck that shit. If overcrowded detention centers is what it takes to cut down on that illegal shit, keep cramming them in there. That or turn them away. As you can plainly see, we have our own problems. What with people wanting to feed seventeen year old kids into a wood chipper because they had no fucking clue what really happened.



I'm sure there were Germans in 1940 who said the same thing about Buchenwald and "solving" the Jewish problem.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It's not a fucking contest you idiot.



Oh, but it is.  We have WAAAAAYYYY to many cases of cops whipping out their guns and blasting away. Now, if there were hundreds of cops being killed, I could see that.  But there aren't. What we do have are kids being killed playing with toys, guys being shot in their living room because some Cop got distracted and got off on the wrong floor, babies being burned by explosive ordnance because they got the address wrong.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't even know what the Daily Stormer is. And you didn't answer the question: where did you get the 539 number from?



It was in the WaPo Link, on one of the pull-downs.. look, guy, I'm not doing your research for you.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sounds like this Steinberg is a moron.



Neil Steinberg

Neil Steinberg is a columnist on staff at the _Chicago Sun-Times_. He has also written for _Esquire_, _Granta_, _Rolling Stone_, _Forbes_, _Sports Illustrated_, the _Washington Post_, the _New York Daily News_ and many other publications. He writes daily on his aptly named blog Every Goddamn Day. The author of eight books, his most recent is _Out of the Wreck I Rise: A literary companion to recovery_, written with Sara Bader and published by the University of Chicago Press in 2016.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > A funny thing about JoeB131, as fond as he is of falsely accusing everyone else of bigotry, is how, even while doing so, he just cannot help waving his own bigotry around for everyone to see. No self-awareness at all.
> ...



  Quod erat demonstrandum.

  Not even a hint of self-awareness.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure there were Germans in 1940 who said the same thing about Buchenwald and "solving" the Jewish problem.



  The Nazis were never about defending their own country from foreign invaders.  They were about purging their country of those who had as much right to be there, but who the Nazis regarded as less than human.  In fact, about whom they had exactly the same attitude that you have about some of your own fellow Americans…


JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people, and women who don't want to be pregnant will find a way to end their pregnancies no matter what the law is.



  Before you go invoking Godwin's Law, you might want to consider a proverb about glass houses and flying rocks.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck that shit. If overcrowded detention centers is what it takes to cut down on that illegal shit, keep cramming them in there. That or turn them away. As you can plainly see, we have our own problems. What with people wanting to feed seventeen year old kids into a wood chipper because they had no fucking clue what really happened.
> ...



Grow up, this is a specious comparison. The Jews didn't have a choice, these people do. They choose to come here, they choose to stay in the detention centers and they have the choice to leave. What's more, they know by now that the detention centers are crowded and they choose to come anyway. Also, the people that choose to come here are either sent back or granted asylum and allowed into the country after they've been processed.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. The Hitler and Nazis comparison is a fallacy and is a sign that you've lost the argument.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It's not a fucking contest you idiot.





> Oh, but it is.  We have WAAAAAYYYY to many cases of cops whipping out their guns and blasting away. Now, if there were hundreds of cops being killed, I could see that.  But there aren't. What we do have are kids being killed playing with toys, guys being shot in their living room because some Cop got distracted and got off on the wrong floor, babies being burned by explosive ordnance because they got the address wrong.



How many cops have to be murdered in the line of duty before they should be concerned about being murdered in the line of duty? Again, this is not a contest and I'm not making comparisons. I'm saying that as an officer, there is a real possibility some suspect may suddenly pull a gun and kill you. Therefore, some officers panic. It's not that complicated.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I don't even know what the Daily Stormer is. And you didn't answer the question: where did you get the 539 number from?





> It was in the WaPo Link, on one of the pull-downs.. look, guy, I'm not doing your research for you.



Then why did you post the link at all?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sounds like this Steinberg is a moron.





> Neil Steinberg
> 
> Neil Steinberg is a columnist on staff at the _Chicago Sun-Times_. He has also written for _Esquire_, _Granta_, _Rolling Stone_, _Forbes_, _Sports Illustrated_, the _Washington Post_, the _New York Daily News_ and many other publications. He writes daily on his aptly named blog Every Goddamn Day. The author of eight books, his most recent is _Out of the Wreck I Rise: A literary companion to recovery_, written with Sara Bader and published by the University of Chicago Press in 2016.



If he - even in jest - alludes to officers planting guns, he simply reinforces the anti-police sentiment sweeping the country and makes their job that much more difficult and dangerous. He's a moron.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Quod erat demonstrandum.
> 
> Not even a hint of self-awareness.



Couldn't even answer my point, could you?  YOu've made a choice to belong to a cult... deal with it. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> The Nazis were never about defending their own country from foreign invaders. They were about purging their country of those who had as much right to be there, but who the Nazis regarded as less than human. In fact, about whom they had exactly the same attitude that you have about some of your own fellow Americans…





Bob Blaylock said:


> Before you go invoking Godwin's Law, you might want to consider a proverb about glass houses and flying rocks



Fetuses aren't people under the law, Mormon Bob.  And a good thing, too, as they would have more rights than the woman they are inside if they did.  

But getting back to Hitler, what he said about the Jews and what you say about Mexican Americans... really no fucking difference   Arguing over who owns the land or who has the right to be here is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they are on.  

The reality is, we STOLE half the country from Mexico...  and you are bitching because they are reasserting themselves?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grow up, this is a specious comparison. The Jews didn't have a choice, these people do. They choose to come here, they choose to stay in the detention centers and they have the choice to leave. What's more, they know by now that the detention centers are crowded and they choose to come anyway. Also, the people that choose to come here are either sent back or granted asylum and allowed into the country after they've been processed.
> 
> Reductio ad Hitlerum. The Hitler and Nazis comparison is a fallacy and is a sign that you've lost the argument.



YOu realize that exterminating them wasn't Hitler's original plan, right.  The plan was to relocate them outside the Reich. The idea of encouraging them to leave by making where they were more miserable than the place they wanted to send them kind of does have a familiar ring. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many cops have to be murdered in the line of duty before they should be concerned about being murdered in the line of duty? Again, this is not a contest and I'm not making comparisons. I'm saying that as an officer, there is a real possibility some suspect may suddenly pull a gun and kill you. Therefore, some officers panic. It's not that complicated.



It's their job to NOT panic.  If they are prone to panic, I don't want them to be cops.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If he - even in jest - alludes to officers planting guns, he simply reinforces the anti-police sentiment sweeping the country and makes their job that much more difficult and dangerous. He's a moron.



Neil Steinberg joking about what cops are doing isn't causing anti-police sentiment.  

It's that cops are shooting innocent people and largely not getting held accountable.  

If people in Chicago have an anti-Police Sentiment, it's because they saw a video of LaQuan McDonald being shot 16 times when he was lying on the ground.  NOT because they read a kind of funny joke that Neil wrote in his column.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> The fact that you just spent a whole thread wanting to put people to DEATH for merely not going along with Trump's Nazi tactics says a lot about you.



  What you call _“Trump's Nazi tactics”_ is his desire, and attempt to enact policies, which enforce this nation's laws, and defend this nation against hostile foreign invasion.

  To side with foreign invaders, to give them aid, comfort and support, exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

  Treason is a capital crime, legitimately punishable by death.

  It says a lot about you, that you openly, treasonously take the side of hostile foreign invaders, against that of your own country and of your own fellow Americans.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people under the law, Mormon Bob.  And a good thing, too, as they would have more rights than the woman they are inside if they did.



  Jews and other _“undesirables”_ weren't people under the law, in Nazi Germany.  Blacks and Indians weren't people under the law even in the early history of this country.

  You're just as wrong as they were.




JoeB131 said:


> But getting back to Hitler, what he said about the Jews and what you say about Mexican Americans... really no fucking difference   Arguing over who owns the land or who has the right to be here is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they are on.



  Invading foreign criminals are not Americans.

  And I have nothing against, and have never said anything against legitimate _“Mexican-Americans”_.  I have nothing against anyone who enters and remains in this country legally, in accordance with our laws.

  But unlike you, I am not a piece of subhuman traitorous shit, who betrays my country and my fellow Americans, by siding with foreign criminals who illegally invade our country.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 14, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Grow up, this is a specious comparison. The Jews didn't have a choice, these people do. They choose to come here, they choose to stay in the detention centers and they have the choice to leave. What's more, they know by now that the detention centers are crowded and they choose to come anyway. Also, the people that choose to come here are either sent back or granted asylum and allowed into the country after they've been processed.
> ...



Bullshit, irrelevant and fallacious analogy. Again, the choice is entirely theirs to either stay in the crowded detention center or leave. Also, the purpose of the detention center is a place for them to wait while being processed. Always has been. It's crowded because immigration law is being enforced and there are so many of them. 

Immigration law needs to be enforced and your snowflake sensitivities are immaterial to that end.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How many cops have to be murdered in the line of duty before they should be concerned about being murdered in the line of duty? Again, this is not a contest and I'm not making comparisons. I'm saying that as an officer, there is a real possibility some suspect may suddenly pull a gun and kill you. Therefore, some officers panic. It's not that complicated.





> It's their job to NOT panic.  If they are prone to panic, I don't want them to be cops.



What if they're prone to detest a seventeen year old for smiling? Would they be justified in panicking then? I mean, you panicked so I would think you'd be a little more understanding. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If he - even in jest - alludes to officers planting guns, he simply reinforces the anti-police sentiment sweeping the country and makes their job that much more difficult and dangerous. He's a moron.





> Neil Steinberg joking about what cops are doing isn't causing anti-police sentiment.



I didn't say it caused it, I said it reinforces it, and it does. 

Can you tell me that you don't view the entire law enforcement community with distrust? Are you one to immediately assume that when there's a cop shooting that he panicked or was racist? Or do you wait for the results of the inquiry? Be honest. 



> It's that cops are shooting innocent people and largely not getting held accountable.
> 
> If people in Chicago have an anti-Police Sentiment, it's because they saw a video of LaQuan McDonald being shot 16 times when he was lying on the ground.  NOT because they read a kind of funny joke that Neil wrote in his column.



The anti-police sentiment is nationwide, not just Chicago. This sentiment has been directly responsible for the assassination of police officers. Remember Baton Rouge? It has also contributed to people harassing officers while they are in the due process of enforcing the law and arresting people. It has also resulted in people being unnecessarily belligerent and uncooperative for no reason other than they are cops.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Jews and other _“undesirables”_ weren't people under the law, in Nazi Germany. Blacks and Indians weren't people under the law even in the early history of this country.
> 
> You're just as wrong as they were.



Actually, no.  That was never a part of German law, even under the Nazis.  Fetuses have never been people under American law. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Invading foreign criminals are not Americans.
> 
> And I have nothing against, and have never said anything against legitimate _“Mexican-Americans”_. I have nothing against anyone who enters and remains in this country legally, in accordance with our laws.
> 
> But unlike you, I am not a piece of subhuman traitorous shit, who betrays my country and my fellow Americans, by siding with foreign criminals who illegally invade our country.



Again, guy, your boy is going after people who have been here for decades, some of whom are legitimate immigrants, some of whom were even born here.  My neighbor, for instance, was born in Texas, but they tried to claim that her birth documents were forged.  This is the shit your Nazis are bringing to our country.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> What you call _“Trump's Nazi tactics”_ is his desire, and attempt to enact policies, which enforce this nation's laws, and defend this nation against hostile foreign invasion.
> 
> To side with foreign invaders, to give them aid, comfort and support, exactly meets the definition of treason, as found in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
> 
> ...



Uh, guy, let's not forget, your Fucking Cult tried to carve out it's own country in 1857.

Utah War - Wikipedia

  If there are any traitorous pieces of shit, it was this child molesting piece of shit. .


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit, irrelevant and fallacious analogy. Again, the choice is entirely theirs to either stay in the crowded detention center or leave. Also, the purpose of the detention center is a place for them to wait while being processed. Always has been. It's crowded because immigration law is being enforced and there are so many of them.
> 
> Immigration law needs to be enforced and your snowflake sensitivities are immaterial to that end.



For what it costs to put them in a concentration camp, you could put them in a nice hotel.  What we were doing before was just fine, most of them stayed with friends and showed up to their hearings.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What if they're prone to detest a seventeen year old for smiling? Would they be justified in panicking then? I mean, you panicked so I would think you'd be a little more understanding.



If a cop shot Smirky McBitchslap, that would be wrong, too.  Thinking he's a little entitled punk isn't panicking.  Man, talk about White Privilege Butthurt...  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I didn't say it caused it, I said it reinforces it, and it does.
> 
> Can you tell me that you don't view the entire law enforcement community with distrust? Are you one to immediately assume that when there's a cop shooting that he panicked or was racist? Or do you wait for the results of the inquiry? Be honest.



Here's the thing. 99% of cops are great guys... but they tend to protect the 1% who aren't.  Pretty much like any profession, you have people who should have picked something else on Career Day. Unlike other professions, they don't get rid of the bad apples.

Take the officer who shot LaQuan McDonald.  The other cops on the scene didn't whip out their guns and shoot him. They did all file false reports indicating the kid was more of a threat than he actually was. They went to neighboring buildings and erased video evidence. The Police Department up to the Superintendent signed off on the"official" story until someone got a hold of the video tape from one of the police cars that wasn't erased. the FOP went to the mattresses for this guy, spending millions on his defense.   The City tried to keep it quiet by paying off the family.  . 

This cop had 20 complaints by civilians for excessive force prior to this, including one incident where he dislocated a suspect's shoulder and the city had to pay out $375,000.00 in damages.  The City of Chicago paid out $180 MILLION in settling police misconduct lawsuits in 2018. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The anti-police sentiment is nationwide, not just Chicago. This sentiment has been directly responsible for the assassination of police officers. Remember Baton Rouge? It has also contributed to people harassing officers while they are in the due process of enforcing the law and arresting people. It has also resulted in people being unnecessarily belligerent and uncooperative for no reason other than they are cops.



Yes, the police have lost the trust of the community. 

Here's the real problem. For years, minorities have rightly complained that police routinely abuse them in a way that white people aren't abused. And white people, being white people, dismissed that for years.  Then everyone and his brother got a cell phone with a video camera on it, and now we are seeing how this shit played out.  

Yes, anti-police sentiment is growing because we now get to see video of Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott in the back and then trying to plant a weapon on him.  We get video of Brian Encinia escalating a bullshit traffic stop on Sandra Bland to an unjustified arrest that led to her death.  

I also find it kind of amusing that you think that the shooting of cops is a "tragedy", when you right wing gun nuts INSIST that the reason you done needs you some guns is to fights the government, just like the Founding Fathers did.  Well, who do cops work for?  THE GOVERNMENT.  What did you think that was going to look like? 

Or is this another one of those rights you only think applies to White People?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 15, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, guy, your boy is going after people who have been here for decades, some of whom are legitimate immigrants, some of whom were even born here. My neighbor, for instance, was born in Texas, but they tried to claim that her birth documents were forged. This is the shit your Nazis are bringing to our country.



  I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine.  That's a lie, and you know damned well that it's a lie.

  This administration has nothing against legitimate immigrants.  It is only invading foreign criminals that they or I have any problem with.  I also have a big problem with treasonous, America-hating, subhuman pieces of shit such as yourself who openly take the side of these hostile foreign invaders against that of your own country and your own fellow Americans.





JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, let's not forget, your Fucking Cult tried to carve out it's own country in 1857.
> 
> Utah War - Wikipedia
> 
> ...



    It was the United States that instigated this war, attempting to attack and invade what, at the time, was another sovereign nation founded by my ancestors, who had been violently and illegally driven out of what then constituted the United States.  It is not treason for the inhabitants of one nation to defend themselves and their nation against attack by a foreign nation, which is what happened there.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It was the United States that instigated this war, attempting to attack and invade what, at the time, was another sovereign nation founded by my ancestors, who had been violently and illegally driven out of what previously constituted the United States. It is not treason for the inhabitants of one nation to defend themselves and their nation against attack by a foreign nation, which is what happened here.



Oh, so when your ancestors slaughtered the Francher Party at the Mountain Meadow Massacre, they were totally defending their "sovereignty".   

Tell me, what treaty gave Utah to the Mormon Nation?  Because there was a treaty between the US and Mexico that ceded Utah to the United States.  

Maybe if Buchanan had hung the Mormon Leaders for their attempt at Treason, the South wouldn't have tried to pull the shit they pulled....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 15, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit, irrelevant and fallacious analogy. Again, the choice is entirely theirs to either stay in the crowded detention center or leave. Also, the purpose of the detention center is a place for them to wait while being processed. Always has been. It's crowded because immigration law is being enforced and there are so many of them.
> ...



This might be a reasonable argument if they were actually being put in concentration camps. But alas, they are not. As for the cost, it would be nowhere near the same. "Put them in a nice hotel" yet. What color is the sky where you live?

You already lost the argument when you made the Hitler/Nazi comparison. Your style of argument is what's called _argumentum ad passiones or, Appeal to Emotion._ One who uses this tactic makes unrealistic comparisons and exaggeration to prove a point rather than logic or facts. 
In Nazi Germany, Jews were forcibly rounded up and put in labor or death camps and could not leave. Whereas at the border, people come of their own freewill, have the choice to leave at any time and are allowed to enter the country or turned away after processing. The only element that is even remotely similar between the two is: a lot of people in a relatively small area. 

This absurd comparison is an insult to those who actually spent time or died in actual concentration camps.



> What we were doing before was just fine, most of them stayed with friends and showed up to their hearings.



If that were true we wouldn't have millions of illegal immigrants here.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What if they're prone to detest a seventeen year old for smiling? Would they be justified in panicking then? I mean, you panicked so I would think you'd be a little more understanding.





> If a cop shot Smirky McBitchslap, that would be wrong, too.  Thinking he's a little entitled punk isn't panicking.  Man, talk about White Privilege Butthurt...



I'm not the one who freaked out over a kid smiling at someone. You and everybody else overreacted because you didn't know shit about what actually happened. And while some of the more sane leftists changed or retracted their original comments after the truth came to light, a handful of rabid holdouts like yourself desperately clung to anything they could use against the kid to make him wrong and conflated it, no matter how untrue or ridiculous it was. 

A leftist initiated the confrontation in the first place, leftists are the ones who reported the story with a single picture or a doctored video that cut out all exculpatory evidence leading up to the confrontation and it was leftists who freaked out and called for violence. And what did the kid do? Stood right where he had been the whole time with his hands in his pockets, saying and doing nothing. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I didn't say it caused it, I said it reinforces it, and it does.
> 
> Can you tell me that you don't view the entire law enforcement community with distrust? Are you one to immediately assume that when there's a cop shooting that he panicked or was racist? Or do you wait for the results of the inquiry? Be honest.





> Here's the thing. 99% of cops are great guys... but they tend to protect the 1% who aren't.  Pretty much like any profession, you have people who should have picked something else on Career Day. Unlike other professions, they don't get rid of the bad apples.
> 
> Take the officer who shot LaQuan McDonald.  The other cops on the scene didn't whip out their guns and shoot him. They did all file false reports indicating the kid was more of a threat than he actually was. They went to neighboring buildings and erased video evidence. The Police Department up to the Superintendent signed off on the"official" story until someone got a hold of the video tape from one of the police cars that wasn't erased. the FOP went to the mattresses for this guy, spending millions on his defense.   The City tried to keep it quiet by paying off the family.
> 
> This cop had 20 complaints by civilians for excessive force prior to this, including one incident where he dislocated a suspect's shoulder and the city had to pay out $375,000.00 in damages.  The City of Chicago paid out $180 MILLION in settling police misconduct lawsuits in 2018.





Ghost of a Rider said:


> The anti-police sentiment is nationwide, not just Chicago. This sentiment has been directly responsible for the assassination of police officers. Remember Baton Rouge? It has also contributed to people harassing officers while they are in the due process of enforcing the law and arresting people. It has also resulted in people being unnecessarily belligerent and uncooperative for no reason other than they are cops.





> Yes, the police have lost the trust of the community.



Even the good ones? You just said that 99% of the law enforcement community are great guys and yet now you say that 100% are distrusted. Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?

And you didn't answer the question: When there's a cop shooting, do you wait for the results of the inquiry or do you assume the cop panicked or was racist? For that matter, do you assume, like a lot of other people do, that the inquiry itself was a sham when they find no fault with the officer?



> Here's the real problem. For years, minorities have rightly complained that police routinely abuse them in a way that white people aren't abused. And white people, being white people, dismissed that for years.  Then everyone and his brother got a cell phone with a video camera on it, and now we are seeing how this shit played out.
> 
> Yes, anti-police sentiment is growing because we now get to see video of Michael Slager shooting Walter Scott in the back and then trying to plant a weapon on him.  We get video of Brian Encinia escalating a bullshit traffic stop on Sandra Bland to an unjustified arrest that led to her death.



You're still making this a contest and making comparisons that I specifically said I was not making. I never said anything about "tragedy" or tried to make it out to be something it is not. Everything I said in regards to this issue is true: Cops get murdered on the job. Hence, knowing this, some cops are jumpy. That's all I said.



> I also find it kind of amusing that you think that the shooting of cops is a "tragedy", when you right wing gun nuts INSIST that the reason you done needs you some guns is to fights the government, just like the Founding Fathers did.  Well, who do cops work for?  THE GOVERNMENT.  What did you think that was going to look like?



Are you suggesting then that we take up arms against the cops?



> Or is this another one of those rights you only think applies to White People?



Do you think the distrust applies to all cops or just the bad ones?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine. That's a lie, and you know damned well that it's a lie.
> 
> This administration has nothing against legitimate immigrants. It is only invading foreign criminals that they or I have any problem with. I also have a big problem with treasonous, America-hating, subhuman pieces of shit such as yourself who openly take the side of these hostile foreign invaders against that of your own country and your own fellow Americans.



Here you go, Mormon Scum.  

Midwife birth certificates tied to immigration problems along Texas border - CNN

heir problems began, according to attorney Jaime Diez, when a group of midwives along the U.S.-Mexico border were found guilty of selling birth certificates to people who were not born in the United States.
"Now all the midwives in the area are suspected of committing fraud," said Diez, who said his office regularly sees cases of people delivered by midwives in Texas. Some of them are struggling to get passports because officials question the validity of their birth certificates, he said. Others have been deported and had their identification documents confiscated at the border, he said.
Vazquez, who Diez is representing in a federal lawsuit filed last week, said she was intimidated into signing a document swearing she was not a U.S. citizen at a border crossing in Brownsville, Texas, last year.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I'm not the one who freaked out over a kid smiling at someone. You and everybody else overreacted because you didn't know shit about what actually happened. And while some of the more sane leftists changed or retracted their original comments after the truth came to light, a handful of rabid holdouts like yourself desperately clung to anything they could use against the kid to make him wrong and conflated it, no matter how untrue or ridiculous it was.



Okay... He was still an rude, entitled little prick, but it would have been wrong if a cop shot him over it. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even the good ones? You just said that 99% of the law enforcement community are great guys and yet now you say that 100% are distrusted. Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?



"Yeah, I was all for the cops, then I read that funny comment Neil wrote about them planting a gun on a mountain lion, and man, I joined BLM the next day."  Said no one ever. 

Again, the problem is, the 99% feel a need to protect the ONE percent.  I've lost a few friends over the McDonald Case because I was "judging Van Dyke".  Um, yeah, when there's video tape of you doing exactly what you are accused of, I tend to judge. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> n Nazi Germany, Jews were forcibly rounded up and put in labor or death camps and could not leave. Whereas at the border, people come of their own freewill, have the choice to leave at any time and are allowed to enter the country or turned away after processing. The only element that is even remotely similar between the two is: a lot of people in a relatively small area.



Who can't leave if they want to, being kept in inhuman conditions, because a bunch of racist assholes like you and Mormon Bob consider them "inferior" 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And you didn't answer the question: When there's a cop shooting, do you wait for the results of the inquiry or do you assume the cop panicked or was racist? For that matter, do you assume, like a lot of other people do, that the inquiry itself was a sham when they find no fault with the officer?



Oh, I usually consider these inquiries a sham.  Before Van Dyke pumped 16 rounds into McDonald, we had a Police Review Board in chicago, which amazingly dismissed 98% of complaints against cops.  They were even ready to write the McDonald shooting off as justified.  Until someone sued to see the tape, and all hell Broke loose, and a Mayor, Police Superintendent and State's Attorney all found themselves without jobs.  

Here's what I would do.  Every cop, required to wear a body cam.  If there's an incident, and your body cam wasn't 'working', you're fired. Done.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're still making this a contest and making comparisons that I specifically said I was not making. I never said anything about "tragedy" or tried to make it out to be something it is not. Everything I said in regards to this issue is true: Cops get murdered on the job. Hence, knowing this, some cops are jumpy. That's all I said.



If they are inclined to be "jumpy', they should find something else to do for a living.  

Here's the thing.  WHen the cops get squarely behind common sense gun control and stop being bought of by the NRA, then I will take their concerns a little more seriously.  Going back to my point.  900+ people shot by cops.  Every year.  IN the UK, where they have common sense gun laws, the cops shoot maybe two people a year.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you suggesting then that we take up arms against the cops?



Naw, that would be stupid.  This is the point I keep making to you gun nuts who want enough guns to fight off the Zombies.  The government will always have more guns, bigger guns, and badder guns.  What I am saying is that I find it amusing that you guys spew this kind of shit, but when the Darkies do it, and actually have some justification- or at least more than you guys not liking your tax bill - you guys completely shit yourselves.  

Silly Darkie.  Rights are for White People.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 15, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine. That's a lie, and you know damned well that it's a lie.
> ...



  Nothing in that article supports your claim that anyone in this administration willfully has anything against legal immigrants or citizens.  The key person of interest in this article, by her own admission, was found to have alleged birth certificates in two different countries—pretty solid proof that her parents committed some sort of fraud in obtaining one or the other of them.
_
A 2012 report from the Texas Office of the Inspector General said a fraud investigation had been "substantiated" and Vazquez's birth record had been flagged, noting Vazquez's signed confession and the fact that officials found birth certificates for Vazquez in both the United States and Mexico. The report said the case would not be prosecuted because it was beyond the statute of limitations.

Vazquez said her parents obtained the Mexican birth certificate so she could study in Mexico.

Vazquez said she has never lived in the United States, but wants to fight to regain her citizenship._​
  For the sake of the argument, I'll grant the assumption that the signed confession was obtained under duress, and that it's credibility is to be assumed to be dubious.

  She admits that she's never lived in the United States; apparently, she's lived all her life in Mexico.  Her excuse for her parents obtaining a Mexican birth certificate, if that wasn't where she was really born, doesn't make sense.  So how is one to determine which of her two different birth certificates is legitimate, assuming that they're both not fraudulent?  Sounds like there's no way to prove on which side of the border she was born, but she's lived in Mexico all her life, and never lived in the United States, so lacking any other basis on which to make the determination, the obvious conclusion would be that she's a citizen of Mexico, and not of the United States.  Certainly no rational cause to assume that her allegiance would be to a country in which she has never lived, over the one in which she has lived all her life.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 15, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... He was still an rude, entitled little prick, but it would have been wrong if a cop shot him over it.



  Yes, it was very rude of him to be there, in a public place where he had as much right to be as anyone else, minding his own business, with a group of classmates, waiting for a bus, and wearing a hat that expressed an opinion with which you disagree.  How dare he?!?!?



JoeB131 said:


> Who can't leave if they want to, being kept in inhuman conditions, because a bunch of racist assholes like you and Mormon Bob consider them "inferior"·
> ·
> ·​What I am saying is that I find it amusing that you guys spew this kind of shit, but when the Darkies do it, and actually have some justification- or at least more than you guys not liking your tax bill - you guys completely shit yourselves.
> Silly Darkie.  Rights are for White People.



  You're the only one who keeps mentioning race, and who keeps suggesting over and over again that anyone ought to be treated differently because of race, or that any race is inferior to any other.  And yet you are also the one who persists in falsely accusing me and Ghost of a Rider and others of racism, when none of us have ever said anything racist.

  Of all those participating in this discussion, it is very obvious who the true racist is.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 15, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not the one who freaked out over a kid smiling at someone. You and everybody else overreacted because you didn't know shit about what actually happened. And while some of the more sane leftists changed or retracted their original comments after the truth came to light, a handful of rabid holdouts like yourself desperately clung to anything they could use against the kid to make him wrong and conflated it, no matter how untrue or ridiculous it was.
> ...



My point was, you make an issue of cops shooting people out of a kneejerk reaction but you did the same with Sandmann and you're still doing it. First it was the hat, then you found out he was Catholic, then you found out it was a private school and then you found out he was pro-life. Sandmann, through no fault of his own, happens to be the person in the D.C. incident that embodies everything you hate. In spite of the fact Phillips initiated the incident, Sandmann never had a chance with you.

And quit giving me this rotten pap about Phillips being a vet. Being a vet is not a get out of jail free card and is not currency to buy one's way out of being an asshole. Phillips was an asshole and if being a vet meant anything to him, he would have minded his own fucking business. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even the good ones? You just said that 99% of the law enforcement community are great guys and yet now you say that 100% are distrusted. Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?





> "Yeah, I was all for the cops, then I read that funny comment Neil wrote about them planting a gun on a mountain lion, and man, I joined BLM the next day."  Said no one ever.



I said "...people _like_ Steinberg...". I indicated in no way that he alone was guilty of it. So answer the question: Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?



> Again, the problem is, the 99% feel a need to protect the ONE percent.  I've lost a few friends over the McDonald Case because I was "judging Van Dyke".  Um, yeah, when there's video tape of you doing exactly what you are accused of, I tend to judge.



Your numbers are bullshit and you're plucking them out of thin air. Find some real statistics and get back with me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> n Nazi Germany, Jews were forcibly rounded up and put in labor or death camps and could not leave. Whereas at the border, people come of their own freewill, have the choice to leave at any time and are allowed to enter the country or turned away after processing. The only element that is even remotely similar between the two is: a lot of people in a relatively small area.





> Who can't leave if they want to, being kept in inhuman conditions, because a bunch of racist assholes like you and Mormon Bob consider them "inferior"



If it's true they can't leave, it probably just means the U.S. can't send them back over the border. If they can't do that then they have to hold them until processed. That's it. Also, I don't see them as inferior, I see them as being here illegally. That is, the ones who are actually here illegally. As for the ones in the detention centers, many probably were caught trying to enter illegally and as for the rest, they'll just have to wait for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn.

It's a tough old world and this is just one of those things you either choose to bear or choose to walk away from. Every single person in those centers made the choice to be there and every single one knew it wasn't going to be easy.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And you didn't answer the question: When there's a cop shooting, do you wait for the results of the inquiry or do you assume the cop panicked or was racist? For that matter, do you assume, like a lot of other people do, that the inquiry itself was a sham when they find no fault with the officer?





> Oh, I usually consider these inquiries a sham.  Before Van Dyke pumped 16 rounds into McDonald, we had a Police Review Board in chicago, which amazingly dismissed 98% of complaints against cops.  They were even ready to write the McDonald shooting off as justified.  Until someone sued to see the tape, and all hell Broke loose, and a Mayor, Police Superintendent and State's Attorney all found themselves without jobs.



So there you have it. You cite one example and now every cop is suspect if there's a shooting and you will refuse the results of any inquiry that doesn't find fault with the officer, even if it's legitimate.



> Here's what I would do.  Every cop, required to wear a body cam.  If there's an incident, and your body cam wasn't 'working', you're fired. Done.



Perhaps that's a step in the right direction.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You're still making this a contest and making comparisons that I specifically said I was not making. I never said anything about "tragedy" or tried to make it out to be something it is not. Everything I said in regards to this issue is true: Cops get murdered on the job. Hence, knowing this, some cops are jumpy. That's all I said.





> If they are inclined to be "jumpy', they should find something else to do for a living.



If you are inclined to feel contempt for a kid for smiling, you should find something more important to get pissed about.



> Here's the thing.  WHen the cops get squarely behind common sense gun control and stop being bought of by the NRA, then I will take their concerns a little more seriously.  Going back to my point.  900+ people shot by cops.  Every year.  IN the UK, where they have common sense gun laws, the cops shoot maybe two people a year.



You know what else they probably have in the U.K.? Common sense character assessment principles. Meaning, people in the U.K. are not likely to revile a kid for smiling and they wouldn't have brought up his religion as you did.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you suggesting then that we take up arms against the cops?





> Naw, that would be stupid.  This is the point I keep making to you gun nuts who want enough guns to fight off the Zombies.  The government will always have more guns, bigger guns, and badder guns.  What I am saying is that I find it amusing that you guys spew this kind of shit, but when the Darkies do it, and actually have some justification- or at least more than you guys not liking your tax bill - you guys completely shit yourselves.
> 
> Silly Darkie.  Rights are for White People.



What are you babbling about?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Nothing in that article supports your claim that anyone in this administration willfully has anything against legal immigrants or citizens. The key person of interest in this article, by her own admission, was found to have alleged birth certificates in two different countries—pretty solid proof that her parents committed some sort of fraud in obtaining one or the other of them.



That they are going after someone at all for something that happened 30 years ago when she was a baby, is pretty much all you need to know. 

No one doubted this woman's citizenship before the Trump Nazis at ICE started going after people. 

My neighbor found herself in a similar problem when she tried to get her husband into the country, and they started questioning her birth certificate.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> You're the only one who keeps mentioning race, and who keeps suggesting over and over again that anyone ought to be treated differently because of race, or that any race is inferior to any other. And yet you are also the one who persists in falsely accusing me and Ghost of a Rider and others of racism, when none of us have ever said anything racist.



"No, you are" is what a child says, Mormon Bob.  Just because you don't say the N-word out loud, doesn't make you a good person. The level of hate you have towards immigrants speaks for itself.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> My point was, y



you don't have a point, other than your butthurt that Smirky McBitchslap got called on his white privilege. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said "...people _like_ Steinberg...". I indicated in no way that he alone was guilty of it. So answer the question: Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?



No, man, what's stoking the anger is that the 1% still have jobs.  That it took four years to put Van Dyke in prison when there was blatant evidence he murdered that kid.  (He'll probably be out in three!) And that was a case when one of them actually WAS held accountable.  That's what's getting people mad, not that people are complaining about it or making jokes. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So there you have it. You cite one example and now every cop is suspect if there's a shooting and you will refuse the results of any inquiry that doesn't find fault with the officer, even if it's legitimate.



Common sense, buddy, if you let the cops investigate themselves, they will always find themselves innocent. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you are inclined to feel contempt for a kid for smiling, you should find something more important to get pissed about.



I do. You are the one constantly whining because I think Smirky McBitchslap is a little entitled punk.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 16, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> That they are going after someone at all for something that happened 30 years ago when she was a baby, is pretty much all you need to know.
> 
> No one doubted this woman's citizenship before the Trump Nazis at ICE started going after people.
> 
> My neighbor found herself in a similar problem when she tried to get her husband into the country, and they started questioning her birth certificate.



  There may be much more to this story that is reported in the article that you linked, but going by just what is in that article, what we seem to have here is someone who grew up in Mexico, who lived all her life there, as a Mexican national, and who, now, 30 years later, is claiming American citizenship, even though she admits that she's never lived in America.

  No one questioned her American citizenship before, only because wasn't claiming American citizenship before.

  On investigation, it is found that there are two different birth certificates, one claiming she was born in Mexico, and one claiming she was born in America.  There's also an apparent connection to a criminal operation that is known to have existed around the time of her birth, that was in the business of selling forged American birth certificates, which could explain her American birth certificate; and no plausible explanation as to why anyone would have tried to obtain a forged Mexican birth certificate for her.

  I don't think it will ever be possible to solidly prove on which side of the border, she was born, but the preponderance of credible evidence seems to place her as reliably as can be placed under the circumstances, as having been born in Mexico.




Bob Blaylock said:


> You're the only one who keeps mentioning race, and who keeps suggesting over and over again that anyone ought to be treated differently because of race, or that any race is inferior to any other. And yet you are also the one who persists in falsely accusing me and Ghost of a Rider and others of racism, when none of us have ever said anything racist.



"No, you are" is what a child says, Mormon Bob.  Just because you don't say the N-word out loud, doesn't make you a good person. The level of hate you have towards immigrants speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]

  I have no hate toward legitimate immigrants.  I hate foreigners who illegally invade my country, and I hate traitorous filth such as yourself who take the side of these invading foreign criminals, against that of your own country and your own fellow Americans.

  And there is nothing the least bit racist about wanting my country to be defended properly against foreign invasion.  Nobody who cares about the well-being of his own country or of his own countrymen wants his country to be subjected to foreign invasion.  Only those who hate their country, and who hate their countrymen, want that.

  And even if I did say the N-word, it wouldn't make me racist.

  What would make me racist is if I held and expressed the opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, just because of his race, and that anyone should be treated differently on that basis.  And I hold no such opinions, and have never expressed any such opinions.

  I challenge you to find any posting of mine, on this forum, or elsewhere, in which I have expressed any opinion that can honestly be characterized as racist.

  I'll wait.

  Your postings, on the other hand, are often heavily peppered with blatantly racist opinions, mixed in with false accusations of racism directed at others.  I think it is quite obvious which of us is the genuine racist.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 16, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > My point was, y
> ...



You freaked out over a kid smiling at someone and you say _I’m_ butthurt.

That poor veteran, how will he ever recover from the horror of a smiling kid?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I said "...people _like_ Steinberg...". I indicated in no way that he alone was guilty of it. So answer the question: Given that the entire law enforcement community is distrusted because of the bad 1%, how can you then say that the rhetoric coming from people like Steinberg is _not_ stoking anger and resentment towards officers?





> No, man, what's stoking the anger is that the 1% still have jobs.  That it took four years to put Van Dyke in prison when there was blatant evidence he murdered that kid.  (He'll probably be out in three!) And that was a case when one of them actually WAS held accountable.  That's what's getting people mad, not that people are complaining about it or making jokes.



We can quibble about percentages all day but it’s a moot point if all officers are prejudged as untrustworthy. And they are prejudged as untrustworthy because folks like Steinberg perpetuate and promulgate the anti-cop narrative.

Forget Steinberg and his joke. The anti- cop sentiment was there before he said what he said. The BLM marchers chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” does not go very far in engendering warm feelings towards officers or objectivity.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So there you have it. You cite one example and now every cop is suspect if there's a shooting and you will refuse the results of any inquiry that doesn't find fault with the officer, even if it's legitimate.





> Common sense, buddy, if you let the cops investigate themselves, they will always find themselves innocent.



Wrong. They just recently convicted the woman officer who shot the guy in his apartment. Google “officers convicted in shootings” and see what you get. There is a whole list of officers charged and convicted in recent years.

Besides all that, the police department conducts an investigation itself but they are by no means the only ones involved. From start to finish, an inquiry involves the department, internal affairs, civilian panels, county coroners, district attorneys and who knows what else. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you are inclined to feel contempt for a kid for smiling, you should find something more important to get pissed about.





> I do. You are the one constantly whining because I think Smirky McBitchslap is a little entitled punk.



I keep bringing it up because your reaction and opinions on the Sandmann case directly contradict the principles you apply to other issues. In other words, you’re a hypocrite.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> There may be much more to this story that is reported in the article that you linked, but going by just what is in that article, what we seem to have here is someone who grew up in Mexico, who lived all her life there, as a Mexican national, and who, now, 30 years later, is claiming American citizenship, even though she admits that she's never lived in America.



Except she was born here, and had an American birth certificate.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I have no hate toward legitimate immigrants. I hate foreigners who illegally invade my country, and I hate traitorous filth such as yourself who take the side of these invading foreign criminals, against that of your own country and your own fellow Americans.



A few problems with this logic. Exactly how are undocumented immigrants "against" you, exactly. 

I mean, seriously, if you are competing for jobs with guys who have no money, no connections and a limited grasp on the English Language, then you are kind of a big failure, buddy.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> And there is nothing the least bit racist about wanting my country to be defended properly against foreign invasion. Nobody who cares about the well-being of his own country or of his own countrymen wants his country to be subjected to foreign invasion. Only those who hate their country, and who hate their countrymen, want that.



Guy, here's the problem with that logic.   They aren't trying to turn us into Mexico, they aren't forcing you to Speak Spanish.  Yeah, I guess they have wild Cinco De Mayo celebrations, but that's no worse than St. Paddy's Day Celebrations or Oktoberfest.   (And yes, some piece of shit like you said the same kinds of things about my Irish and German Ancestors.) 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And even if I did say the N-word, it wouldn't make me racist.



Um, yeah, it totally would. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> What would make me racist is if I held and expressed the opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, just because of his race, and that anyone should be treated differently on that basis. And I hold no such opinions, and have never expressed any such opinions.




Again, guy. You are a Mormon.  The HOLY BOOKS of your cult say that dark skin is a curse from God, while white skins is "Delightsome".


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You freaked out over a kid smiling at someone and you say _I’m_ butthurt.
> 
> That poor veteran, how will he ever recover from the horror of a smiling kid?



I'm not the one who has spent weeks talking about him on a gun control thread... that would be you, buddy.  Oh, the poor privileged white boy, that mean old Veteran played a tamborene in front of him...  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> We can quibble about percentages all day but it’s a moot point if all officers are prejudged as untrustworthy. And they are prejudged as untrustworthy because folks like Steinberg perpetuate and promulgate the anti-cop narrative.
> 
> Forget Steinberg and his joke. The anti- cop sentiment was there before he said what he said. The BLM marchers chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” does not go very far in engendering warm feelings towards officers or objectivity.



NO, it doesn't.  Maybe if the cops cleaned up their own houses, they wouldn't have that kind of sentiment. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. They just recently convicted the woman officer who shot the guy in his apartment. Google “officers convicted in shootings” and see what you get. There is a whole list of officers charged and convicted in recent years.



Jesus fucking Christ, it would be hard to talk your way out of that one, wouldn't it?  Not for lack of trying.  The cops actually tossed the victim's apartment trying to find something incriminating.  

Oh, that and she only got a whopping 10 years.   

For shooting an unarmed man in his own home.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Besides all that, the police department conducts an investigation itself but they are by no means the only ones involved. From start to finish, an inquiry involves the department, internal affairs, civilian panels, county coroners, district attorneys and who knows what else. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.



Okay- the difference is they treat the cop like one of their own...  Take the Mike Brown shooting.  The DA ignored 14 witnesses who said he had his hands up. let the cop make a self-serving statement to the grand jury without challenge, let a mentally ill woman perjure herself on the stand...   

No, the standard should be HIGHER than the rest of us, not lower. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I keep bringing it up because your reaction and opinions on the Sandmann case directly contradict the principles you apply to other issues. In other words, you’re a hypocrite.



No contradiction at all... he's a punk.  I hope he grows up some day and learns to take accountablity for his actions, but his parents are setting a terrible example.


----------



## Crixus (Jan 16, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You freaked out over a kid smiling at someone and you say _I’m_ butthurt.
> ...




Agree on the cop stuff, but not the Nick Sandman stuff. The old blanket ass decided to start shit. Then he doubled down on it to play victim further by lying about being a Vietnam vet. That old man is nothing but a welfare collection piece of restrash. He was also hanging out with a hate group who spent a week assaulting old Jewish people and Jewish kids. Tha would be the week that ended in a black Hebrew Israelite burying a machete in a defenseless old mans head.  Your wrong on that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You freaked out over a kid smiling at someone and you say _I’m_ butthurt.
> ...



Uh uh, I listed Sandmann along with rich people and Catholics as examples of groups of people you hate with a broad brush. That was when you started your juvenile “Entitled Little Catholic Smirky McPunchface” tirade all over again.

Another important thing to remember here: Sandmann never complained about Phillips getting in his face and was not stressed about it and likely would have never made an issue of it.
As much as you would like to portray him as the racist punk bothered by the “scary red man”, Phillips getting in his face is not what bothered him and not what prompted the lawsuits.
What prompted his ire and that of his parents and the school was the way the mainstream media, social media and stupid fucks like you vilified and demonized him because some asshole chose to get in his face and then other assholes chose to make an issue of it, write headlined articles about it, blow it all out of proportion and make him out to be some kind of nazi.

In short, Sandmann didn’t make an issue of this confrontation, you did.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> We can quibble about percentages all day but it’s a moot point if all officers are prejudged as untrustworthy. And they are prejudged as untrustworthy because folks like Steinberg perpetuate and promulgate the anti-cop narrative.
> 
> Forget Steinberg and his joke. The anti- cop sentiment was there before he said what he said. The BLM marchers chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” does not go very far in engendering warm feelings towards officers or objectivity.





> NO, it doesn't.  Maybe if the cops cleaned up their own houses, they wouldn't have that kind of sentiment.



You want them to clean up their own houses while at the same saying you don’t trust them to clean up their own houses.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. They just recently convicted the woman officer who shot the guy in his apartment. Google “officers convicted in shootings” and see what you get. There is a whole list of officers charged and convicted in recent years.





> Jesus fucking Christ, it would be hard to talk your way out of that one, wouldn't it?  Not for lack of trying.  The cops actually tossed the victim's apartment trying to find something incriminating.
> 
> Oh, that and she only got a whopping 10 years.
> 
> For shooting an unarmed man in his own home.



You said: “_Common sense, buddy, if you let the cops investigate themselves, they will *always* find themselves innocent.”
_
You set yourself up for that one like you always do because you always speak in terms of absolutes. And you speak in terms of absolutes because you _think_ in terms of absolutes because it’s the only way you know _how_ to think. Because of this, you hate all rich people, all Catholics, all pro-lifers, all conservatives, all white kids in private schools and now all cops.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Besides all that, the police department conducts an investigation itself but they are by no means the only ones involved. From start to finish, an inquiry involves the department, internal affairs, civilian panels, county coroners, district attorneys and who knows what else. It’s not as simple as you make it out to be.





> Okay- the difference is they treat the cop like one of their own...  Take the Mike Brown shooting.  The DA ignored 14 witnesses who said he had his hands up. let the cop make a self-serving statement to the grand jury without challenge, let a mentally ill woman perjure herself on the stand...



Bullshit. They tried to paint Brown as some innocent angel and he was anything but. A lot of the testimony came from people who were not even there and the whole “Hands up, don’t shoot” thing was completely bogus.



> No, the standard should be HIGHER than the rest of us, not lower.



Can I take that to mean that an officer would have made a more objective assessment of the Sandmann case than you did?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I keep bringing it up because your reaction and opinions on the Sandmann case directly contradict the principles you apply to other issues. In other words, you’re a hypocrite.





> No contradiction at all... he's a punk.  I hope he grows up some day and learns to take accountablity for his actions, but his parents are setting a terrible example.



Accountability for what, exactly?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 17, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Another important thing to remember here: Sandmann never complained about Phillips getting in his face and was not stressed about it and likely would have never made an issue of it.



No, he only started whining like a little entitled bitch when his face was plastered all over the news as "Entitled Little Bastard". 

Then mommy and daddy got him image consultants and lawyers to make him look better.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What prompted his ire and that of his parents and the school was the way the mainstream media, social media and stupid fucks like you vilified and demonized him because some asshole chose to get in his face and then other assholes chose to make an issue of it, write headlined articles about it, blow it all out of proportion and make him out to be some kind of nazi.



He was wearing a MAGA hat, and protesting a woman's right to choose. That's what made him a Nazi. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You want them to clean up their own houses while at the same saying you don’t trust them to clean up their own houses.



Oh, I don't really trust them to... but funny thing.  Now politicians and DA's are making them clean up their own houses because they like getting re-elected.   DA's in Chicago, Cleveland and Furgeson all out of jobs because the people got fed up with "Nothing to see here!"  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You said: “_Common sense, buddy, if you let the cops investigate themselves, they will *always* find themselves innocent.”
> _
> You set yourself up for that one like you always do because you always speak in terms of absolutes. And you speak in terms of absolutes because you _think_ in terms of absolutes because it’s the only way you know _how_ to think. Because of this, you hate all rich people, all Catholics, all pro-lifers, all conservatives, all white kids in private schools and now all cops.



You forgot "Snivelly, whiny bitches" as a group I hate.  Because, man, are you a snivelly whiny bitch.  Of course, the cops can't be trusted to police themselves.   Even in a case like Guyger, they tried to demonize this innocent guy she shot because she was too confused to know what floor she was on after texting dirty messages with her partner. 

"Look, look, he had some pot!!!" 

"Are you fucking kidding me?" 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. They tried to paint Brown as some innocent angel and he was anything but. A lot of the testimony came from people who were not even there and the whole “Hands up, don’t shoot” thing was completely bogus.



Yes, he pushed a clerk!  And he smoked Pot.  CLEARLY THE FUCKER NEEDED TO DIE!!!!!   The only thing that was bogus was a DA acting like a defense attorney.  But he's out of a job because he did.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Can I take that to mean that an officer would have made a more objective assessment of the Sandmann case than you did?



Naw, anyone would have wanted to punch his smirky little face.  

The restraint would have been NOT punching him, because that would be excessive. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Accountability for what, exactly?



Being a racist, misogynistic little punk.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > What would make me racist is if I held and expressed the opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, just because of his race, and that anyone should be treated differently on that basis. And I hold no such opinions, and have never expressed any such opinions.
> ...



  From your position of abject intellectual dishonesty, extreme ignorance, and hatred, misrepresenting what my scriptures say and mean, and what my faith teaches, in order to make the claim that all Mormons are racist, therefore I must be racist, is nonsense.

  This forum is peppered with posts from you that solidly, undeniably prove that you are racist, as well as a rather serious bigot on other fronts as well.  In fact, your repeated lies about my religion, including the one that I just now cited trying to paint all of my faith as racists, is itself proof that you are a hateful, ignorant, lying bigot.  Deny it all that you will, but any rational person, on reading your posts, can clearly see that I am completely right in so describing you.

  I challenge you to find one thing that I have written, on this forum or anywhere else, in which I express an opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, or otherwise should be treated differently than anyone else, on the basis of their race.  Just one.

  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

  In the mean time, don't fuss about the mote that you claim to see in my eye, as long as that beam remains solidly and immovably in your own eye.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > There may be much more to this story that is reported in the article that you linked, but going by just what is in that article, what we seem to have here is someone who grew up in Mexico, who lived all her life there, as a Mexican national, and who, now, 30 years later, is claiming American citizenship, even though she admits that she's never lived in America.
> ...



  …*AND* a Mexican birth certificate, according to the very article that you cited.  The only thing that the birth certificates prove is that there was some sort of fraud committed, with regard to misrepresenting where she was born; otherwise, there would be only one birth certificate.  Which one of those birth certificates, if either, is legitimate will probably never be provable.  At least one is certainly the product of intentional fraud, if not both.

  The remainder of available evidence, at least as reported in that article, gives a much higher likelihood of her having been born in Mexico, than in America.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> He was wearing a MAGA hat, and protesting a woman's right to choose. That's what made him a Nazi.



  Strictly speaking, what it would take to make one a genuine Nazi would be for that person to have been a member of a the _Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei_ that once existed in Germany but which has been extinct since long before you or I were even born.

  In a much looser sense, is applicable to modern ignorant persons who, for the most part, know very little about genuine Nazism, but who have adopted a few scattered bits of what they think they know of Nazi ideology, and taken that name on themselves.  I bet most modern _“Nazis”_, if it were possible for them to find themselves in 1930s to mid 1940s Germany, would find that the real Nazis would be very happy to round them up along with the Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, and other _Untermenschen_, and ship them off to their famous resorts that they had prepared for such people.

  It's a very far stretch from there, to apply the name to a young man for wearing a hat expressing support for the current President and his policies, or for standing up for the right of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings to not be savagely slaughtered in cold blood.  I think that any rational person would see that long before you get to this point, you've crossed a line where the person calling someone a _“Nazi”_ is more similar to an actual Nazi than is the one is against whom that slur is being applied.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 17, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Another important thing to remember here: Sandmann never complained about Phillips getting in his face and was not stressed about it and likely would have never made an issue of it.
> ...



They didn’t get image consultants because his face was plastered everywhere you fucking idiot. They got image consultants because dipshits like you spread hate and lies about him and wished violence against him. For smiling in reaction to a situation he did not initiate and was not responsible for in any way.
To make matters worse, you can’t even acknowledge that Phillips approached him and you believed things about him and the incident that are completely false. This makes your motives particularly pernicious. 

He did not complain, he said nothing about the “scary red man”, he did not put it on social media, he did not hire image consultants, he did not call news outlets, he did not get a lawyer or call the cops. He smiled at the crazy old man, shrugged when it was over and went home. That’s it.

But you, Mr. Drooly McPussyflakeshitmypants,  couldn’t resist the opportunity to jump on the Merry Bandwagon of Liberal Paranoia and revile a kid that you didn’t know over a situation you didn’t understand and wouldn’t even know about if another paranoid liberal, who also did not understand the situation, had not decided to plaster it all over the news.

If you haven’t guessed by now, this whole Sandmann thing disturbs me. Greatly. It disturbs me because, if liberals, in direct contradiction of their purported ethos of tolerance, won’t stop at wishing violence on a minor and spreading lies and half truths about him and continuing to spread lies about him even after the truth is known (I’m talking about you), for nothing more than smiling, then there is nothing they won’t do to suppress and squash different ideas, opinions and viewpoints.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> What prompted his ire and that of his parents and the school was the way the mainstream media, social media and stupid fucks like you vilified and demonized him because some asshole chose to get in his face and then other assholes chose to make an issue of it, write headlined articles about it, blow it all out of proportion and make him out to be some kind of nazi.





> He was wearing a MAGA hat, and protesting a woman's right to choose. That's what made him a Nazi.



He was wearing the hat and had participated in the pro-life march long before Phillips came along, correct?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You said: “_Common sense, buddy, if you let the cops investigate themselves, they will *always* find themselves innocent.”
> _
> You set yourself up for that one like you always do because you always speak in terms of absolutes. And you speak in terms of absolutes because you _think_ in terms of absolutes because it’s the only way you know _how_ to think. Because of this, you hate all rich people, all Catholics, all pro-lifers, all conservatives, all white kids in private schools and now all cops.





> You forgot "Snivelly, whiny bitches" as a group I hate.  Because, man, are you a snivelly whiny bitch.



Says the guy who feels threatened by a smiling teenager.



> Of course, the cops can't be trusted to police themselves.   Even in a case like Guyger, they tried to demonize this innocent guy she shot because she was too confused to know what floor she was on after texting dirty messages with her partner.



You demonized a kid for smiling.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. They tried to paint Brown as some innocent angel and he was anything but. A lot of the testimony came from people who were not even there and the whole “Hands up, don’t shoot” thing was completely bogus.





> Yes, he pushed a clerk!  And he smoked Pot.  CLEARLY THE FUCKER NEEDED TO DIE!!!!!   The only thing that was bogus was a DA acting like a defense attorney.  But he's out of a job because he did.



“Hands up, don’t shoot” was complete bullshit. I’ll just bet you were one of the dupes that believed it. 

Brown attacked a police officer, the officer defended himself. End of story.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Can I take that to mean that an officer would have made a more objective assessment of the Sandmann case than you did?





> Naw, anyone would have wanted to punch his smirky little face.
> 
> The restraint would have been NOT punching him, because that would be excessive.



You just said officers should be held to a higher standard because they’re too quick to respond with violence but you wouldn’t have had a problem with an officer punching Sandmann. Hypocrite.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Accountability for what, exactly?





> Being a racist, misogynistic little punk.



If he is a racist, misogynistic little punk, he’s not accountable to your lying racist chickenshit ass anyway.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> From your position of abject intellectual dishonesty, extreme ignorance, and hatred, misrepresenting what my scriptures say and mean, and what my faith teaches, in order to make the claim that all Mormons are racist, therefore I must be racist, is nonsense.



Guy, your cult didn't admit black people to full membership until 1978, and that was only because the Government threatened to cut off your tax exemptions.   



Bob Blaylock said:


> I challenge you to find one thing that I have written, on this forum or anywhere else, in which I express an opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, or otherwise should be treated differently than anyone else, on the basis of their race. Just one.



You did in this very thread when you called them "Invaders" and called for people to be executed for opposing Trump's policies. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> The only thing that the birth certificates prove is that there was some sort of fraud committed, with regard to misrepresenting where she was born; otherwise, there would be only one birth certificate. Which one of those birth certificates, if either, is legitimate will probably never be provable. At least one is certainly the product of intentional fraud, if not both.



Two problems with that statement.  one is that it's that big of a deal. The second is holding someone accountable for fraud that was committed by someone else when she was a baby.   But this is the shit Trump is pulling, not only going after undocumented immigrants, but going after documented immigrants and even US Citizens of Hispanic descent.  Which you are probably fine with, given they are not "White and Delightsome"



Bob Blaylock said:


> It's a very far stretch from there, to apply the name to a young man for wearing a hat expressing support for the current President and his policies, or for standing up for the right of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings to not be savagely slaughtered in cold blood.



Again, the only regime to live the Right Wing Wet Dream of executing people for performing abortions?  You got it- NAZI GERMANY!!!!    

You have a lot more in common than you think, Mormon Bob.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> They didn’t get image consultants because his face was plastered everywhere you fucking idiot. They got image consultants because dipshits like you spread hate and lies about him and wished violence against him. For smiling in reaction to a situation he did not initiate and was not responsible for in any way.



For smirking and looking like kind of a douchebag... except he's still kind of a douchebag. 

Here's what he should have said. "I'm sorry I was not respectful of other people and their space." 

Done. Mike Drop. 

Instead, he and his image consultants went around slandering this vet. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you haven’t guessed by now, this whole Sandmann thing disturbs me. Greatly. It disturbs me because, if liberals, in direct contradiction of their purported ethos of tolerance, won’t stop at wishing violence on a minor and spreading lies and half truths about him and continuing to spread lies about him even after the truth is known (I’m talking about you), for nothing more than smiling, then there is nothing they won’t do to suppress and squash different ideas, opinions and viewpoints.



Obviously, you keep going on and on about it.  But frankly, that's the world we live in now, buddy, with social media, viral posts and video cameras everywhere.  I mean, it was easy for you racists to be racists when you could hide in a crowd, but when we can catch you with your Tiki Torches and your Maga hats and out you... OH MY GOD!  you might actually have to work on being a decent human being or something. 

Oh, given your tolerance for minors, I notice you guys have dumped all sorts of abuse on Greta Thurnberg...








Ghost of a Rider said:


> “Hands up, don’t shoot” was complete bullshit. I’ll just bet you were one of the dupes that believed it.
> 
> Brown attacked a police officer, the officer defended himself. End of story.



You left out the part where he ran away, stopped, put his hands up and was shot 6 more times.  You see, I don't have a problem with the first two non-fatal shots that were fired when they were fighting.  AFTER the kid was running away, shooting him six more times- um, yeah, that's a problem.  

This goes back to the whole "don't panic" thing I was talking about earlier.  He should have assessed the situation and de-escalated it.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You just said officers should be held to a higher standard because they’re too quick to respond with violence but you wouldn’t have had a problem with an officer punching Sandmann. Hypocrite.



I wouldn't have a problem with anyone punching Sandmann... but shooting him would have been harsh. Knocking him on his ass would have been a life lesson.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 18, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge you to find one thing that I have written, on this forum or anywhere else, in which I express an opinion that anyone is superior or inferior to anyone else, or otherwise should be treated differently than anyone else, on the basis of their race. Just one.
> ...



  As a matter of undeniable, objective fact, they *•ARE•* invaders.  They are foreign nationals directly and willfully attacking the security and sovereignty of this country.  Race has nothing to do with it.  Their hostile, illegal acts against this country and its people have everything to do with it.

  There is nothing racist about calling out invading foreign criminals for what they are, and desiring that my country and its people be defended against such invaders.  And there is nothing racist about calling for our laws against treason, which is the highest crime that any American citizen can commit, be properly enforced with the appropriate penalty, which is death.

  And again, what this all says about you is very damning.  Namely, that you are, as I said before, a treasonous subhuman piece of shit, who willfully betrays your own country and your own countrymen, to take the side of foreign invaders.




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing that the birth certificates prove is that there was some sort of fraud committed, with regard to misrepresenting where she was born…
> ...



  And again, you're the only one insisting that race has anything to do with it, revealing yourself to be the true racist.

*NOBODY IS GOING AFTER U.S. CITIZENS, AS YOU CLAIM.  NOBODY IS GOING AFTER LEGITIMATE IMMIGRANTS.*  The person in question, by her own admission, lived in Mexico all her life.  The preponderance of evidence suggests that she is a Mexican citizen, and not a U.S. citizen.  She has no right, whatsoever, to now come into the U.S., and demand to be recognized as a citizen, or even a legitimate non-citizen resident.  And she has no right to benefit from a criminal act of fraud that was apparently committed on her behalf, while she was an infant; any more than the children of a ban robber are entitled to keep what their father stole.




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > It's a very far stretch from there, to apply the name to a young man for wearing a hat expressing support for the current President and his policies, or for standing up for the right of the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings to not be savagely slaughtered in cold blood.
> ...


  The death penalty is the appropriate penalty for the unmitigated, premeditated, and willful murder of an innocent person.  And abortion is exactly that.

  It takes the very lowest soulless subhuman piece of shit to value the life of a cold-blooded murderer more than you value the life of an innocent child.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 18, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> No, guy they are immigrants... Just like my dad was, just like your ancestors where.



  All of my ancestors came here legally, and immediately strove to become productive members of whatever society they found when they arrived.  Not one of them deserved the foul insult of being likened to the invading foreign criminals whom you treasonously defend and support.

  That was completely uncalled-for.  I remind you that it is against this forum's rules to attack another forum member's family members.



JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > And again, what this all says about you is very damning. Namely, that you are, as I said before, a treasonous subhuman piece of shit, who willfully betrays your own country and your own countrymen, to take the side of foreign invaders.
> ...



  It'd be more honest to say that you'd trust an invading foreign criminal before you'd trust one of your own fellow Americans.  And what this tells us is about you, not about whomever you say you would or would not trust.




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > *NOBODY IS GOING AFTER U.S. CITIZENS, AS YOU CLAIM. NOBODY IS GOING AFTER LEGITIMATE IMMIGRANTS.*
> ...



  Yes, and an at-least-equally _“legitimate”_ Mexican birth certificate.  And by her own admission, she grew up in Mexico, and lived there all her life.

  Here's a hint:  One cannot have two different legitimate birth certificates, listing two different nations in which one was born.  At least one of her birth certificates, if both both, is fraudulent.




JoeB131 said:


> So what you are saying is we need to execute every woman who has ever had an abortion, then?   I mean, this is what you just logically claimed, that anyone who gets an abortion is guilty of murder.   This would be about 40 million women, so they are going to need to take a number.



  Yes, and I stand by that.

  The appropriate penalty for murdering an innocent human being in cold blood is to be put to death.

  This only sounds crazy to you because you're a subhuman piece of shit who sympathizes more with a cold-blooded murderer than with the victim of that murderer.




JoeB131 said:


> Fetuses aren't people, abortion isn't murder…



  It's funny that you keep gratuitously throwing _“Nazi”_ around as an insult.  The genuine Nazis were most notorious for a massive _Final Solution”_ in which they defined certain classes of human beings as less than human, and on that basis, murdered extraordinary numbers of them.

 Your denial, here, of the humanity of the very most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and your defense of the savage murder of these human beings, is the most genuinely Nazi-like opinion that anyone has expressed in this thread, and likely on this entire forum.




JoeB131 said:


> …and I'd have some respect for you if you weren't all for throwing REAL children into concentration camps because they are darker than a lunch bag.



 Again, you're the one making this about race.  It has nothing to do with race.

  I don't like what is happening to these children either.  They are victims of illegal activity committed by the adults who were supposed to have been caring for them; who are dragging them along on an illegal invasion of a foreign country.  It's beyond my own qualification to know what better our government is supposed to be doing with these children, given Congress' absolute refusal, not only to do anything about stopping them from being trafficked here as part of a foreign invasion, but also to allocate anything close to adequate funding to properly care for them once they've arrived.

  And please don't insult my intelligence with that lie that you'd _“respect”_ me if I agreed with you on one particular point (which, oddly, I might if I had a better understanding of what alternatives might actually exist).  The only way you would ever respect me is if I was hateful, Godless, soulless piece of shit like yourself, with no conscience, who openly and unabashedly chooses evil always over good, madness always over reason.

  To be _“respected”_ by your kind would be the ultimate insult.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 18, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > They didn’t get image consultants because his face was plastered everywhere you fucking idiot. They got image consultants because dipshits like you spread hate and lies about him and wished violence against him. For smiling in reaction to a situation he did not initiate and was not responsible for in any way.
> ...



What you think he looked like is irrelevant. He smiled so as not aggravate the old man because he had no idea why Phillips approached him.



> Here's what he should have said. "I'm sorry I was not respectful of other people and their space."
> 
> Done. Mike Drop.



Why would he have said that?



> Instead, he and his image consultants went around slandering this vet.



How?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you haven’t guessed by now, this whole Sandmann thing disturbs me. Greatly. It disturbs me because, if liberals, in direct contradiction of their purported ethos of tolerance, won’t stop at wishing violence on a minor and spreading lies and half truths about him and continuing to spread lies about him even after the truth is known (I’m talking about you), for nothing more than smiling, then there is nothing they won’t do to suppress and squash different ideas, opinions and viewpoints.





> Obviously, you keep going on and on about it.  But frankly, that's the world we live in now, buddy, with social media, viral posts and video cameras everywhere.  I mean, it was easy for you racists to be racists when you could hide in a crowd, but when we can catch you with your Tiki Torches and your Maga hats and out you... OH MY GOD!  you might actually have to work on being a decent human being or something.



Whatever I do to be a decent human being will be a fuck of a lot more than you do.



> Oh, given your tolerance for minors, I notice you guys have dumped all sorts of abuse on Greta Thurnberg...



I’ve never said a word about Greta Thunberg to anyone.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> “Hands up, don’t shoot” was complete bullshit. I’ll just bet you were one of the dupes that believed it.
> 
> Brown attacked a police officer, the officer defended himself. End of story.





> You left out the part where he ran away, stopped, put his hands up and was shot 6 more times.  You see, I don't have a problem with the first two non-fatal shots that were fired when they were fighting.  AFTER the kid was running away, shooting him six more times- um, yeah, that's a problem.



Sorry, don’t buy it. The official DOJ report states that there was no evidence to support the claim that Brown put his hands up and ballistic and forensic evidence suggest that, as Wilson testified, Brown had turned around and was approaching him again when he fired at Brown from a distance of no more than two or three feet.

Brown fucked up when he attacked Wilson and tried to grab his weapon inside the police vehicle. Because of this, when Brown turned back and approached Wilson, Wilson by this time had reason to believe Brown meant to do harm and so he defended himself.



> This goes back to the whole "don't panic" thing I was talking about earlier.  He should have assessed the situation and de-escalated it.



He _did_ assess the situation. He assessed the situation and determined that Brown was attempting to escalate the situation.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You just said officers should be held to a higher standard because they’re too quick to respond with violence but you wouldn’t have had a problem with an officer punching Sandmann. Hypocrite.





> I wouldn't have a problem with anyone punching Sandmann... but shooting him would have been harsh. Knocking him on his ass would have been a life lesson.



You see, that’s the problem: Sandmann didn’t do anything to justify someone punching him. This is why attitudes like yours are disturbing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> All of my ancestors came here legally, and immediately strove to become productive members of whatever society they found when they arrived. Not one of them deserved the foul insult of being likened to the invading foreign criminals whom you treasonously defend and support.



Uh, your ancestors invaded Mexican Territory illegally, try to set up their own country, were slapped down by the US government, and then proceeded to displace the Native Americans in Utah.  (I am assuming for the sake of this argument that you are a life long Mormon Cultist and not some poor fool who converted because a couple of idiots in white shirts showed up on your doorstep one day.) 

Do you really want to recount the Mountain Meadows Massacre?  



Bob Blaylock said:


> It'd be more honest to say that you'd trust an invading foreign criminal before you'd trust one of your own fellow Americans. And what this tells us is about you, not about whomever you say you would or would not trust.



Quite the contrary. WHen I was in the Army, the Hispanic guys always had your back.  The Mormons were two-faced lying scum.  First time I ever encountered members of your cult, had no idea of the crazy shit you actually believe, but man, what a bunch of back-stabbing lying weasels. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Yes, and an at-least-equally _“legitimate”_ Mexican birth certificate. And by her own admission, she grew up in Mexico, and lived there all her life.
> 
> Here's a hint: One cannot have two different legitimate birth certificates, listing two different nations in which one was born. At least one of her birth certificates, if both both, is fraudulent.



Here's a hint... She had a legitimate US Birth certificate, as thousands of people being hassled by the Trump ICE Jackboots are now.   Should be the end of the discussion. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> Yes, and I stand by that.
> 
> The appropriate penalty for murdering an innocent human being in cold blood is to be put to death.
> 
> This only sounds crazy to you because you're a subhuman piece of shit who sympathizes more with a cold-blooded murderer than with the victim of that murderer.



Holy shit.. man, you are crazy.  You would execute millions of women for ending their pregnancies...  You see, this is why I'm a liberal...  not because I have this vast concern for my fellow man, but because the kind of batshit crazy that would happen if you guys ever won. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> It's funny that you keep gratuitously throwing _“Nazi”_ around as an insult. The genuine Nazis were most notorious for a massive _Final Solution”_ in which they defined certain classes of human beings as less than human, and on that basis, murdered extraordinary numbers of them.
> 
> Your denial, here, of the humanity of the very most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, and your defense of the savage murder of these human beings, is the most genuinely Nazi-like opinion that anyone has expressed in this thread, and likely on this entire forum.



Uh, guy, there was never a point in history where fetuses were considered "Human Beings".  Even when Abortion was illegal, people were never charged with "Murder" for having them or performing them.  

The difference between a Nazi and a woman who ends her pregnancy is that it's HER BODY. Her body, her choice.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> I don't like what is happening to these children either. They are victims of illegal activity committed by the adults who were supposed to have been caring for them; who are dragging them along on an illegal invasion of a foreign country. It's beyond my own qualification to know what better our government is supposed to be doing with these children, given Congress' absolute refusal, not only to do anything about stopping them from being trafficked here as part of a foreign invasion, but also to allocate anything close to adequate funding to properly care for them once they've arrived.



Actually, what we were doing before was just fine.  We released them into custody of other people in this country, most of them showed up for their hearings, and we either granted them asylum or we sent them back.  (This if for refugees from Central America. Mexicans just get sent right back).  Trump's goal is to mistreat these people to scare them into not wanting to come here to start with. It's an immoral policy. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And please don't insult my intelligence with that lie that you'd _“respect”_ me if I agreed with you on one particular point (which, oddly, I might if I had a better understanding of what alternatives might actually exist). The only way you would ever respect me is if I was hateful, Godless, soulless piece of shit like yourself, with no conscience, who openly and unabashedly chooses evil always over good, madness always over reason.



Guy, why do you people equate "Godless" with "evil".  Frankly, looking at history, the most evil fucks in history are religious folks, who think God is on their side.  They've given us wars and inquisitions. Shit, it wasn't even the Atheists who chased your cult out of four states, it was those God Fearing Religious People who thought you were a weird sex cult.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What you think he looked like is irrelevant. He smiled so as not aggravate the old man because he had no idea why Phillips approached him.



Or he was smirking because his LECB buddies behind him were chanting "Build the Wall, Build the Wall"  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever I do to be a decent human being will be a fuck of a lot more than you do.



Then why are you terrified?  I'm not worried that anyone is going to take pictures of me in public and post them on the internet and make me look like a smirking racist twat.  

Why are you? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sorry, don’t buy it. The official DOJ report states that there was no evidence to support the claim that Brown put his hands up and ballistic and forensic evidence suggest that, as Wilson testified, Brown had turned around and was approaching him again when he fired at Brown from a distance of no more than two or three feet.



Except that Brown was 149 feet away from the Police Cruiser when he fell and there were a trail of expended bullet casings. 

Wilson executed Brown in cold blood because he could.  That shit needs to stop.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You see, that’s the problem: Sandmann didn’t do anything to justify someone punching him. This is why attitudes like yours are disturbing.



No problem at all.  A nice punch in the face would have taught Smirky McPunchface a life lesson about respecting people.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, what we were doing before was just fine. We released them into custody of other people in this country, most of them showed up for their hearings, and we either granted them asylum or we sent them back. (This if for refugees from Central America. Mexicans just get sent right back). Trump's goal is to mistreat these people to scare them into not wanting to come here to start with. It's an immoral policy.



  You only think that it's _“immoral”_, because you're a filthy traitorous anti-American subhuman piece of shit who openly sides with invading foreign criminals, against your country, and against your fellow Americans.

  And given not only this, but a whole bunch of other evil, immoral, and outright evil crap which you openly defend and advocate, and given all the good that you condemn, you're not in any position to credibly tell others what is moral or immoral.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> You only think that it's _“immoral”_, because you're a filthy traitorous anti-American subhuman piece of shit who openly sides with invading foreign criminals, against your country, and against your fellow Americans.



No, Bob...  I just don't see people who want to come here for a better life as "the enemy" like you seem to.  Nor do I see them as "Criminals".  (Or at least not committing a crime that is all that seriously). They are exactly the same as my Grandparents were when they came her from Germany one step ahead of Hitler.  

But just remember, terminating a blob of cells is murder, but throwing a kid into a concentration camp where she dies is okay... if she's brown. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> And given not only this, but a whole bunch of other evil, immoral, and outright evil crap which you openly defend and advocate, and given all the good that you condemn, you're not in any position to credibly tell others what is moral or immoral.



Yes, guy... funny thing, your hatred of gay people isn't moral... it's just backwards.   

in 50 years, even your cult will be running away from Homophobia.  Your Prophet will have another conversation with God and find out that God is totally good with gays now.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What you think he looked like is irrelevant. He smiled so as not aggravate the old man because he had no idea why Phillips approached him.
> ...



As much as you would like to believe this, they were not chanting “Build the wall”. It’s as bogus as “Hands up, don’t shoot”.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Whatever I do to be a decent human being will be a fuck of a lot more than you do.





> Then why are you terrified?



Where did I say I was terrified?



> I'm not worried that anyone is going to take pictures of me in public and post them on the internet and make me look like a smirking racist twat.
> 
> Why are you?



Where did I say I was worried about my picture being on the internet? What the fuck are you talking about?

Let me reiterate because you seem incapable (as I’ve pointed out before) of discerning distinctions even when they are stated in plain English: It disturbs me that people like you will not stop short of demonizing a minor, believing and propagating lies and half truths about him and thinking that violence on your part is a proper and justifiable response to non violence on his part.

You and everyone else who criticized this kid acted like an angry mob. If there had been a stake, you would have burned him at it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sorry, don’t buy it. The official DOJ report states that there was no evidence to support the claim that Brown put his hands up and ballistic and forensic evidence suggest that, as Wilson testified, Brown had turned around and was approaching him again when he fired at Brown from a distance of no more than two or three feet.





> Except that Brown was 149 feet away from the Police Cruiser when he fell and there were a trail of expended bullet casings.
> 
> Wilson executed Brown in cold blood because he could.  That shit needs to stop.



He was 149 feet away from the cruiser because he was walking or running away, dumbass. His mistake was turning around and approaching Wilson again. This is when Wilson shot him. 
As for the trail of casings, I don’t know about that and will have to read more of the DOJ report. But I will say that all the shots that hit Brown, hit him in the front.

Again, Brown fucked up. It was his choice to assault an officer. What happened from that point was pretty much inevitable and he had no one to blame but himself.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You see, that’s the problem: Sandmann didn’t do anything to justify someone punching him. This is why attitudes like yours are disturbing.





> No problem at all.  A nice punch in the face would have taught Smirky McPunchface a life lesson about respecting people.



Violence is not the answer to someone smiling. And Sandmann disrespected no one.

Can you explain to me why you think violence was unjustified in Brown’s case even though he assaulted the officer and tried to take his gun, but justified in Sandmann’s case when he did nothing more than smile?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> As much as you would like to believe this, they were not chanting “Build the wall”. It’s as bogus as “Hands up, don’t shoot”.



Yes, and Trump doesn't say crazy stuff on twitter, either.   Conservative Gaslighting at it's best, who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, Brown fucked up. It was his choice to assault an officer. What happened from that point was pretty much inevitable and he had no one to blame but himself.



When we start throwing thug cops in jail for shooting innocent black children, this sort of shit will come to an end. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was 149 feet away from the cruiser because he was walking or running away, dumbass. His mistake was turning around and approaching Wilson again. This is when Wilson shot him.



No, the mistake was Wilson's, escalating a situation over a petty offense into deadly force.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What you think he looked like is irrelevant. He smiled so as not aggravate the old man because he had no idea why Phillips approached him.
> ...




You just make crap up.......brown attacked the officer and then charged him....Black witnesses to the attack stated this in the Grand Jury, you dope...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2020)

2aguy said:


> You just make crap up.......brown attacked the officer and then charged him....Black witnesses to the attack stated this in the Grand Jury, you dope...



You mean after the corrupt DA who was voted out of office threatened them if they didn't testify the way he wanted?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > You just make crap up.......brown attacked the officer and then charged him....Black witnesses to the attack stated this in the Grand Jury, you dope...
> ...




Yes.....it was all a scam.....and only you know the truth......


----------



## depotoo (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > All of my ancestors came here legally, and immediately strove to become productive members of whatever society they found when they arrived. Not one of them deserved the foul insult of being likened to the invading foreign criminals whom you treasonously defend and support.
> ...


In response to your claim in red-
Acting DHS Secretary Reveals Whopping Percentage of Migrants Don't Show for Their Court Hearings
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Tuesday’s hearing that 90 percent of asylum-seekers who come into the country are not to be seen again.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 19, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > As much as you would like to believe this, they were not chanting “Build the wall”. It’s as bogus as “Hands up, don’t shoot”.
> ...



What does any of this have to do with Trump?

I’ve been going over the DOJ report and of all the witnesses that testified that Brown did not have his hands up, only one was white. In fact, even some of those who feel the shooting was not justified say that Brown never had his hands up. In addition, one of the black witnesses who testified that the shooting was justified is actually an ex con and even has a son currently in prison.

I haven’t finished reading the report (it’s 86 pages long) but so far I’ve read of two witnesses whose testimony contradicts Wilson’s account, later recanted and admitted to not having witnessed the shooting at all and said they only testified the way they did because they wanted to be involved. One even said _“You’ve gotta live the life to know it_” as a half assed justification for giving false testimony. Which suggests to me that they were only interested in railroading the white cop.

The report also states that a number of witnesses refused to come forward for fear of reprisal from the community and that some who did give a statement, did so only under condition of anonymity for the same reason.

Now why do you suppose they would fear community reprisal if not because their testimony would contradict that of their neighbors that the shooting was unjustified?

On top of all this, the Brown family hired a medical examiner to do an independent examination and his findings were consistent with the other MEs that forensic evidence supported Wilson’s account of events.

As for the “trail of casings”, the casings were all found where they would be if Wilson’s account is true. There’s nothing in the report to indicate there are any inconsistencies with the layout of the casings.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, Brown fucked up. It was his choice to assault an officer. What happened from that point was pretty much inevitable and he had no one to blame but himself.





> When we start throwing thug cops in jail for shooting innocent black children, this sort of shit will come to an end.



Meaning, when we falsely accuse enough white cops, this shit will come to an end.

I’m not sitting here saying there are no unjustified shootings, there are. But it serves no one to assume before any inquiry or investigation that every shooting is unjustified. It also serves no one to assume that every inquiry that clears the officer is a cover up.

You can’t have it both ways; if you want more rigorous investigations of these shootings, you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that some of these investigations will clear the officer and rule the shooting justified.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was 149 feet away from the cruiser because he was walking or running away, dumbass. His mistake was turning around and approaching Wilson again. This is when Wilson shot him.





> No, the mistake was Wilson's, escalating a situation over a petty offense into deadly force.



The deadly force came after Brown assaulted him in the cruiser and then later turning around and charging him. What’s more, Wilson had heard the call about the convenience store robbery but is not why he confronted Brown and his friend. He confronted them because the idiots were walking down the middle of the street and a number of vehicles had already had to swerve to miss them. 
So he asked them to get on the sidewalk and that’s when Brown became belligerent. It was then that Wilson saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand and realized they fit the description of the convenience store robbery suspects.

Just like in the Sandmann case, almost nothing you believe about it is true.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2020)

depotoo said:


> n response to your claim in red-
> Acting DHS Secretary Reveals Whopping Percentage of Migrants Don't Show for Their Court Hearings
> Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told the Senate Judiciary Committee during Tuesday’s hearing that 90 percent of asylum-seekers who come into the country are not to be seen again.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-migrants-show-up-immigration-court-hearings/

On CBS, Pence claimed that “the vast majority” never show up. On CNN, he said the rate of no-shows was “plus-90 percent.”


The rate of no-shows is far below 90 percent, according to the Department of Justice’s most recent annual figures. When using the Justice Department’s preferred metric, 44 percent of migrants who were not in custody failed to show up for their court proceedings.

*That’s half the rate Pence claimed. And some researchers say that the Justice Department numbers don’t tell the whole story and that the real rate is less than 44 percent*.

Graham’s question was about asylum hearings, not about all immigration cases. From fiscal 2013 through 2017, *asylum applicants received deportation orders “in absentia” in 6 percent to 11 percent of cases per year, according to the most recent statistics yearbook from the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. *The term “in absentia” is used when someone didn’t show up to court.


So another Racist, Nativist Lie put to bed.   Most of them show up for their hearings.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What does any of this have to do with Trump?
> 
> I’ve been going over the DOJ report and of all the witnesses that testified that Brown did not have his hands up, only one was white. In fact, even some of those who feel the shooting was not justified say that Brown never had his hands up. In addition, one of the black witnesses who testified that the shooting was justified is actually an ex con and even has a son currently in prison.



Check it out.. From the initial witness interviews.  18 people said he had his hands up. only two said he didn't. 








Ghost of a Rider said:


> The report also states that a number of witnesses refused to come forward for fear of reprisal from the community and that some who did give a statement, did so only under condition of anonymity for the same reason.



Yes, anonymous witnesses... they are always credible.  

Look, this was a massive white-wash by Law Enforcement from the get-go.  And, no, I don't take what the DOJ did very seriously, because they were trying to placate law enforcement as well.  That's the problem I always had with Obama. He talked big smack,but backed down when confronted.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning, when we falsely accuse enough white cops, this shit will come to an end.
> 
> I’m not sitting here saying there are no unjustified shootings, there are. But it serves no one to assume before any inquiry or investigation that every shooting is unjustified. It also serves no one to assume that every inquiry that clears the officer is a cover up.
> 
> You can’t have it both ways; if you want more rigorous investigations of these shootings, you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that some of these investigations will clear the officer and rule the shooting justified.



Buddy, there are 900 cop shooting civilians a year. As opposed to the UK, where they only have 2-5 a year. 

When a body is 147 feet away from the police car and it has EIGHT bullet holes in it, and the guy claims "He was going for my gun, really!" despite 18 witnesses saying, "The kid had his hands up!" then, um, yeah, it smells like a rat, it's probably a rat.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The deadly force came after Brown assaulted him in the cruiser and then later turning around and charging him. What’s more, Wilson had heard the call about the convenience store robbery but is not why he confronted Brown and his friend. He confronted them because the idiots were walking down the middle of the street and a number of vehicles had already had to swerve to miss them.



This is why I don't believe a fucking thing Wilson had to say.  His story had too many contradictions.  He claims both that he was calling them out for jaywalking, and then Brown attacked him, and then he claimed that he was responding to the "robbery" (not really) which the owner didn't call in. If he sincerely suspected these two black kids were the perps, he was showing far too little caution.  If he didn't this was just another case of the Ferguson PD hassling black folks for the fun of it. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Just like in the Sandmann case, almost nothing you believe about it is true.



Just like in teh Sandman Case, you just LOVE to be gaslighted as long as people of color are involved.


----------



## depotoo (Jan 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > n response to your claim in red-
> ...


So, you believe the wp.  No surprise there.  You also believed their Russia lies as well.
And there is nothing racist about wanting people to follow the law.  Only in your warped mind, as anything having to do with Reps, you must accuse them of racism to hopedully score brownie points.  Doesn’t work anymore.  Overplayed.

How many that don’t show up are too many for you?  I am going to apologize, if you are talking only asylum cases, yes that 90% figure appears to be incorrect.  What the actual figure is appears to be much less.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2020)

depotoo said:


> So, you believe the wp. No surprise there. You also believed their Russia lies as well.
> And there is nothing racist about wanting people to follow the law. Only in your warped mind, as anything having to do with Reps, you must accuse them of racism to hopedully score brownie points. Doesn’t work anymore. Overplayed.



Oh, I think most people can see Trump's racism for what it is...  It's too bad the rest of the GOP signed onto it.  

True Story, John McCain and George W. Bush had a sensible solution that would have provided greater border security while still doing right by the undocumented immigrants already here.   The Nativists shut it down.  

Back to the point.  Um, yeah, actually, most Asylum Seekers go to their hearings because that's the only way they are going to get residency.   I mean, some get confused and don't follow directions in a language they don't understand, I guess... but the reality- they want to do this the right way.  



depotoo said:


> How many that don’t show up are too many for you? I am going to apologize, if you are talking only asylum cases, yes that 90% figure appears to be incorrect. What the actual figure is appears to be much less.



First, I don't really care how many do or don't show up.  The reason why we have illegals at ALL is because rich white people hire them.  Crack down on the people hiring them, the problem kind of solves itself. 

It actually wasn't much of a problem, the number of people trying to cross the border in 2017 was only 20% of what it was in 2000, when it peaked.  Then Trump got all you dumb racists all worked up, and started screwing with a well oiled machine, and a lot of people tried to break in before they shut the doors.   Dumb. Dumb dumb.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 20, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What does any of this have to do with Trump?
> ...



To begin with, this list was compiled within a month of the shooting but the official DOJ report was published seven months later at the completion of the investigation. 
Secondly, none of the witnesses on this list are in the DOJ report. The DOJ report omitted testimony from those whose testimony did not jibe with forensic evidence. In other words, actual forensic evidence such as location of DNA and blood spots directly contradicted their version of events. 
Thirdly, many testimonies were omitted because they were not consistent from one telling to the next, i.e., they couldn’t keep their shit straight.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The report also states that a number of witnesses refused to come forward for fear of reprisal from the community and that some who did give a statement, did so only under condition of anonymity for the same reason.





> Yes, anonymous witnesses... they are always credible.



They’re anonymous to us, not to the FBI or DOJ. They know who these people are. Their identities are kept confidential to protect their privacy. Idiot.



> Look, this was a massive white-wash by Law Enforcement from the get-go.  And, no, I don't take what the DOJ did very seriously, because they were trying to placate law enforcement as well.  That's the problem I always had with Obama. He talked big smack,but backed down when confronted.



The evidence is right there in the report: Wilson had bruising on his face and jaw which means Brown attacked him in his cruiser. 
Brown’s friend claimed Wilson had Brown by the neck but there were no markings or bruising on Brown’s neck. 
Brown had started to walk away after the initial scuffle in the cruiser but, according to testimony, he stopped and looked at his bloody hand and realized he had been shot. He then turned back around and advanced on Wilson again because he was apparently enraged that he had been shot.
He was advancing on Wilson back in the direction of the cruiser and Wilson ordered him to stop. Wilson had his gun drawn but pointed down at his side. When Brown refused to stop is when Wilson raised his gun and started shooting.

There was blood on the pavement where Brown had stopped to look at his hand but he ultimately was shot and fell some feet closer to the cruiser. Meaning, he was moving towards Wilson when he was shot and all the frontal bullet entry wounds corroborate this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning, when we falsely accuse enough white cops, this shit will come to an end.
> 
> I’m not sitting here saying there are no unjustified shootings, there are. But it serves no one to assume before any inquiry or investigation that every shooting is unjustified. It also serves no one to assume that every inquiry that clears the officer is a cover up.
> 
> You can’t have it both ways; if you want more rigorous investigations of these shootings, you’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that some of these investigations will clear the officer and rule the shooting justified.





> Buddy, there are 900 cop shooting civilians a year. As opposed to the UK, where they only have 2-5 a year.



Irrelevant. This is not justification for assuming the cop is in the wrong in every shooting.



> When a body is 147 feet away from the police car and it has EIGHT bullet holes in it, and the guy claims "He was going for my gun, really!" despite 18 witnesses saying, "The kid had his hands up!" then, um, yeah, it smells like a rat, it's probably a rat.



Brown went for his gun while Wilson was still in the cruiser and Brown had been shot once in the hand during this scuffle. Brown started to run away, Wilson got out of the cruiser and radioed for backup. After doing this, he then started going after Brown, telling him to stop. At some point while Wilson is going after him, Brown stopped, looked at his bleeding hand, turned around and started advancing back in Wilson’s direction. Wilson ordered Brown to stop; Brown did not stop; Wilson fired.

This is why Brown was 147 feet from the cruiser when he was shot. It doesn’t negate the fact that he had turned around at some point and moved toward Wilson.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The deadly force came after Brown assaulted him in the cruiser and then later turning around and charging him. What’s more, Wilson had heard the call about the convenience store robbery but is not why he confronted Brown and his friend. He confronted them because the idiots were walking down the middle of the street and a number of vehicles had already had to swerve to miss them.





> This is why I don't believe a fucking thing Wilson had to say.  His story had too many contradictions.  He claims both that he was calling them out for jaywalking, and then Brown attacked him, and then he claimed that he was responding to the "robbery" (not really) which the owner didn't call in. If he sincerely suspected these two black kids were the perps, he was showing far too little caution.  If he didn't this was just another case of the Ferguson PD hassling black folks for the fun of it.



Um, no. As I already explained, Wilson had heard the call about the robbery but he confronted Brown and his friend for walking down the middle of the street. While he was still in the cruiser and confronting them is when he noticed the cigarillos in Brown’s hand. 
Wilson then tried to exit the cruiser but Brown had become belligerent and closed the cruiser door on Wilson before he could get out and then attacked him.

And yes, the store owner did in fact call in the robbery. I don’t know where you got that he didn’t. It’s in the DOJ report that he had called the cops. Two other officers arrived at the store to question the store owner. They got the description of the two men from the store owner and then radioed that in and Wilson heard it.
Wilson had just been finishing up with a call he was on that involved a sick baby. When he finished there he radioed the two officers at the store to ask if they needed help. They told Wilson that the suspects had “disappeared into the woodwork”.

The radio dispatch transcripts prove that Wilson knew of the store robbery before he encountered Brown.

Also, it’s important to point out two things: 1) Toxicology reports prove that Brown was stoned at the time. To such a degree that he could have been considered impaired, depending on how his body dealt with it.
2) The friend that was with Brown during the robbery and the shooting testified that Brown was exhibiting behavior that was out of character for him that day.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Just like in the Sandmann case, almost nothing you believe about it is true.





> Just like in teh Sandman Case, you just LOVE to be gaslighted as long as people of color are involved.



Gaslighted how? Everything I’ve told you about the Sandmann case is established fact that is proven by the video that you refuse to watch.
On the other hand, all you’ve given me is opinions based on falsehoods and things that have nothing to do with the incident.

And, I have people of color in my family that I care deeply about. So cut the fucking “people of color” bullshit you racist prick. Stop using them as props in your moral charade.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 21, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> To begin with, this list was compiled within a month of the shooting but the official DOJ report was published seven months later at the completion of the investigation.



Seven months to complete a whitewash... That was hard work. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Secondly, none of the witnesses on this list are in the DOJ report. The DOJ report omitted testimony from those whose testimony did not jibe with forensic evidence. In other words, actual forensic evidence such as location of DNA and blood spots directly contradicted their version of events.



OOOOOH, "DNA".  Really?  Not sure how DNA proved he had his hands up, but whatever. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Thirdly, many testimonies were omitted because they were not consistent from one telling to the next, i.e., they couldn’t keep their shit straight.



In short, didn't tell the story they wanted to hear. Got it.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> They’re anonymous to us, not to the FBI or DOJ. They know who these people are. Their identities are kept confidential to protect their privacy. Idiot.



Yeah, to heck with those constitutional rights to challenge witnesses.   All that was missing was the fucking Noose. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The evidence is right there in the report: Wilson had bruising on his face and jaw which means Brown attacked him in his cruiser.



Again, nobody is disputing he got an owie in his cruiser. It was when he chased the kid, the kid put his hands up , and he shot him SIX MORE TIMES!!!!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown’s friend claimed Wilson had Brown by the neck but there were no markings or bruising on Brown’s neck.



Irrelevant.  Some people don't bruise easily, and bruises don't rise when you are like- dead.  Usually it takes a while for bruises to show up. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown had started to walk away after the initial scuffle in the cruiser but, according to testimony, he stopped and looked at his bloody hand and realized he had been shot. He then turned back around and advanced on Wilson again because he was apparently enraged that he had been shot.



Or he turned around because the cop said, "Stop" and put his hands up, and Officer Nazi shot him six more times. 

Hey, fun question.  If Darren Wilson is such a super cop, how come he isn't working as a police officer?  I mean, like anywhere in the country?  I mean, if he was totally vindicated, he should have gotten his job back, right?  You see, that's what happens with cops in JUSTIFIED shootings. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was advancing on Wilson back in the direction of the cruiser and Wilson ordered him to stop. Wilson had his gun drawn but pointed down at his side. When Brown refused to stop is when Wilson raised his gun and started shooting.



Again- SIX FUCKING TIMES>   I don't believe a fucking thing Darren Wilson says.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> There was blood on the pavement where Brown had stopped to look at his hand but he ultimately was shot and fell some feet closer to the cruiser. Meaning, he was moving towards Wilson when he was shot and all the frontal bullet entry wounds corroborate this.



Or that he was giving up and got shot six more times.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. This is not justification for assuming the cop is in the wrong in every shooting.



Why not?  Frankly, that's EXACTLY what they do when a civilian shoots someone.  16000 gun homicides a year, only 200 are ruled as "Justified" shootings by civilians.  

We have 900 police shootings a year in this country, only a handful get someone fired.  Even when one of these thugs gets convicted, it's like for minimal time. (Van Dyke got 7 years, Guyger got 10, etc.)  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown went for his gun while Wilson was still in the cruiser and Brown had been shot once in the hand during this scuffle. Brown started to run away, Wilson got out of the cruiser and radioed for backup. After doing this, he then started going after Brown, telling him to stop. At some point while Wilson is going after him, Brown stopped, looked at his bleeding hand, turned around and started advancing back in Wilson’s direction. Wilson ordered Brown to stop; Brown did not stop; Wilson fired.



Still makes no sense.  If he shot you, you keep running, unless you think he's going to shoot you again, in which case you put your hands up.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is why Brown was 147 feet from the cruiser when he was shot. It doesn’t negate the fact that he had turned around at some point and moved toward Wilson.



Again, according to Wilson. According to 18 witnesses, he had his hands up.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no. As I already explained, Wilson had heard the call about the robbery but he confronted Brown and his friend for walking down the middle of the street. While he was still in the cruiser and confronting them is when he noticed the cigarillos in Brown’s hand.



OH MY GOD< he was JAYWALKING WHILE BLACK.  Totally shoot that kid!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Also, it’s important to point out two things: 1) Toxicology reports prove that Brown was stoned at the time. To such a degree that he could have been considered impaired, depending on how his body dealt with it.



Uh, he was smoking pot. Pot makes you mellow, not aggressive. But yeah, he was black and smoking pot. He totally NEEDED TO DIE!!!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And, I have people of color in my family that I care deeply about. So cut the fucking “people of color” bullshit you racist prick. Stop using them as props in your moral charade.



I'll be more impressed when you have compassion for people of color that you don't know.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > To begin with, this list was compiled within a month of the shooting but the official DOJ report was published seven months later at the completion of the investigation.
> ...



Have you read the report? What am I talking about, of course you haven’t.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Secondly, none of the witnesses on this list are in the DOJ report. The DOJ report omitted testimony from those whose testimony did not jibe with forensic evidence. In other words, actual forensic evidence such as location of DNA and blood spots directly contradicted their version of events.





> OOOOOH, "DNA".  Really?  Not sure how DNA proved he had his hands up, but whatever.



I didn’t say the DNA proved he didn’t have his hands up.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Thirdly, many testimonies were omitted because they were not consistent from one telling to the next, i.e., they couldn’t keep their shit straight.





> In short, didn't tell the story they wanted to hear. Got it.



In short, their testimonies were not consistent. Witnesses were questioned by Ferguson police, the FBI and the DOJ. Some of these witnesses gave different testimony to the FBI than what they told police or the DOJ.

Read the report.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> They’re anonymous to us, not to the FBI or DOJ. They know who these people are. Their identities are kept confidential to protect their privacy. Idiot.





> Yeah, to heck with those constitutional rights to challenge witnesses.   All that was missing was the fucking Noose.



Who’s going to challenge, you? I’m sure someone can challenge a witness if they have a legitimate reason to but they’re not going to release witness names to the likes of you just because you’re curious.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The evidence is right there in the report: Wilson had bruising on his face and jaw which means Brown attacked him in his cruiser.





> Again, nobody is disputing he got an owie in his cruiser. It was when he chased the kid, the kid put his hands up , and he shot him SIX MORE TIMES!!!!



Whether he put his hands up or not is irrelevant; he was moving on Wilson and would not stop when Wilson told him to. Forensic evidence proves this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown’s friend claimed Wilson had Brown by the neck but there were no markings or bruising on Brown’s neck.





> Irrelevant.  Some people don't bruise easily, and bruises don't rise when you are like- dead.  Usually it takes a while for bruises to show up.



There were no markings of any kind, bruises or otherwise.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown had started to walk away after the initial scuffle in the cruiser but, according to testimony, he stopped and looked at his bloody hand and realized he had been shot. He then turned back around and advanced on Wilson again because he was apparently enraged that he had been shot.





> Or he turned around because the cop said, "Stop" and put his hands up, and Officer Nazi shot him six more times.



Nope. As has already been explained to you, the spot in the road where he was standing with his bleeding hand was farther away from the cruiser than where he fell. Meaning, he had moved back in the direction of the cruiser and Wilson when he was shot.



> Hey, fun question.  If Darren Wilson is such a super cop,



Who said he was a super cop?



> how come he isn't working as a police officer?  I mean, like anywhere in the country?  I mean, if he was totally vindicated, he should have gotten his job back, right?  You see, that's what happens with cops in JUSTIFIED shootings.



Find him and ask him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He was advancing on Wilson back in the direction of the cruiser and Wilson ordered him to stop. Wilson had his gun drawn but pointed down at his side. When Brown refused to stop is when Wilson raised his gun and started shooting.





> Again- SIX FUCKING TIMES>   I don't believe a fucking thing Darren Wilson says.



Yeah, SIX FUCKING TIMES - because the asshole wouldn’t stop.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> There was blood on the pavement where Brown had stopped to look at his hand but he ultimately was shot and fell some feet closer to the cruiser. Meaning, he was moving towards Wilson when he was shot and all the frontal bullet entry wounds corroborate this.





> Or that he was giving up and got shot six more times.



If he was giving up then he should have stayed where he was.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. This is not justification for assuming the cop is in the wrong in every shooting.





> Why not?  Frankly, that's EXACTLY what they do when a civilian shoots someone.  16000 gun homicides a year, only 200 are ruled as "Justified" shootings by civilians.



Alright then, assume every shooting is unjustified since that’s what you’ll do anyway. Just don’t bitch about it if the officer is exonerated on occasion.



> We have 900 police shootings a year in this country, only a handful get someone fired.  Even when one of these thugs gets convicted, it's like for minimal time. (Van Dyke got 7 years, Guyger got 10, etc.)



Maybe because only a handful are unjustified.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown went for his gun while Wilson was still in the cruiser and Brown had been shot once in the hand during this scuffle. Brown started to run away, Wilson got out of the cruiser and radioed for backup. After doing this, he then started going after Brown, telling him to stop. At some point while Wilson is going after him, Brown stopped, looked at his bleeding hand, turned around and started advancing back in Wilson’s direction. Wilson ordered Brown to stop; Brown did not stop; Wilson fired.





> Still makes no sense.  If he shot you, you keep running, unless you think he's going to shoot you again, in which case you put your hands up.



He was stoned.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is why Brown was 147 feet from the cruiser when he was shot. It doesn’t negate the fact that he had turned around at some point and moved toward Wilson.





> Again, according to Wilson. According to 18 witnesses, he had his hands up.



Irrelevant. He was moving towards Wilson and would not stop when told to.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Um, no. As I already explained, Wilson had heard the call about the robbery but he confronted Brown and his friend for walking down the middle of the street. While he was still in the cruiser and confronting them is when he noticed the cigarillos in Brown’s hand.





> OH MY GOD< he was JAYWALKING WHILE BLACK.  Totally shoot that kid!



He wasn’t shot for jaywalking.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Also, it’s important to point out two things: 1) Toxicology reports prove that Brown was stoned at the time. To such a degree that he could have been considered impaired, depending on how his body dealt with it.





> Uh, he was smoking pot. Pot makes you mellow, not aggressive. But yeah, he was black and smoking pot. He totally NEEDED TO DIE!!!



He wasn’t shot for being stoned and Wilson didn’t know he was anyway.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And, I have people of color in my family that I care deeply about. So cut the fucking “people of color” bullshit you racist prick. Stop using them as props in your moral charade.





> I'll be more impressed when you have compassion for people of color that you don't know.



I have compassion for people who respect our laws and borders and don’t flout liberal indifference to those laws.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 21, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Have you read the report? What am I talking about, of course you haven’t.



Why should I?  The minute they started trying to gaslight us, I was done.  

Hey, here's the simple thing.  Dead kid. No weapon. Eight Bullet holes in him.    Do the fucking math. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe because only a handful are unjustified.



Again, British cops only shoot a couple people a year.  In Japan, not only are police shootings unheard of, it's a scandal if the cops even unholster their weapons.  Um, yeah, the reason why Neil's Puma joke was so funny is we all know that shit happens.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. He was moving towards Wilson and would not stop when told to.



Cops need a better standard for using deadly force on an unarmed person.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t shot for being stoned and Wilson didn’t know he was anyway.



Wow, so they shot him for a) Jaywalking b) shoplifting, c) smoking a little weed.  Shit, good thing he wasn't littering. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I have compassion for people who respect our laws and borders and don’t flout liberal indifference to those laws.



One more time.. when we go after the rich WHITE people who hire them, then I'll take it seriously.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 21, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read the report? What am I talking about, of course you haven’t.
> ...



Meaning, the minute they disproved your preconceived notion that Wilson murdered Brown, you were done.



> Hey, here's the simple thing.  Dead kid. No weapon. Eight Bullet holes in him.    Do the fucking math.



Hey, here’s the simple thing: Rob a convenience store, attack an officer unprovoked, try to take his weapon and then charge the officer after being told to stop. Dead kid. Do the fucking math.

Another thing, Wilson didn’t know if Brown was armed or not and while Brown was charging him, it looked like he was reaching for something at his waist. This is part of the reasonWilson shot him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Maybe because only a handful are unjustified.





> Again, British cops only shoot a couple people a year.  In Japan, not only are police shootings unheard of, it's a scandal if the cops even unholster their weapons.  Um, yeah, the reason why Neil's Puma joke was so funny is we all know that shit happens.



Yeah, and thanks to Steinberg and others like him contributing to anti-cop sentiment, an officer in Baltimore the other day was surrounded by a mob and kicked and assaulted while performing an arrest.

Congratulations.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. He was moving towards Wilson and would not stop when told to.





> Cops need a better standard for using deadly force on an unarmed person.



First, the officer needs to know if the person is unarmed or not. If time and circumstances permit this, then use the necessary physical force to subdue the suspect. 
However, if circumstances do not afford the officer the time to make this determination, the only thing to do at that point is proceed on the assumption that the suspect is armed. Err on the side of caution.

Wilson never had the opportunity to make this determination. As soon as he tried to exit the cruiser, Brown attacked him. The second Brown did that, his chances of surviving the encounter dropped about fifty percent.

Short of just backing down and complying with Wilson’s command or just continuing to run away, his life was pretty much forfeit at that point.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t shot for being stoned and Wilson didn’t know he was anyway.





> Wow, so they shot him for a) Jaywalking b) shoplifting, c) smoking a little weed.  Shit, good thing he wasn't littering.



He wasn’t shot for any of those things. And it wasn’t shoplifting, it was unarmed robbery.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I have compassion for people who respect our laws and borders and don’t flout liberal indifference to those laws.





> One more time.. when we go after the rich WHITE people who hire them, then I'll take it seriously.



No you won’t. The “little brown people” are your props and you’re not going to give them up as long as you can use them against whites, rich people and conservatives, no matter how many rich whites they indict.

I know damn well that if they manage to drastically cut down on the hiring of illegals, they’ll still be coming here, conservatives will still complain and you’ll still be calling them racist.

For people like you, ending racism is not the goal. _Fighting_ racism has become a goal unto itself. You would be lost and rudderless without someone to feel morally superior to.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 22, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Meaning, the minute they disproved your preconceived notion that Wilson murdered Brown, you were done.



No, the minute they started in with, "Forget everything you've heard up to this point, we don't want to seem like we are justifying the riots!"  Which is pretty much what they did.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hey, here’s the simple thing: Rob a convenience store, attack an officer unprovoked, try to take his weapon and then charge the officer after being told to stop. Dead kid. Do the fucking math.



None of those things justify lethal force.  And again, don't really believe anything Wilson said. 

Jason Van Dyke claimed LaQuan McDonald was coming right for him. The CPD even tried to intimidate witnesses who complained.  Then the tape showed up.  

Did I also mention Darren Wilson was fired from his previous job?  Why? Because the police force he was on was so corrupt the town disbanded it and asked the St. Louis PD to take over.  

We can also add, the Ferguson PD/DA edited the tape to leave out the part where store employees traded pot for cigarellos some hours earlier.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Another thing, Wilson didn’t know if Brown was armed or not and while Brown was charging him, it looked like he was reaching for something at his waist. This is part of the reasonWilson shot him.



Yeah, we've heard that one before.  He was totally reaching for something. NO really!!!  Ignore those 18 witnesses who said he had his hands up. Take my word for it.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Yeah, and thanks to Steinberg and others like him contributing to anti-cop sentiment, an officer in Baltimore the other day was surrounded by a mob and kicked and assaulted while performing an arrest.



Yes, it was because they read that column by Steinberg that he wrote in another city 12 years ago.  Not because oh, the cops murdered Freddie Gray and no one was held accountable.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> First, the officer needs to know if the person is unarmed or not. If time and circumstances permit this, then use the necessary physical force to subdue the suspect.
> However, if circumstances do not afford the officer the time to make this determination, the only thing to do at that point is proceed on the assumption that the suspect is armed. Err on the side of caution.



Nope.  You shoot an unarmed kid, you go to prison. Done.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wilson never had the opportunity to make this determination. As soon as he tried to exit the cruiser, Brown attacked him. The second Brown did that, his chances of surviving the encounter dropped about fifty percent.



Again, when you hire corrupt cops, yes, your chances of being murdered by one increases quite a bit.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Short of just backing down and complying with Wilson’s command or just continuing to run away, his life was pretty much forfeit at that point.



Again, a whole lot of things Wilson could have done to de-escalate the situation.  He could have withdrawn and waited for backup.  He could have engaged the kid using his nightstick.  But nope, just start shooting, even if he has his hands up. Because he was a scary negro and he pissed you off. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t shot for any of those things. And it wasn’t shoplifting, it was unarmed robbery.



No, actually it was a dispute over a deal he made with the store staff.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No you won’t. The “little brown people” are your props and you’re not going to give them up as long as you can use them against whites, rich people and conservatives, no matter how many rich whites they indict.



Well, let's indict a few, and let's see.  Doesn't help when Trump gives pardons to people who hire them. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know damn well that if they manage to drastically cut down on the hiring of illegals, they’ll still be coming here, conservatives will still complain and you’ll still be calling them racist.



Why would they come here if there are no jobs?  The reality is that because of E-Verify and other enforcement, the number of people trying to cross the border dropped from 1 million in 2000 to less than 300,000 in 2017. There was a jump after Trump started screaming about walls and shit, but that was only because people panicked and tried to get in under the wire. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For people like you, ending racism is not the goal. _Fighting_ racism has become a goal unto itself. You would be lost and rudderless without someone to feel morally superior to.



Naw, I'll always feel morally superior to the inbred, bible thumping morons who get tricked by the rich.  The scariest thing will be when all the dumb-ass white trash finally figure out it isn't the undocumented worker or the poor black that is his enemy, it's the rich white guy in the corner office who is thinking up new ways to screw him.


----------



## John Hazelwood (Jan 22, 2020)

it is a fact that not a single time in human history has a gun killed a person


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 22, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Meaning, the minute they disproved your preconceived notion that Wilson murdered Brown, you were done.
> ...



When did they say this?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Hey, here’s the simple thing: Rob a convenience store, attack an officer unprovoked, try to take his weapon and then charge the officer after being told to stop. Dead kid. Do the fucking math.





> None of those things justify lethal force.  And again, don't really believe anything Wilson said.



Actually, it does justify lethal force if the officer does not know if the suspect is armed or not.

I don’t know why you have such an aversion to holding people accountable for their actions but Brown is entirely responsible for everything that happened that day.

He attacked an officer unprovoked, tried to take the officer’s gun and then charged at the officer after being ordered to stop.

A question: In your opinion, what could Brown have done or not done to avoid what happened?



> Jason Van Dyke claimed LaQuan McDonald was coming right for him. The CPD even tried to intimidate witnesses who complained.  Then the tape showed up.



Totally unrelated case.



> Did I also mention Darren Wilson was fired from his previous job?  Why? Because the police force he was on was so corrupt the town disbanded it and asked the St. Louis PD to take over.



To begin with, Wilson was not fired, he was given a position at the city jail. Most of the other officers were let go.
Secondly, there’s nothing to indicate that Wilson was part of the problem or part of the reason for the closure, In fact, what ultimately prompted the closure was another officer shooting at a vehicle’s tires to stop it when there was a child inside.
Third, Wilson had only been on the force for two years at that point.



> We can also add, the Ferguson PD/DA edited the tape to leave out the part where store employees traded pot for cigarellos some hours earlier.



And? The store owner was not present during this alleged transaction and knew nothing about it. All he knew was that this punk swiped cigarillos from his store.

But this supposed marijuana-for-cigarillos story raises a few questions. 1) Why was the deal not completed and the cigarillos not given to Brown at that time? 2) Why would Brown leave the dope at the store if the deal was not completed? 3) Wouldn’t it have been wiser for Brown to just take back the dope that belonged to him rather than steal cigarillos that didn’t?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Another thing, Wilson didn’t know if Brown was armed or not and while Brown was charging him, it looked like he was reaching for something at his waist. This is part of the reasonWilson shot him.





> Yeah, we've heard that one before.  He was totally reaching for something. NO really!!!  Ignore those 18 witnesses who said he had his hands up. Take my word for it.



It’s entirely possible that Brown had raised his hands. However, given what we know for a fact according to forensic evidence, it’s likely he raised his hands to about waist level to look at the gunshot injury. Did he raise his hands over his head in submission? Given what had transpired up to this point - i.e., attacking the officer - unlikely.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Yeah, and thanks to Steinberg and others like him contributing to anti-cop sentiment, an officer in Baltimore the other day was surrounded by a mob and kicked and assaulted while performing an arrest.





> Yes, it was because they read that column by Steinberg that he wrote in another city 12 years ago.  Not because oh, the cops murdered Freddie Gray and no one was held accountable.



Exactly. People promote anti-cop sentiment because of a few Freddy Grays type cases.

Frustration, anger and resentment are understandable. Pushing a narrative that depicts all cops as racist is not. Sooner or later good cops are going to suffer. And some have.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> First, the officer needs to know if the person is unarmed or not. If time and circumstances permit this, then use the necessary physical force to subdue the suspect.
> However, if circumstances do not afford the officer the time to make this determination, the only thing to do at that point is proceed on the assumption that the suspect is armed. Err on the side of caution.





> Nope.  You shoot an unarmed kid, you go to prison. Done.



Fortunately it’s not up to clowns like you who’ve never been threatened by a suspect who may or may not be armed and don’t have to face this possibility every day.

If I was an officer and faced with a similar situation where I didn’t know if the suspect was armed or not and he’s threatening me; if it ensures that I get home to my family, you’re fuckin’-A right I’m shooting.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wilson never had the opportunity to make this determination. As soon as he tried to exit the cruiser, Brown attacked him. The second Brown did that, his chances of surviving the encounter dropped about fifty percent.





> Again, when you hire corrupt cops, yes, your chances of being murdered by one increases quite a bit.



Deflection. Corrupt cops or no, what Brown did was infinitely and colossally stupid.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Short of just backing down and complying with Wilson’s command or just continuing to run away, his life was pretty much forfeit at that point.





> Again, a whole lot of things Wilson could have done to de-escalate the situation.  He could have withdrawn and waited for backup.  He could have engaged the kid using his nightstick.  But nope, just start shooting, even if he has his hands up. Because he was a scary negro and he pissed you off.



1) His hands weren’t up. 2) Brown was charging him. I don’t know about you, but I’m not waiting minutes for backup when a guy that outweighs me by a hundred pounds is going to attack me in seconds.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t shot for any of those things. And it wasn’t shoplifting, it was unarmed robbery.





> No, actually it was a dispute over a deal he made with the store staff.



An illegal deal that the store employees were not authorized to make. The owner had no part in it nor was he aware of it.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> No you won’t. The “little brown people” are your props and you’re not going to give them up as long as you can use them against whites, rich people and conservatives, no matter how many rich whites they indict.





> Well, let's indict a few, and let's see.  Doesn't help when Trump gives pardons to people who hire them.



To what are you referring?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I know damn well that if they manage to drastically cut down on the hiring of illegals, they’ll still be coming here, conservatives will still complain and you’ll still be calling them racist.





> Why would they come here if there are no jobs?  The reality is that because of E-Verify and other enforcement, the number of people trying to cross the border dropped from 1 million in 2000 to less than 300,000 in 2017. There was a jump after Trump started screaming about walls and shit, but that was only because people panicked and tried to get in under the wire.



And I’ll bet you regard these measures as racist, don’t you?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> For people like you, ending racism is not the goal. _Fighting_ racism has become a goal unto itself. You would be lost and rudderless without someone to feel morally superior to.





> Naw, I'll always feel morally superior to the inbred, bible thumping morons who get tricked by the rich.  The scariest thing will be when all the dumb-ass white trash finally figure out it isn't the undocumented worker or the poor black that is his enemy, it's the rich white guy in the corner office who is thinking up new ways to screw him.


.
Exactly. You’ll “always feel morally superior to...”

It’s a charade. What you’re doing is the exact same moral posturing that people like you have always hated about Christians.

Don’t just try to eradicate racism for its practical and societal benefits, let everyone _know_ you’re against racism so you’ll be accepted by the group and looked up to by people of color and little brown people.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Actually, it does justify lethal force if the officer does not know if the suspect is armed or not.



Which is why we need to change those rules...  

We have too many trigger happy cops out there shooting kids playing with toys or during bullshit traffic stops.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And I’ll bet you regard these measures as racist, don’t you?



E verify is fine.   I'd probably go a step further and create a national ID card with biometrics to prevent all sorts of identity theft.  Of course, another reason why undocumented immigration and border crossings declined to non-crisis levels was because economic conditions improved in Mexico to where people didn't need to cross the border to find jobs. The real problem, of course, is that the employers who are hiring illegals are KNOWINGLY hiring them.   Those are the folks we need to go after, not throwing kids into concentration camps to make racist fucks like you happy.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> An illegal deal that the store employees were not authorized to make. The owner had no part in it nor was he aware of it.



Point was, it put the whole "Strong Arm Robbery" in a different light.  Odd the cops hid that from the public for nearly a year when they put out the slow-motion tape of the store owner getting pushed like it was something sinister. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> 1) His hands weren’t up. 2) Brown was charging him. I don’t know about you, but I’m not waiting minutes for backup when a guy that outweighs me by a hundred pounds is going to attack me in seconds.



He was also 147 feet away and overweight.  He could have easily withdrawn back to his cruiser.  But he was going make that boy pay!!!!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Exactly. People promote anti-cop sentiment because of a few Freddy Grays type cases.
> 
> Frustration, anger and resentment are understandable. Pushing a narrative that depicts all cops as racist is not. Sooner or later good cops are going to suffer. And some have.



Good cops should be working hard to get rid of the bad ones... then they wouldn't suffer. Instead, they cover for the bad ones. In the Gray case, you had a bunch of cops involved, and none of them saw anything. Nope. Freddy must have broken his own neck and back!!! Yeah. That's the ticket.  Tamir Rice was going for that toy!  LaQuan McDonald was charging.  Mike Brown was charging. Sandra Bland struck the officer!  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It’s entirely possible that Brown had raised his hands. However, given what we know for a fact according to forensic evidence, it’s likely he raised his hands to about waist level to look at the gunshot injury. Did he raise his hands over his head in submission? Given what had transpired up to this point - i.e., attacking the officer - unlikely.



Uh, guy, this is the bullshit argument. Most people wouldn't put their hand up straight over their heads.  Most people would put their hands up over their sides.  which wouldn't have changed the position of his shirt at all when the first shot hit him. (The other five, his hands were probably down for obvious reasons.(

Hey, if Darren Wilson is such a super cop, why isn't he back on the job.. .anywhere?


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Exactly. You’ll “always feel morally superior to...”
> 
> It’s a charade. What you’re doing is the exact same moral posturing that people like you have always hated about Christians.





Ghost of a Rider said:


> Don’t just try to eradicate racism for its practical and societal benefits, let everyone _know_ you’re against racism so you’ll be accepted by the group and looked up to by people of color and little brown people.



Naw, man, what I hate about Christians is they keep voting to let the One Percent screw us all because they be RIGHT with Jesus.  "Hey, they sent my union job to a right to work state or China".  "Never mind that, them queers are getting married and some darkie wants to take a job picking lettuce!" "Wny, by Jesus, I hate them gays and Mexicans, just like Jesus did. I'm voting Republican!"


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it does justify lethal force if the officer does not know if the suspect is armed or not.
> ...



How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed? Keeping in mind that the officer does not know that he is armed.



> We have too many trigger happy cops out there shooting kids playing with toys or during bullshit traffic stops.



And we have too many trigger happy punks out there shooting cops for traffic stops.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And I’ll bet you regard these measures as racist, don’t you?





> E verify is fine.   I'd probably go a step further and create a national ID card with biometrics to prevent all sorts of identity theft.  Of course, another reason why undocumented immigration and border crossings declined to non-crisis levels was because economic conditions improved in Mexico to where people didn't need to cross the border to find jobs. The real problem, of course, is that the employers who are hiring illegals are KNOWINGLY hiring them.   Those are the folks we need to go after, not throwing kids into concentration camps to make racist fucks like you happy.



You accused me before of not wanting little brown people around as my motive for wanting more stringent border security and here you are saying the same thing.

Hypocrite.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> An illegal deal that the store employees were not authorized to make. The owner had no part in it nor was he aware of it.





> Point was, it put the whole "Strong Arm Robbery" in a different light.  Odd the ops hid that from the public for nearly a year when they put out the slow-motion tape of the store owner getting pushed like it was something sinister.



It does not put it in a different light. He stole something that didn’t belong to him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> 1) His hands weren’t up. 2) Brown was charging him. I don’t know about you, but I’m not waiting minutes for backup when a guy that outweighs me by a hundred pounds is going to attack me in seconds.





> He was also 147 feet away and overweight.  He could have easily withdrawn back to his cruiser.  But he was going make that boy pay!!!!



Wrong. He was 147 feet away from the _cruiser_, not Wilson. Wilson was chasing after him and Brown had turned around at some point and began to charge Wilson. Wilson kept telling him to stop but he would not and Wilson then raised his gun and fired when Brown had gotten to within 15 feet or so.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Exactly. People promote anti-cop sentiment because of a few Freddy Grays type cases.
> 
> Frustration, anger and resentment are understandable. Pushing a narrative that depicts all cops as racist is not. Sooner or later good cops are going to suffer. And some have.





> Good cops should be working hard to get rid of the bad ones... then they wouldn't suffer. Instead, they cover for the bad ones. In the Gray case, you had a bunch of cops involved, and none of them saw anything. Nope. Freddy must have broken his own neck and back!!! Yeah. That's the ticket.  Tamir Rice was going for that toy!  LaQuan McDonald was charging.  Mike Brown was charging. Sandra Bland struck the officer!



Right. And legal immigrants should be working hard to get rid of illegal immigrants. If they don’t then they should suffer the same fate.

Don’t be stupid.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It’s entirely possible that Brown had raised his hands. However, given what we know for a fact according to forensic evidence, it’s likely he raised his hands to about waist level to look at the gunshot injury. Did he raise his hands over his head in submission? Given what had transpired up to this point - i.e., attacking the officer - unlikely.





> Uh, guy, this is the bullshit argument. Most people wouldn't put their hand up straight over their heads.  Most people would put their hands up over their sides.  which wouldn't have changed the position of his shirt at all when the first shot hit him. (The other five, his hands were probably down for obvious reasons.(



Brown was stoned and had just attacked an officer and tried to take his gun and was moving toward the officer. He was not surrendering.



> Hey, if Darren Wilson is such a super cop, why isn't he back on the job.. .anywhere?



Again, who said he was a super cop? And why are you asking this again?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 23, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. You’ll “always feel morally superior to...”
> ...



Yup, just like I said...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 24, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed? Keeping in mind that the officer does not know that he is armed.



Simple solution to that. Make it a lot fucking harder to get a gun.  Then they'll know people aren't armed.  

Funny thing, most of the cases that BLM and I are upset about, the person wasn't armed. Or if they were, they weren't a threat. 

But these cops are fucking trigger happy as all get out, and that's the problem. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does not put it in a different light. He stole something that didn’t belong to him.



No, he took merchandise he had bartered for.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You accused me before of not wanting little brown people around as my motive for wanting more stringent border security and here you are saying the same thing.



Um, no, I'm saying we should have a system that is fair to everyone..   Sorry you are confused. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right. And legal immigrants should be working hard to get rid of illegal immigrants. If they don’t then they should suffer the same fate.



Immigrants don't belong a regimented, para-military organization. Cops do.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, who said he was a super cop? And why are you asking this again?



Well, he must be a super-cop according to you guys. He knew that Mike Brown was a totally evil character who had just robbed a store and would go on to do a massive crime spree... So why not rehire him? 

Michael Brown's family received $1.5 million settlement with Ferguson

OH, yeah, that.  Now, look, man, I know you won't get upset about people of color being shot... but what it's costing us in settlements should bother you. 

LaQuan McDonald's family got 5 million
Tamir Rice's family got 6 million
Walter Scott's family got 6.5 million.  

We really, really can't afford trigger happy cops like Wilson, Loehman, Van Dyke and Slager.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 24, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed? Keeping in mind that the officer does not know that he is armed.
> ...



That’s not a solution, that’s a gun control talking point. 

Making it harder to get guns does not eliminate the threat. Not even banning firearms would eliminate the threat. Either way, there’s no way an officer can know someone is not armed. 
If I were an officer, I would assume every time that the suspect’s being armed is a possibility because it is. The suspect may choose to put his life at risk but I am not.

Another thing: an officer doesn’t always know if a suspect is armed but all suspects have the advantage of knowing that all officers are armed at all times. This is a given. Yet idiots like Brown choose to attack officers anyway. This is why what he did was so fucking stupid and reckless.



> Funny thing, most of the cases that BLM and I are upset about, the person wasn't armed. Or if they were, they weren't a threat.



Duh. Of course this is why people like you are upset. The problem is that people like you never consider extenuating circumstances or the possibility that the suspect behaved irrationally or aggressively as in Brown’s case.



> But these cops are fucking trigger happy as all get out, and that's the problem.



The cops are trigger happy because officers are killed every day by suspects.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does not put it in a different light. He stole something that didn’t belong to him.





> No, he took merchandise he had bartered for.



Wrong. He took merchandise that was neither his nor theirs and they had no legal or proprietary right to bargain with it.

BTW, you never answered my question: In your opinion, what could Brown have done or not done on his part to avoid what happened?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You accused me before of not wanting little brown people around as my motive for wanting more stringent border security and here you are saying the same thing.





> Um, no, I'm saying we should have a system that is fair to everyone..   Sorry you are confused.



Wrong. You specifically accused me of not wanting “little brown people around”, or words to that effect. Remember, you were the one who brought up little brown people, not me.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Right. And legal immigrants should be working hard to get rid of illegal immigrants. If they don’t then they should suffer the same fate.





> Immigrants don't belong a regimented, para-military organization. Cops do.



Irrelevant. The point is, you want to hold good cops accountable for the actions of bad cops.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, who said he was a super cop? And why are you asking this again?





> Well, he must be a super-cop according to you guys. He knew that Mike Brown was a totally evil character who had just robbed a store and would go on to do a massive crime spree... So why not rehire him?



He knew Brown had just attacked him unprovoked. Everything else is just circumstantial. And if Wilson said anything about Brown being evil (which he didn’t) he said so _after_ the attack, not before.

Again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking or even the strongarm robbery, he was shot for attacking the officer and not backing down when told to.



> Michael Brown's family received $1.5 million settlement with Ferguson
> 
> OH, yeah, that.  Now, look, man, I know you won't get upset about people of color being shot... but what it's costing us in settlements should bother you.



It does actually. It bothers me that punks like Brown can behave criminally and attack an officer and the city has to pay for his poor choices.



> LaQuan McDonald's family got 5 million
> Tamir Rice's family got 6 million
> Walter Scott's family got 6.5 million.
> 
> We really, really can't afford trigger happy cops like Wilson, Loehman, Van Dyke and Slager.



Why should this bother you when losing billions a year to illegal immigrants not paying taxes and sending money to their home countries doesn’t? If we could stem that massive leak, it would make up for these lawsuits a hundred times over.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 25, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> That’s not a solution, that’s a gun control talking point.



Um. No. It's a solution. The British have already done it and their cops only shoot about 2 people a year. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Making it harder to get guns does not eliminate the threat. Not even banning firearms would eliminate the threat. Either way, there’s no way an officer can know someone is not armed.
> If I were an officer, I would assume every time that the suspect’s being armed is a possibility because it is. The suspect may choose to put his life at risk but I am not.



And again... if you shoot an unarmed kid, you are going to jail They just LOOOOVE cops in Jail. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Another thing: an officer doesn’t always know if a suspect is armed but all suspects have the advantage of knowing that all officers are armed at all times. This is a given. Yet idiots like Brown choose to attack officers anyway. This is why what he did was so fucking stupid and reckless.



Or they were just trying to get away from a preceived threat.  Again, given how often cops kill black kids and get away with it up until now, they probably see that situation totally differently than you or I would. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Duh. Of course this is why people like you are upset. The problem is that people like you never consider extenuating circumstances or the possibility that the suspect behaved irrationally or aggressively as in Brown’s case.



Nope, I don't think having your hands up constituted a threat.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does actually. It bothers me that punks like Brown can behave criminally and attack an officer and the city has to pay for his poor choices.



The poor choices made here were by Wilson when he used deadly force to resolve a petty offense.  No one settles when they know they can win.   



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why should this bother you when losing billions a year to illegal immigrants not paying taxes and sending money to their home countries doesn’t? If we could stem that massive leak, it would make up for these lawsuits a hundred times over.



Yes, guy, you are totally not racist when you make comments like this.   Undocumented immigrants are a net boom for our economy.  They are keeping it afloat. Without illegal labor, we'd be experiencing runaway inflation. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He knew Brown had just attacked him unprovoked. Everything else is just circumstantial. And if Wilson said anything about Brown being evil (which he didn’t) he said so _after_ the attack, not before.
> 
> Again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking or even the strongarm robbery, he was shot for attacking the officer and not backing down when told to.



No, he was shot because Wilson was a racist piece of shit. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The point is, you want to hold good cops accountable for the actions of bad cops.



Completely relevant-  They belong to an organization.  They are the ones covering up for the bad cops, filing false police reports, destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses...   Oh, yeah, and unlike undocumented immigrants, they are commiting real crimes.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 25, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > That’s not a solution, that’s a gun control talking point.
> ...



Your response is an answer to the question as to how to reduce the number of suspects shooting cops, but that was not my question. My question was: How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed? 

In other words, if the suspect is armed but the officer does not know that he is, other than assuming the suspect could be armed, how does he proceed without putting his own life at risk if the suspect is coming at him?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Making it harder to get guns does not eliminate the threat. Not even banning firearms would eliminate the threat. Either way, there’s no way an officer can know someone is not armed.
> If I were an officer, I would assume every time that the suspect’s being armed is a possibility because it is. The suspect may choose to put his life at risk but I am not.





> And again... if you shoot an unarmed kid, you are going to jail They just LOOOOVE cops in Jail.



Not if the suspect is exhibiting threatening behavior. If an officer perceives a threat, he is authorized to shoot. If it turns out the suspect was not armed then that just means the suspect was a fucking moron to threaten an armed officer while he himself was unarmed. I mean, how fucking stupid can you get?

This is why I say what Brown did was especially stupid and reckless.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Another thing: an officer doesn’t always know if a suspect is armed but all suspects have the advantage of knowing that all officers are armed at all times. This is a given. Yet idiots like Brown choose to attack officers anyway. This is why what he did was so fucking stupid and reckless.





> Or they were just trying to get away from a preceived threat.



Brown attacked Wilson and then later charged at him. If he perceived a threat from Wilson then everything he did is that much more stupid and senseless.



> Again, given how often cops kill black kids and get away with it up until now, they probably see that situation totally differently than you or I would.



Obviously they see it differently. What some see differently - or rather, choose to ignore - is that sometimes the suspects behave in a way that leaves the officer with no choice but to put them down.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Duh. Of course this is why people like you are upset. The problem is that people like you never consider extenuating circumstances or the possibility that the suspect behaved irrationally or aggressively as in Brown’s case.





> Nope, I don't think having your hands up constituted a threat.



But charging at the officer does. Which is what Brown did.

Do you honestly keep forgetting this or are you hoping I will?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> It does actually. It bothers me that punks like Brown can behave criminally and attack an officer and the city has to pay for his poor choices.





> The poor choices made here were by Wilson when he used deadly force to resolve a petty offense.  No one settles when they know they can win.



Once again, Brown was not shot for the robbery or jaywalking, he was shot for attacking an officer. 

It is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest of you to keep pushing this narrative when you yourself know it is not why Wilson shot him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why should this bother you when losing billions a year to illegal immigrants not paying taxes and sending money to their home countries doesn’t? If we could stem that massive leak, it would make up for these lawsuits a hundred times over.





> Yes, guy, you are totally not racist when you make comments like this.



Like what, the truth? Who’s butthurt now?



> Undocumented immigrants are a net boom for our economy.  They are keeping it afloat. Without illegal labor, we'd be experiencing runaway inflation.



Bullshit. The billion dollars lost in tax revenue and income not being spent here would go a long way in helping to pay for the free health care you want. Did you even think of that?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He knew Brown had just attacked him unprovoked. Everything else is just circumstantial. And if Wilson said anything about Brown being evil (which he didn’t) he said so _after_ the attack, not before.
> 
> Again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking or even the strongarm robbery, he was shot for attacking the officer and not backing down when told to.





> No, he was shot because Wilson was a racist piece of shit.



When all else fails: racism. For that matter, when nothing fails: racism.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Irrelevant. The point is, you want to hold good cops accountable for the actions of bad cops.





> Completely relevant-  They belong to an organization.  They are the ones covering up for the bad cops, filing false police reports, destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses...



These are all criminal actions which would make them bad cops. What you’re describing is bad cops covering for bad cops. This suggests to me that you think there are no good cops.



> Oh, yeah, and unlike undocumented immigrants, they are commiting real crimes.



Being an undocumented immigrant is a crime. A real one. And undocumented immigrants are committing crimes every day: drug dealing, sex trafficking, murder, etc.

And, you still haven’t answered my question: What could Brown have done or not done to avoid what happened?

I suspect that, like the question about Phillips approaching Sandmann, you’re never going to answer and you’ll probably be bailing on me before long.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 26, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Your response is an answer to the question as to how to reduce the number of suspects shooting cops, but that was not my question. My question was: How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed?



Don't pull over every black person you run into.  That's would be a start.  Don't be fucking trigger happy.  

This isn't a discussion about shooting "armed" suspects. This is a discussion of them shooting UNARMED suspects.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Not if the suspect is exhibiting threatening behavior. If an officer perceives a threat, he is authorized to shoot.



And that's the problem.  We hire racist cops who shit themselves when they see a scary black man. Or even a scary black child. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> But charging at the officer does. Which is what Brown did.
> 
> Do you honestly keep forgetting this or are you hoping I will?



No, you'll keep repeating the racist asshole's LIES about "charging", which was contradicted by all the witnesses.  And you'll ignore that Wilson was fired from his LAST job for corruption.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> These are all criminal actions which would make them bad cops. What you’re describing is bad cops covering for bad cops. This suggests to me that you think there are no good cops.



That's a good question.  Why do Good Cops feel the need to cover up for the bad ones?  I don't think the guys who covered up for Jason Van Dyke were bad cops.  They just felt a need to protect one of their own. (Incidently, people in my family know van Dyke... I'm not on speaking terms with some of them over this incident because I have some crazy idea that when you shoot a kid lying on the ground 16 times, you should go to jail.) 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Being an undocumented immigrant is a crime. A real one. And undocumented immigrants are committing crimes every day: drug dealing, sex trafficking, murder, etc.



Uh, guy, the illegals are the victims of sex trafficking, not the perpetrators.  You want to end "sex trafficking".  Simple enough solution. Get rid of all the idiotic prostitution laws.  Same with drug dealing. Get rid of the drug laws.  Murder.  Well, since we aren't going to you know, get common sense gun control in this country, we are just going to have to live with a handful of our 16,000 murders each year being committed by people without papers.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And, you still haven’t answered my question: What could Brown have done or not done to avoid what happened?



I did answer your question. Not a fucking thing. This isn't about Brown. It's about a racist piece of shit corrupt cop who shot an unarmed kid who had his hands up and lied about it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 26, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Your response is an answer to the question as to how to reduce the number of suspects shooting cops, but that was not my question. My question was: How would you change the rules in such a way as not to put the officer at greater risk in a situation where the suspect IS armed?
> ...



You left out the rest of the question. Deliberately, most likely. The rest of the question was:  How does he proceed without putting his own life at risk if the suspect is coming at him?



> This isn't a discussion about shooting "armed" suspects. This is a discussion of them shooting UNARMED suspects.



Wrong. We’re talking about the Michael Brown case.

I never denied that cops unjustifiably shoot unarmed blacks and I said as much myself. If they do and the investigation supports this, then prosecute.

My point is, and always has been, not all cases of unarmed suspect shootings are unjustified. Sometimes, as in the Michael Brown case, they threaten or attack the officer and, if the officer does not know if the suspect is armed or not, he must shoot and put the suspect down to defend his own life.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Not if the suspect is exhibiting threatening behavior. If an officer perceives a threat, he is authorized to shoot.





> And that's the problem.  We hire racist cops who shit themselves when they see a scary black man. Or even a scary black child.



If they are threatening or attacking the officer then yes, they _are_ scary.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> But charging at the officer does. Which is what Brown did.
> 
> Do you honestly keep forgetting this or are you hoping I will?





> No, you'll keep repeating the racist asshole's LIES about "charging", which was contradicted by all the witnesses.



Wrong. According to the DOJ report, a number of witnesses testified that Brown did not have his hands up and was moving towards Wilson.

• Witness 102, a white male doing home repairs nearby, testified that Brown never had his hands up and was moving toward Wilson.
• Witness 103, a black male driving by and witnessing the incident firsthand from feet away, testified the same thing.
• Witnesses 104, 105, 106, & 107, a black family in a minivan, all testified the same thing.
• Witnesses 108 & 109, both black males nearby, testified the same.
• Witnesses 110 & 111, a black couple just arriving at their home nearby, testified the same.
• Witnesses 112, 115 & 141, all black males that lived nearby or otherwise witnessed the incident, testified the same.

Witnesses 113 & 125, both black females, lied and said they had witnessed the shooting but later recanted and said they had not seen a thing when it was pointed out that forensic evidence directly contradicted their testimony.
One said she just wanted to be involved and the other said to the effect: “You just have to live the life to know it.”



> And you'll ignore that Wilson was fired from his LAST job for corruption.



Wrong. The department was closed down due to corruption and most of the officers were let go but Wilson kept his job and was assigned to a jailhouse. And, there were never any allegations or accusations of corruption against Wilson in particular.

You’ve been told this already.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> These are all criminal actions which would make them bad cops. What you’re describing is bad cops covering for bad cops. This suggests to me that you think there are no good cops.





> That's a good question.  Why do Good Cops feel the need to cover up for the bad ones?  I don't think the guys who covered up for Jason Van Dyke were bad cops.  They just felt a need to protect one of their own. (Incidently, people in my family know van Dyke... I'm not on speaking terms with some of them over this incident because I have some crazy idea that when you shoot a kid lying on the ground 16 times, you should go to jail.)



Covering up for a bad cop is not good cop behavior. Once a heretofore good cop takes that step, he is now in the dubious realm of bad cops.

A good cop is a good cop. I.E., a good cop follows departmental procedure, does not cover up bad behavior by bad cops, is fair and honest with suspects and otherwise generally conducts his job within the law.

Now, unless you’re saying that officers like this do not exist then you will have to prove as much. Until then, my original point stands: good cops are being targeted for violence and criticism along with the bad ones because of the anti-cop rhetoric.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Being an undocumented immigrant is a crime. A real one. And undocumented immigrants are committing crimes every day: drug dealing, sex trafficking, murder, etc.





> Uh, guy, the illegals are the victims of sex trafficking, not the perpetrators.



Some of the sex traffickers are illegals trafficking illegals. MS-13 is a known sex traffic organization.



> You want to end "sex trafficking".  Simple enough solution. Get rid of all the idiotic prostitution laws.  Same with drug dealing. Get rid of the drug laws.  Murder.  Well, since we aren't going to you know, get common sense gun control in this country, we are just going to have to live with a handful of our 16,000 murders each year being committed by people without papers.



Blah blah blah. This is nothing more than diversion or deflection. The fact remains that some illegal immigrants are committing real crimes.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> And, you still haven’t answered my question: What could Brown have done or not done to avoid what happened?





> I did answer your question. Not a fucking thing.



So are you telling me that if Brown had done as Wilson asked and got on the sidewalk, not attacked Wilson in his cruiser and had not charged at him, that Wilson would have shot him anyway?



> This isn't about Brown.



Of course it’s about Brown you idiot. He’s the one who attacked an officer and was shot for it, isn’t he?



> It's about a racist piece of shit corrupt cop who shot an unarmed kid who had his hands up and lied about it.



Sorry, but a number of witnesses WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE testified that he did not have his hands up and that he charged at the officer. Forensic evidence proves this.

The evidence and overall testimony is simply not on your side here and even some of those who testified that Brown had his hands up said he was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him.
.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 27, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You left out the rest of the question. Deliberately, most likely. The rest of the question was: How does he proceed without putting his own life at risk if the suspect is coming at him?



Don't pull over or harass every black kid you run into. We've been over this. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. According to the DOJ report,



You mean after they decided they were going to whitewash the whole incident after the riots so they didn't look like they were giving into rioters? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. The department was closed down due to corruption and most of the officers were let go but Wilson kept his job and was assigned to a jailhouse. And, there were never any allegations or accusations of corruption against Wilson in particular.



Nope. He was fired, too.  The disbanded the whole police force because it was so corrupt.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Covering up for a bad cop is not good cop behavior. Once a heretofore good cop takes that step, he is now in the dubious realm of bad cops.



More shithouse lawyer sophistry... don't waste my time.  The problem isn't individuals, it's a group think.  Of course, you cover for one of your own. Of course you start out with the premise that if there was a police shooting, it must have been justified. (As opposed to some civilian shooting someone, you start out with the premise it was a homicide.) 

Civilians shootings are investigated by Homicide
Cop shootings are investigated by Internal Affairs, or as they like to call them, "The Rat Squad".  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is nothing more than diversion or deflection. The fact remains that some illegal immigrants are committing real crimes.



Sure. And when they do, they should go to jail. Period.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So are you telling me that if Brown had done as Wilson asked and got on the sidewalk, not attacked Wilson in his cruiser and had not charged at him, that Wilson would have shot him anyway?



Probably.  He was a real racist piece of shit.  The kind who would go after a kid for jaywalking. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Of course it’s about Brown you idiot. He’s the one who attacked an officer and was shot for it, isn’t he?



No, he was the one murdered by a racist cop. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sorry, but a number of witnesses WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE testified that he did not have his hands up and that he charged at the officer. Forensic evidence proves this.
> 
> The evidence and overall testimony is simply not on your side here and even some of those who testified that Brown had his hands up said he was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him.



Again, I can get someone to testify you are a space alien if I threaten them enough.  Once the investigators decided this was a "Good Shoot", all the evidence was molded to that and the intent was to NEVER, EVER put this in front of a jury.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 27, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You left out the rest of the question. Deliberately, most likely. The rest of the question was: How does he proceed without putting his own life at risk if the suspect is coming at him?
> ...



It didn’t answer the question the first time so saying it again won’t work.

Brown was not confronted for no reason. He was walking down the middle of the street where he shouldn’t have been, requiring vehicles to swerve around him. Wilson asked him to get on the sidewalk because, well, that’s his job.

Brown is directly responsible for everything that happened after that. He had no justification for assaulting an officer for simply doing the job he is paid to do in the interest of public safety.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. According to the DOJ report,





> You mean after they decided they were going to whitewash the whole incident after the riots so they didn't look like they were giving into rioters?



If all you’re going to do is dismiss the results of an official investigation on the mere premise that the officer is a “racist piece of shit” without presenting evidence, you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. The department was closed down due to corruption and most of the officers were let go but Wilson kept his job and was assigned to a jailhouse. And, there were never any allegations or accusations of corruption against Wilson in particular.





> Nope. He was fired, too.  The disbanded the whole police force because it was so corrupt.



He was not. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Covering up for a bad cop is not good cop behavior. Once a heretofore good cop takes that step, he is now in the dubious realm of bad cops.





> More shithouse lawyer sophistry... don't waste my time.  The problem isn't individuals, it's a group think.  Of course, you cover for one of your own. Of course you start out with the premise that if there was a police shooting, it must have been justified. (As opposed to some civilian shooting someone, you start out with the premise it was a homicide.)



It doesn’t matter. We could quibble over the definition of good cop/bad cop all day but it won’t change the fact that there are good officers out there who have never done the things you’re talking about.



> Civilians shootings are investigated by Homicide
> Cop shootings are investigated by Internal Affairs, or as they like to call them, "The Rat Squad".



And? What’s your point? Who else is going to investigate it, a civilian plumber? A 7/11 cashier? 

You say good cops should be working hard to get rid of the bad ones while at the same time saying that the entity that was created for that very purpose, among other things (internal affairs) can’t be trusted.

This is yet another example of you contradicting yourself. You will say whatever you think will cancel or discount the opposing argument at the moment.

The reason for this is you have no real clear understanding of the overall facts or the bigger picture. All you have is a vague generalized notion that cops are bad and black suspects are not intelligent enough or possess the reason or emotional wherewithal to be responsible for their own actions.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is nothing more than diversion or deflection. The fact remains that some illegal immigrants are committing real crimes.





> Sure. And when they do, they should go to jail. Period.



So then you admit that some illegal immigrants commit real crimes? Can you go a step further and admit that being here illegally is a crime?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So are you telling me that if Brown had done as Wilson asked and got on the sidewalk, not attacked Wilson in his cruiser and had not charged at him, that Wilson would have shot him anyway?





> Probably.  He was a real racist piece of shit.  The kind who would go after a kid for jaywalking.



Don’t give me “probably” or “maybe” or “possibly”. Do you know for a fact that Wilson would have shot him anyway?

Once again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking. But since he _was_ jaywalking, it was Wilson’s duty as an officer to ask him to get on the sidewalk.

But I understand where you’re coming from: the nerve of that racist piece of shit for looking out for the personal safety of that black man and the motorists!



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Of course it’s about Brown you idiot. He’s the one who attacked an officer and was shot for it, isn’t he?





> No, he was the one murdered by a racist cop.



He’s also the one who attacked the “racist cop” for asking him to get out of the middle of a busy city street. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Sorry, but a number of witnesses WHO WERE ACTUALLY THERE testified that he did not have his hands up and that he charged at the officer. Forensic evidence proves this.
> 
> The evidence and overall testimony is simply not on your side here and even some of those who testified that Brown had his hands up said he was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him.





> Again, I can get someone to testify you are a space alien if I threaten them enough.  Once the investigators decided this was a "Good Shoot", all the evidence was molded to that and the intent was to NEVER, EVER put this in front of a jury.



Go and ask Witnesses 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115 and 141 if they were threatened then get back to me.

Your argument is complete bullshit because the same report has witnesses saying Brown’s hands were up, that he was not moving toward Wilson and that Wilson grabbed Brown by the throat.

Again, whatever argument works at the moment.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 28, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Brown was not confronted for no reason. He was walking down the middle of the street where he shouldn’t have been, requiring vehicles to swerve around him.



You do realize pedestrians have the right of way, right.  This is another bullshit "Harass black people" law that the cops certainly don't arrest white people for.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If all you’re going to do is dismiss the results of an official investigation on the mere premise that the officer is a “racist piece of shit” without presenting evidence, you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.



I already presented my evidence. He was unarmed. Shot 8 times.  18 PRIMARY witnesses said he had his hands up. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Go and ask Witnesses 102



If you are having to pass up 100 witnesses to find witnesses to tell the story you want, that smell of a whitewash. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Once again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking. But since he _was_ jaywalking, it was Wilson’s duty as an officer to ask him to get on the sidewalk.



Again, believing anything a racist piece of shit says.  More like, "Oh, my god, oh, my god, oh my god, I just shot a kid. Quick, come up with a story, Darren.... Um, yeah. He was jaywalking. That's it. And I was responding to the robbery report. And he had a bag of cigarellos, but they were in a bag and I couldn't actually see what they were.

Officer Darren Wilson's story is unbelievable. Literally.

At about noon on August 9th, Wilson hears on the radio that there's a theft in progress at the Ferguson Market. The suspect is a black male in a black shirt.

Moments later, Wilson sees two young black men walking down the yellow stripe in the center of the street. He pulls over. "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" he asks.

And then things get weird.

Brown's response to "what's wrong with the sidewalk?", as recorded by Wilson, is "fuck what you have to say." Remember, Wilson is a uniformed police officer, in a police car, and Brown is an 18-year-old kid _who just committed a robbery_. And when asked to use the sidewalk, Wilson says Brown replied, "Fuck what you have to say."

What happens next is the most unbelievable moment in the narrative. And so it's probably best that I just quote Wilson's account at length on it.

I was doing the, just scrambling, trying to get his arms out of my face and him from grabbing me and everything else. He turned to his...if he's at my vehicle, he turned to his left and handed the first subject. He said, "here, take these." He was holding a pack of — several packs of cigarillos which was just, what was stolen from the Market Store was several packs of cigarillos. He said, "here, hold these" and when he did that I grabbed his right arm trying just to control something at that point. Um, as I was holding it, and he came around, he came around with his arm extended, fist made, and went like that straight at my face with his...a full swing from his left hand.

So Brown is punching inside the car. Wilson is scrambling to deflect the blows, to protect his face, to regain control of the situation. And then Brown stops, turns to his left, says to his friend, "Here, hold these," _and hands him the cigarillos stolen from Ferguson Market. _Then he turns back to Wilson and, with his left hand now freed from holding the contraband goods, throws a haymaker at Wilson.

Every bullshit detector in me went off when I read that passage. Which doesn't mean that it didn't happen exactly the way Wilson describes. But it is, again, hard to imagine. Brown, an 18-year-old kid holding stolen goods, decides to attack a cop and, while attacking him, stops, hands his stolen goods to his friend, and then returns to the beatdown. It reads less like something a human would do and more like a moment meant to connect Brown to the robbery.

Brown sees him go for the gun. And he replies: "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me."

Again, stop for a moment and think about that. Brown is punching Wilson, sees the terrified cop reaching for his gun, and says "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me." He dares him to shoot.


"


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 28, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Brown was not confronted for no reason. He was walking down the middle of the street where he shouldn’t have been, requiring vehicles to swerve around him.
> ...



  A pedestrian only has right-of-way in a crosswalk, while crossing a street.

  There is no right to walk in the traffic lanes, creating a safety hazard to one's self, and to others.

  On more than one occasion, I've called the police on someone wandering in the traffic lanes in such a manner.  In each case, it was a white, homeless-looking guy, apparently drunk or drugged and oblivious to the danger he was in, and to the danger that he was creating for others as cars had to make abrupt maneuvers to avoid hitting him.  In one instance, someone else must have called it in before I did, as I was still on the phone, waiting to talk to a dispatcher, when a police vehicle drove up, the officer got out, very deftly grabbed the guy and threw him in the back of the car, then drove off.

  I don't know what universe you think you live in, where white people are allowed to walk in the middle of the street with impunity, creating dangerous situations, and only black people get arrested for it, but whatever universe that is, Sacramento, California, is not part of it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 28, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> On more than one occasion, I've called the police on someone wandering in the traffic lanes in such a manner. In each case, it was a white, homeless-looking guy, apparently drunk or drugged and oblivious to the danger he was in, and to the danger that he was creating for others as cars had to make abrupt maneuvers to avoid hitting him. In one instance, someone else must have called it in before I did, as I was still on the phone, waiting to talk to a dispatcher, when a police vehicle drove up, the officer got out, very deftly grabbed the guy and threw him in the back of the car, then drove off.
> 
> I don't know what universe you think you live in, where white people are allowed to walk in the middle of the street with impunity, creating dangerous situations, and only black people get arrested for it, but whatever universe that is, Sacramento, California, is not part of it.



Mormon Bob lives in a world where the Police treat White and Delightsome Folks just like blacks... that's adorable.  

Brown wasn't a homeless person wandering in the street.  He was just jaywalking, like millions of us do every day.  

Also, Mormon Bob makes it a habit to call the cops on the Homeless.  Must be some of that Mormon Compassion we've heard so much about.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 28, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Mormon Bob lives in a world where the Police treat White and Delightsome Folks just like blacks... that's adorable.
> 
> Brown wasn't a homeless person wandering in the street.  He was just jaywalking, like millions of us do every day.
> 
> Also, Mormon Bob makes it a habit to call the cops on the Homeless.  Must be some of that Mormon Compassion we've heard so much about.



  In the cases where I called the police because of a pedestrian in the street, it was not mere jaywalking.  In each case, it was some cretin, in the traffic lane, putting himself in unreasonable danger, and creating an unreasonable hazard to traffic.  Either drunk or drugged, or just plain crazy, and apparently oblivious to the danger he was putting himself in, and creating for others.  By all credible accounts, that's pretty much what Michael Brown was doing, in the situation that was being discussed here.

  I don't know what world you live in, where that is ever acceptable behavior, or where reporting such a situation to the appropriate authorities is not the correct response, or where anyone's race has anything to do with it; but the rest of us sane people live out here in The Real World, which is apparently very different from that in which you live.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 28, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Brown was not confronted for no reason. He was walking down the middle of the street where he shouldn’t have been, requiring vehicles to swerve around him.
> ...



You know better than that. How old are you? Do you mean to tell me you are not aware that pedestrians are required to use pedestrian crosswalks?

In most places pedestrians only have the right of way if the “walk” sign is lit or green. And even in places where pedestrians have the right of way, they only have the right of way in the designated pedestrian crosswalk. They do not have the right of way in the middle of the fucking street.

I can’t believe you actually tried to use this argument.



> This is another bullshit "Harass black people" law that the cops certainly don't arrest white people for.



So public safety is now a racist ploy?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If all you’re going to do is dismiss the results of an official investigation on the mere premise that the officer is a “racist piece of shit” without presenting evidence, you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion.





> I already presented my evidence. He was unarmed. Shot 8 times.  18 PRIMARY witnesses said he had his hands up.



The testimonies of these so called “primary witnesses” were mostly discounted and deemed not credible because their testimonies were wildly inconsistent from one witness to the next and in some cases witnesses contradicted themselves or lied outright. Or they were too far away (blocks away in some cases) or did not have a good perspective on the incident.
Some claimed to have witnessed the shooting only to find out they actually didn’t; that they were merely repeating what they were told by someone else.
Some testified to the FBI and DOJ and then gave different details in podcast and TV interviews, requiring authorities to question them again.

The chart you linked earlier in the discussion is from a PBS article in November 2014. There was no general consensus as to whether or not Brown had his hands up or was moving toward Wilson. In addition, some testimonies contradicted forensic evidence. Some claimed Brown was shot where he had turned to face Wilson but forensic evidence proves he had approached Wilson after he turned. Some say Brown was shot from behind but no shots hit him in the back. Some even say he was kneeling but ballistic trajectories do not support this.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Go and ask Witnesses 102





> If you are having to pass up 100 witnesses to find witnesses to tell the story you want, that smell of a whitewash.



They were passed up because they gave false testimony, gave testimony that contradicted forensic evidence and were otherwise deemed not credible for these and various other reasons.

If you choose to overlook these facts because you are single-mindedly determined to make the white officer the bad guy then I can’t help you. As for me, I refuse to overlook these kinds of factors just because I want people of color to see me as some kind of white savior.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Once again, Brown was not shot for jaywalking. But since he _was_ jaywalking, it was Wilson’s duty as an officer to ask him to get on the sidewalk.





> Again, believing anything a racist piece of shit says.  More like, "Oh, my god, oh, my god, oh my god, I just shot a kid. Quick, come up with a story, Darren....



How convenient for Wilson that Brown was actually jaywalking, huh?



> Um, yeah. He was jaywalking. That's it. And I was responding to the robbery report. And he had a bag of cigarellos, but they were in a bag and I couldn't actually see what they were.



He actually saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand because they were NOT IN A BAG dumbass. He swiped them from the counter, remember? 
Do you think the cashier put an item that was being stolen from him in a bag for the thief, handed it back to the thief and said “Have a nice day!”?

It’s incredible the stupid shit you’ll come up with just to crucify someone.



> At about noon on August 9th, Wilson hears on the radio that there's a theft in progress at the Ferguson Market. The suspect is a black male in a black shirt.
> 
> Moments later, Wilson sees two young black men walking down the yellow stripe in the center of the street. He pulls over. "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?" They refuse. "We're almost at our destination," one of them replies. Wilson tries again. "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" he asks.
> 
> ...



This is where _my _bullshit meter goes off. No one had to make any kind of effort to connect Brown to the robbery because_ he actually committed the robbery. _Everybody knew this, including the idiot author of this article.



> Brown sees him go for the gun. And he replies: "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me."
> 
> Again, stop for a moment and think about that. Brown is punching Wilson, sees the terrified cop reaching for his gun, and says "You're too much of a fucking pussy to shoot me." He dares him to shoot."



I honestly don’t understand why any of this is so hard for the author to believe.

From the same article:

_Why did Michael Brown, an 18-year-old kid headed to college, refuse to move from the middle of the street to the sidewalk? Why would he curse out a police officer? Why would he attack a police officer? Why would he dare a police officer to shoot him? Why would he charge a police officer holding a gun?”
_
Why didn’t he ask this question?: Why did an 18 year old kid headed to college rob a convenience store?

If nothing else about Brown’s actions that day made no sense then this made no sense either. So why didn’t he ask?

Reading a Washington Post article from August 2019 in which they interviewed Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown the day of the shooting, may shed a little light on Brown’s frame of mind that day.

His friend relates that Brown had recently been preoccupied and anxious and had begun talking about Christianity and faith healing.
Brown showed up at Johnson’s apartment at 2:00 am the day of the shooting and talked about being stressed that both his grandmother and stepmother were sick. He told Johnson he had had a premonition that he healed them with a laying on of hands. He related this to his family but they wanted none of it it and his father had hung up on him when he proposed it.

Later the same day as they were walking and talking, Brown indicated he was experiencing a spiritual epiphany and that unexplained things were going on around him. He seemed to think he had been touched by God and at one point, walked into the middle of the street to prove it. As cars whizzed by him in both directions and he was unhit, he looked at Dorian as if to say “Told you so.”

Johnson says he found the whole thing pretty strange and that he had had an “eerie feeling”

It seems to me that Brown was stressed, frustrated and anxious that day and is probably why he was so reckless and his actions so out of character.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 29, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> In the cases where I called the police because of a pedestrian in the street, it was not mere jaywalking. In each case, it was some cretin, in the traffic lane, putting himself in unreasonable danger, and creating an unreasonable hazard to traffic. Either drunk or drugged, or just plain crazy, and apparently oblivious to the danger he was putting himself in, and creating for others. By all credible accounts, that's pretty much what Michael Brown was doing, in the situation that was being discussed here.



Again, poor and a person of color, that's probably why you called... but never mind.  

It's some of that wonderful Mormon Compassion we've heard so much about. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I don't know what world you live in, where that is ever acceptable behavior, or where reporting such a situation to the appropriate authorities is not the correct response, or where anyone's race has anything to do with it; but the rest of us sane people live out here in The Real World, which is apparently very different from that in which you live.



IN a sane, real world, we'd have funded mental health programs to help these people.  But you were too busy giving tax breaks to billionaires and spending money on wars...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 29, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So public safety is now a racist ploy?



The cops handed out 2 tickets for very resident of Furgeson... um, yeah, it kind of is.  

In Ferguson, Court Fines And Fees Fuel Anger

_To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations._
_Blacks make up 67 percent of the city's population, but are 86 percent of motorists stopped by police. Whites make up 29 percent of the population, but 12.7 percent of vehicle stops._



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The testimonies of these so called “primary witnesses” were mostly discounted and deemed not credible because their testimonies were wildly inconsistent from one witness to the next and in some cases witnesses contradicted themselves or lied outright.



In short, they didn't tell the story that the DA and the Police wanted to hear... that some maniac blew away a child.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you choose to overlook these facts because you are single-mindedly determined to make the white officer the bad guy then I can’t help you. As for me, I refuse to overlook these kinds of factors just because I want people of color to see me as some kind of white savior.



He's the bad guy because he shot an unarmed kid 8 times who had his hands up. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How convenient for Wilson that Brown was actually jaywalking, huh?



See above.  The Racist FPD was handing out two citations for every resident.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He actually saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand because they were NOT IN A BAG dumbass. He swiped them from the counter, remember?



Um, no, they were in a bag because Brown had swapped them the day before for pot and the staff was holding it for him. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He actually saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand because they were NOT IN A BAG dumbass. He swiped them from the counter, remember?
> Do you think the cashier put an item that was being stolen from him in a bag for the thief, handed it back to the thief and said “Have a nice day!”?



No, he put them in a bag the day before after Brown had sold them some pot.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Reading a Washington Post article from August 2019 in which they interviewed Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown the day of the shooting, may shed a little light on Brown’s frame of mind that day.



Problem with Dorian Johnson was that the guy was all down with getting justice for his friend, until McColloch- the corrupt, racist as shit DA who should have recused himself - started threatening to charge him as a co-conspirator.  So I take anything he says with a grain of salt.  

Speaking of McColloch, who was voted out by the people of his county for his corrupt behavior in the Wilson case, we have this little gem. 

McCulloch, Two Assistants Face Ethics Complaint Over Darren Wilson Grand Jury

Specifically, McCulloch, Alizadeh and Whirley are accused of violating the following rules of conduct:


Rule 4-3.3: Candor toward the tribunal. The complaint says, among other things, that  Alizadeh and Whirley cited an outdated, unconstitutional use-of-force statute, and failed to properly correct their mistake. The two are also accused of knowingly allowing witnesses to lie to the grand jury.
Rule 4-1.1: Competence. Historically, the plaintiff -- or the person bringing the case -- is supposed to receive the benefit of the doubt. In the Wilson case, the state is the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that Alizadeh and Whirley, presumably with McCulloch's knowledge, did not do all they could to present the strongest case for the state.
Rule 4-1.6: Confidentiality of information. The complaint says McCulloch needed permission to release the transcripts of grand jury testimony and witness statements and that he dumped all the evidence in an effort to taint a second grand jury.
Rule 4-1.8: Conflict of interest: prohibited transactions. The complaint alleges that Alizadeh and Whirley acted more like Darren Wilson's defense attorneys. They cite the continual references to the marijuana in Michael Brown's system, and the fact that he was suspected of robbing a convenience store moments before the shooting.

Rule 4-3.8: Special responsibilities of a prosecutor. The complaint alleges that McCulloch made several public statements that went beyond what's permitted to "inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's actions."
Rule 4-3.4: Fairness to opposing party and counsel. McCulloch made several public statements that seemed to bolster Wilson's statements, while commenting negatively about Michael Brown.
Rule 4-3.5: Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal. Alizadeh is accused of making comments about protesters, the NAACP and Ferguson unrest that could prejudice the grand jurors.
Rule 4.4-1: Truthfulness in statements to others. This complaint also deals with the outdated use-of-force statute originally presented to the grand jury. It specifically references the day Alizadeh handed the copy of the unconstitutional statute to the grand jury, and also comments she made about messing up the exhibit numbers.
Rule 4-5.2: Responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer. Alizadeh and Whirley were required to abide by the rules of professional conduct regardless of what McCulloch told them to do.

So corrupt prosecutor who should have recused himself violated several rules to acquit a dirty cop, and got voted out of office   Hmmmm..


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 29, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You know better than that. How old are you? Do you mean to tell me you are not aware that pedestrians are required to use pedestrian crosswalks?
> 
> In most places pedestrians only have the right of way if the “walk” sign is lit or green. And even in places where pedestrians have the right of way, they only have the right of way in the designated pedestrian crosswalk. They do not have the right of way in the middle of the fucking street.
> 
> I can’t believe you actually tried to use this argument.



  For someone who is assumed to be of at least normal intelligence and mental function, it would indeed be unbelievable to hear this argument made by such a person.

  But you're not addressing someone of at least normal intelligence and mental function; you're addressing JoeB131.  It's entirely believable that he would try to make this argument.  If he's at all above the mental function of those cretins on whom I've had to call the police because they were wandering in the traffic lanes creating a serious safety hazard to themselves and to others, it's not by very much.




Ghost of a Rider said:


> So public safety is now a racist ploy?



He continues to try to claim that it was racist of me to call the police on *white* guys who were behaving dangerously.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 29, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, poor and a person of color, that's probably why you called... but never mind.
> 
> It's some of that wonderful Mormon Compassion we've heard so much about.





JoeB131 said:


> IN a sane, real world, we'd have funded mental health programs to help these people. But you were too busy giving tax breaks to billionaires and spending money on wars...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 29, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> But you're not addressing someone of at least normal intelligence and mental function; you're addressing JoeB131. It's entirely believable that he would try to make this argument. If he's at all above the mental function of those cretins on whom I've had to call the police because they were wandering in the traffic lanes creating a serious safety hazard to themselves and to others, it's not by very much.



Yes, yes, Bob, I'm sure you call the cops to harass the homeless out of an abundence of concern, because you've shown all sorts of compassion here..


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 29, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, yes, Bob, I'm sure you call the cops to harass the homeless out of an abundence [sic] of concern, because you've shown all sorts of compassion here..



  I guess you just cannot help yourself, can you?

  I've written of calling the police, to deal with genuine safety issues, created by drugged-out, drunk, or otherwise insane people being in the roadway where they don't belong, and you cannot find any way to see it as anything other than bigotry on my part.

  Do you have any idea how you come across to sane people?  Any vestige at all of a clue?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 29, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So public safety is now a racist ploy?
> ...



Wilson didn’t issue a citation, he only asked them to get on the sidewalk.



> In Ferguson, Court Fines And Fees Fuel Anger
> 
> _To understand some of the distrust of police that has fueled protests in Ferguson, Mo., consider this: In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations.
> Blacks make up 67 percent of the city's population, but are 86 percent of motorists stopped by police. Whites make up 29 percent of the population, but 12.7 percent of vehicle stops._



None of this is relevant to the Brown/Wilson case. Wilson did not issue a ticket and he had no intention of arresting him until he saw they fit the description of the guys at the store and seeing the cigarillos in Brown’s hand. At this point Brown sealed his fate by attacking Wilson.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The testimonies of these so called “primary witnesses” were mostly discounted and deemed not credible because their testimonies were wildly inconsistent from one witness to the next and in some cases witnesses contradicted themselves or lied outright.





> In short, they didn't tell the story that the DA and the Police wanted to hear... that some maniac blew away a child.



If you mean that the story the DA didn’t want to hear was false and a lie, you’re right. Also, Brown was eighteen and therefore an adult.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you choose to overlook these facts because you are single-mindedly determined to make the white officer the bad guy then I can’t help you. As for me, I refuse to overlook these kinds of factors just because I want people of color to see me as some kind of white savior.





> He's the bad guy because he shot an unarmed kid 8 times who had his hands up.



Who was charging at him...



Ghost of a Rider said:


> How convenient for Wilson that Brown was actually jaywalking, huh?





> See above.  The Racist FPD was handing out two citations for every resident.



Irrelevant to the case.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He actually saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand because they were NOT IN A BAG dumbass. He swiped them from the counter, remember?





> Um, no, they were in a bag because Brown had swapped them the day before for pot and the staff was holding it for him.



Wrong. Additional security footage was released in the _Stranger Fruit _documentary by a Jason Pollock and this additional footage (from behind the counter) shows the store clerk putting two packs of cigarillos in a bag and handing it to Brown. This took place in the early morning hours during the alleged initial transaction.
However, when Brown is leaving with the bag, he then turns around and puts the bag back on the counter and leaves. The store clerk _removes the cigarillos from the bag _and puts them back on the shelf.

When Brown returns later in the day, he is seen in the security footage of the robbery grabbing a pack of cigarillos and handing them to Johnson and they were _not in a bag. _He then grabs another pack - also not in a bag - and leaves the store after shoving the store owner who tried to stop him from taking his merchandise.

So no, they were not in a bag and yes, Wilson saw them in Brown’s hand.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He actually saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand because they were NOT IN A BAG dumbass. He swiped them from the counter, remember?
> Do you think the cashier put an item that was being stolen from him in a bag for the thief, handed it back to the thief and said “Have a nice day!”?





> No, he put them in a bag the day before after Brown had sold them some pot.



And then took them out of the bag when Brown left.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Reading a Washington Post article from August 2019 in which they interviewed Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown the day of the shooting, may shed a little light on Brown’s frame of mind that day.





> Problem with Dorian Johnson was that the guy was all down with getting justice for his friend, until McColloch- the corrupt, racist as shit DA who should have recused himself - started threatening to charge him as a co-conspirator.  So I take anything he says with a grain of salt.



Even when he says Brown had his hands up?

This was from an interview Johnson gave just last year. However, these remarks are pretty much in line with what he told authorities just after the shooting in 2014. Namely, that Brown had seemed on edge that day and felt bewildered by Brown’s swiping the cigarillos and then blatantly walking down the middle of the street with them in his hand knowing the clerk was calling the cops. He was bewildered because he said these actions were out of character for Brown.



> Speaking of McColloch, who was voted out by the people of his county for his corrupt behavior in the Wilson case, we have this little gem.
> 
> McCulloch, Two Assistants Face Ethics Complaint Over Darren Wilson Grand Jury
> 
> ...



First of all, you have no evidence or proof that Wilson was a dirty cop. Secondly, none of this changes what happened that day. The one glaringly large fact that cannot be overlooked is that Brown attacked Wilson unprovoked.
His actions up to that point were mere misdemeanors that might have gotten him a slap on the wrist. He upped the stakes by attacking Wilson and would very likely still be alive today if not for that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 29, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You know better than that. How old are you? Do you mean to tell me you are not aware that pedestrians are required to use pedestrian crosswalks?
> ...



The very first thing that occurred to me when he said that is that you specifically said they were usually white, homeless people.

Joe’s got a racism script he goes by and he’s not deviating from that even if you’re discussing the merits of french fries vs. mashed potatoes.

Somewhere in the discussion he would probably insert something to the effect that potatoes are inherently racist because they’re white on the inside.Or that they are a symbol of white supremacy and imperialism because, well, you know, the sky is blue.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 30, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I guess you just cannot help yourself, can you?
> 
> I've written of calling the police, to deal with genuine safety issues, created by drugged-out, drunk, or otherwise insane people being in the roadway where they don't belong, and you cannot find any way to see it as anything other than bigotry on my part.



Again, you belong to a bigoted cult started by racist con-men, so there's that. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> The very first thing that occurred to me when he said that is that you specifically said they were usually white, homeless people.



Again, the very first thing that occurred to me is that Mormon Bob's first reaction to a poor person begging for money in the street is to call the cops on him.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 30, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> None of this is relevant to the Brown/Wilson case. Wilson did not issue a ticket and he had no intention of arresting him until he saw they fit the description of the guys at the store and seeing the cigarillos in Brown’s hand. At this point Brown sealed his fate by attacking Wilson.



Again, his story has so many holes in it... If he really thought they were the robbers, he was much to casual about it. If he was merely harassing jaywalkers, that was just a typical day in the Racist Ferguson PD. 

Funny thing, the "Story" about the "Strong Arm Robbery" didn't come out until days later, when the Racist Ferguson PD released an selectively edited tape. (Run in slow motion to make a push look more sinister than it was, leaving out the part where the store employees were buying pot from him.)  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. Additional security footage was released in the _Stranger Fruit _documentary by a Jason Pollock and this additional footage (from behind the counter) shows the store clerk putting two packs of cigarillos in a bag and handing it to Brown. This took place in the early morning hours during the alleged initial transaction.
> However, when Brown is leaving with the bag, he then turns around and puts the bag back on the counter and leaves. The store clerk _removes the cigarillos from the bag _and puts them back on the shelf.



Well, you finally admit this was a trade and not a robbery, but the rest is bullshit.   Nobody puts tobacco products where a customer can just reach over and grab them.  They had to be somewhere in easy reach.   They were in a bag. Wilson did not have X-ray eyes.  

Again, we're talking about shooting a black kid for maybe petty theft....   which I'm sure you and Mormon Bob think is fine. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you mean that the story the DA didn’t want to hear was false and a lie, you’re right.



So he ignored the first 18 Witnesses who were there, and found more witnesses, including a mentally ill woman with racist tendency (Hey, Mormon Bob, we found your dream date.) 

‘Witness 40’ for Ferguson grand jury exposed as a racist, mentally ill felon who lied about shooting: report

_Convicted felon Sandra McElroy — an outspoken backer of Wilson on Facebook — previously lied to police and didn't give authorities a statement about the Aug. 9 killing until Sept. 11, well after several descriptions of the shooting had been detailed in the press, an investigation by news website The Smoking Gun found._

_Still, she was allowed to give her testimony before the grand jury declined to indict Wilson, sparking national protests._


Now, that they had to drill down to 150 "witnesses" to find ones who contradicted "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"... you have to ask, how many fucking people were on the street that day? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even when he says Brown had his hands up?
> 
> This was from an interview Johnson gave just last year. However, these remarks are pretty much in line with what he told authorities just after the shooting in 2014. Namely, that Brown had seemed on edge that day and felt bewildered by Brown’s swiping the cigarillos and then blatantly walking down the middle of the street with them in his hand knowing the clerk was calling the cops. He was bewildered because he said these actions were out of character for Brown.



Because he didn't know he had traded pot for the cigarellos... Again, some credit for being honest about the "Hands up", but you read his testimony and you can tell McColluch got this kid in a back room and threatened him.  

Because- Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 30, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you just cannot help yourself, can you?
> ...



Then why did you bring up race? And, he never said they were begging, he just said they were homeless.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 30, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then why did you bring up race? And, he never said they were begging, he just said they were homeless.



He said they were "in the street".  The only reason why the Homeless wander into the streets is to panhandle, which no doubt offended Mormon Bob's sensibility.  

You know what offends me?  That we don't have a system to treat these people. We used to.  And here's where I'll rip on liberals. They were the ones who got the State Mental Hospitals closed down because it was "mean" to incarcerate the mentally ill in a place where they were fed, medicated and housed against their will.  The Conservatives decided that we needed to give rich tax cuts instead of funding decent programs to help these people... 

So we all have to deal with some mentally ill person with cardboard signs begging for food.  But Mormon Bob, being a nice compassionate Christian that he is... Call the Cops!!!!


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 30, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the very first thing that occurred to me is that Mormon Bob's first reaction to a poor person begging for money in the street is to call the cops on him.
> ...



  I didn't actually say that were homeless.  I described them as _“homeless-looking”_.  It was intended as a description of their general appearance, not of their actual status of having a home or not, which I wouldn't know.

  And, as you point out, I didn't say that they were begging, either (though the most recent instance was carrying a cardboard sign, begging for money).  As far as them begging in the street, the issue is not that they were begging, but that they were *in the street*, where they didn't belong, creating a serious safety hazard.

  It truly takes a JoeB131 level of madness and depravity to twist my concern about a serious danger to public safety as bigotry toward the individual responsible for creating that hazard.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 30, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



My mistake.



> And, as you point out, I didn't say that they were begging, either (though the most recent instance was carrying a cardboard sign, begging for money).  As far as them begging in the street, the issue is not that they were begging, but that they were *in the street*, where they didn't belong, creating a serious safety hazard.
> 
> It truly takes a JoeB131 level of madness and depravity to twist my concern about a serious danger to public safety as bigotry toward the individual responsible for creating that hazard.



Well, that’s Joe.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 30, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > None of this is relevant to the Brown/Wilson case. Wilson did not issue a ticket and he had no intention of arresting him until he saw they fit the description of the guys at the store and seeing the cigarillos in Brown’s hand. At this point Brown sealed his fate by attacking Wilson.
> ...



He wasn’t casual about it all. Why do you think he was trying to get out of the cruiser in the first place? 

When he first approached them it was to ask them to get on the sidewalk. Brown says “Fuck what you have to say.” At about the same time Wilson noticed the cigarillos in his and realized they fit the description of the two guys at the store. 
He then reversed his cruiser and whipped it around so as to block their path. He then tried to exit the cruiser to question them about the robbery but Brown prevented him from doing so and then attacked him.



> Funny thing, the "Story" about the "Strong Arm Robbery" didn't come out until days later, when the Racist Ferguson PD released an selectively edited tape. (Run in slow motion to make a push look more sinister than it was, leaving out the part where the store employees were buying pot from him.)



He swiped merchandise he never paid for then assaulted the store owner when he tried to stop him. What difference does it make if the fucking video was in slow motion?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. Additional security footage was released in the _Stranger Fruit _documentary by a Jason Pollock and this additional footage (from behind the counter) shows the store clerk putting two packs of cigarillos in a bag and handing it to Brown. This took place in the early morning hours during the alleged initial transaction.
> However, when Brown is leaving with the bag, he then turns around and puts the bag back on the counter and leaves. The store clerk _removes the cigarillos from the bag _and puts them back on the shelf.





> Well, you finally admit this was a trade and not a robbery, but the rest is bullshit.



I never admitted there was a trade. I said “..._alleged_ initial transaction...”



> Nobody puts tobacco products where a customer can just reach over and grab them.  They had to be somewhere in easy reach.   They were in a bag. Wilson did not have X-ray eyes.



Watch the video, you just might learn something. That’s how I knew the clerk took them out of the bag and put them back on the shelf. I then watched the original video again where he took the cigarillos and left the store and you can plainly see the cigarillos he gave to Johnson were not in a bag. It’s also obvious that the second batch he gabbed and kept himself were not in a bag.

Again, watch the video.



> Again, we're talking about shooting a black kid for maybe petty theft....   which I'm sure you and Mormon Bob think is fine.



He wasn’t shot for petty theft, he was shot for attacking an officer.

How many times do you have to be told this?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you mean that the story the DA didn’t want to hear was false and a lie, you’re right.





> So he ignored the first 18 Witnesses who were there, and found more witnesses, including a mentally ill woman with racist tendency (Hey, Mormon Bob, we found your dream date.)
> 
> ‘Witness 40’ for Ferguson grand jury exposed as a racist, mentally ill felon who lied about shooting: report
> 
> ...


_
_
So you apparently don’t have a problem with black people lying about witnessing the shooting but have an embolism when a white person does it. Gotcha.



> Now, that they had to drill down to 150 "witnesses" to find ones who contradicted "Hands Up, Don't Shoot"... you have to ask, how many fucking people were on the street that day?



Would you be asking this question if most of them had said Brown had his hands up and was surrendering?

Since there were at least three different law enforcement agencies involved and interrogating witnesses, it’s possible one or two had a different system for witness designation. I’m thinking that for the DOJ report, they started at “101” (Johnson) and went from there.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Even when he says Brown had his hands up?
> 
> This was from an interview Johnson gave just last year. However, these remarks are pretty much in line with what he told authorities just after the shooting in 2014. Namely, that Brown had seemed on edge that day and felt bewildered by Brown’s swiping the cigarillos and then blatantly walking down the middle of the street with them in his hand knowing the clerk was calling the cops. He was bewildered because he said these actions were out of character for Brown.





> Because he didn't know he had traded pot for the cigarellos... Again, some credit for being honest about the "Hands up",



I only said it was _possible_ he had his hands up. But I don’t think he had them up as a gesture of surrender, I think he was looking at the gunshot wound on his hand. And hands up or not, he was moving towards Wilson. That’s what got him shot.



> but you read his testimony and you can tell McColluch got this kid in a back room and threatened him.



Opinion. You don’t know that McColluch threatened him. 

The article I cited with the Johnson interview was from last year; five years after the shooting. In this interview he never wavered from his initial testimony from five years before and never said or implied - then or now - that he had been threatened or intimidated.



> Because- Silly Darkie, Rights are for White People.



What rights were denied Johnson?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 30, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Then why did you bring up race? And, he never said they were begging, he just said they were homeless.
> ...



Most panhandlers I’ve seen do so while standing on the median at intersections or at the end of an offramp.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I didn't actually say that were homeless. I described them as _“homeless-looking”_. It was intended as a description of their general appearance, not of their actual status of having a home or not, which I wouldn't know.



So you think he lives in a mansion and dresses like that for fun?  



Bob Blaylock said:


> And, as you point out, I didn't say that they were begging, either (though the most recent instance was carrying a cardboard sign, begging for money). As far as them begging in the street, the issue is not that they were begging, but that they were *in the street*, where they didn't belong, creating a serious safety hazard.



Yes, they were offending your white and delightsome sensibilities....  Good thing we don't have programs to help these people stay off the streets.  Let's just call the cops on them, that's totally what Jesus would do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t casual about it all. Why do you think he was trying to get out of the cruiser in the first place?
> 
> When he first approached them it was to ask them to get on the sidewalk. Brown says “Fuck what you have to say.” At about the same time Wilson noticed the cigarillos in his and realized they fit the description of the two guys at the store.



Again, and unbeleivable story as the Vox article pointed out.  Sounds more like, "OH, we found some tape of him taking some cigars... Um, yeah, I was investigating that, and not just "Harrass the black kid" which is our hobby out here."



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He swiped merchandise he never paid for then assaulted the store owner when he tried to stop him. What difference does it make if the fucking video was in slow motion?



You mean making a slight push look like an assault.  Again. without the context of him trading the pot for the cigars earlier, (Which the cops hid for years) it all looked a lot more ominous than it was.  You know, like they knew Wilson fucked up by shooting him 8 times when he had his hands up.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you apparently don’t have a problem with black people lying about witnessing the shooting but have an embolism when a white person does it.



I have no evidence that any of the black folks lied about what they saw...

We do know the cops lied.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Would you be asking this question if most of them had said Brown had his hands up and was surrendering?
> 
> Since there were at least three different law enforcement agencies involved and interrogating witnesses, it’s possible one or two had a different system for witness designation. I’m thinking that for the DOJ report, they started at “101” (Johnson) and went from there.



Well, there you go thinking again.   Point was, all the primary witnesses said he had his hands up, but that didn't fit the official Law Enforcement Narrative. LaQuan McDonald was lunging at the officers.  Sandra Bland assaulted the officer. Walter Scott took Slager's Taser and was trying to shoot him with it.  Oh... whoops.  You have video of what ACTUALLY happened? 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I only said it was _possible_ he had his hands up. But I don’t think he had them up as a gesture of surrender, I think he was looking at the gunshot wound on his hand. And hands up or not, he was moving towards Wilson. That’s what got him shot.



What got him shot was being black.  We need to stop doing that shit.

And no, this isn't because I want to be a "White Savior". Enlightened self interest.  At some point, they might start shooting back.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't actually say that were homeless. I described them as _“homeless-looking”_. It was intended as a description of their general appearance, not of their actual status of having a home or not, which I wouldn't know.
> ...



  I wouldn't know.  It's not my business, and not relevant to the situation anyway.




JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > And, as you point out, I didn't say that they were begging, either (though the most recent instance was carrying a cardboard sign, begging for money). As far as them begging in the street, the issue is not that they were begging, but that they were *in the street*, where they didn't belong, creating a serious safety hazard.
> ...



  No, they were, in each instance, creating a serious safety hazard, both to themselves, and to others.

  In the two specific incidents that I can clearly remember, I'm pretty sure that in each case, the offender was white; not that the color of his skin is in any way relevant.

  Only you would suggest, in your extreme ignorance about the actual circumstances and in your own madness and general depravity, that racism or any other kind of irrational bigotry had anything to do with it.  I don't think that even a few of the more extreme and insane black racists on this forum, such as IM2 or Asclepias, would agree with you that racism was in any way relevant here.  I think you truly are very much alone, in your own unique, solitary, racist fringe, trying to paint this as a racism issue.


  The first incident was some years ago.  My wife and I, having dropped our car off to be serviced, were availing ourselves of Sacramento's public transit system to get home.  Waiting at this bus stop at the intersection of Florin & Stockton, we observed a gut on the center divider on Florin, just west of the intersection.  We're not sure what he thought he was doing, other than an apparent intent to try to stay on that center divider, but he was clearly drunk, drugged, or in some other way seriously impaired, and kept falling off the divider and into the traffic lanes.  Several times, as we watched, he either nearly got himself hit by a car, or else nearly caused an accident where other cars came close to colliding as a result of swerving to avoid hitting him.  I don't remember whether it was my wife or I who called 911, but whichever it was, we had just barely got to a dispatcher, and hadn't even had the chance to tell what was going on, when a police car came along Florin, from the west, stopped right where this guy was; and the officer very deftly got out, grabbed him, threw him in the back of the car, and drove off.  I don't know if that officer was there in response to someone else having called this situation in, or whether it was just good timing that he happened to be passing by, and saw the situation.

  Both Florin and Stockton are very busy streets, at this point, and where this guy was was a very dangerous place for anyone to be, (even sober, which he very clearly appeared not to be).


  The second incident was much more recent, some time last year when I was working a construction project that fills up this block bordered by 20th, 21st, Q and R streets.  During my morning break, I went to my car, which was parked on the east side of 21st Street, across from my project.  I observed a guy walking up and down this section of the street, mostly keeping to the border between the bicycle lane and the regular traffic lane, but occasionally wandering into the automobile lane, causing cars to have to suddenly swerve or stop to avoid hitting him.  This one was carrying a stereotypical cardboard panhandling sign.

  This section of 21st is a very busy street, that time of day, and due to the nearby construction, this section was particularly congested and dangerous.  Again, in the roadway was just not a safe place for any pedestrian to be.  The current Google satellite view shows two lanes of automobile traffic, two bike lanes, and a parking lane to the right.  At the time of this incident, and I assume it is still the case, due to construction, the leftmost car and bike lanes are blocked off, and the barriers doing so actually intrude uncomfortably close to the remaining automobile lane.  The current Google Street View is somewhat more recent, and gives a better idea of what the circumstances were like at the time of this incident.

  He was probably in less danger to himself than the guy in the first incident, but on the other hand, the danger that he was creating to others was greater.  Bicycles were swerving into the path of automobile traffic to avoid hitting him.  The danger that the guy in the first incident created to others was of creating a high probability that two or more cars would collide; this guy was creating a danger that a car and a bicycle might collide, which means a much greater danger of someone suffering serious physical injury or death, as opposed to just having a few cars damaged.

  Of course, I called 911 and reported the situation.  I couldn't stick around to see what happened after that, because I had to return to work.  When I came out at lunch time, he was no longer there, so I assume the police came along, and either took him away, or at least convinced him to go somewhere safer.

    I know that there have been other incidents in which I ended up calling 911 on someone being dangerously in the roadway; but these are the two most recent, and the two that I can clearly remember enough details to tell the story.

  So, what would you have done in these situations?  What would you have had me do?  As far as I can tell, the only rational choices for me in either of these two situations, and in other similar situations that I've encountered in the past, would be to either do nothing, and leave the person creating the situation and any who might run afoul of it, to their fates, or else to call 911 and try to get someone dispatched there who is qualified to intervene.

  And do you truly believe that my response, if any, to such a situation should or would be affected by the races of anyone involved?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> What got him shot was being black. We need to stop doing that shit.
> 
> And no, this isn't because I want to be a "White Savior". Enlightened self interest. At some point, they might start shooting back.



_“Enlightened self interest”_ you say?  That must mean that you think they'll be shooting at *you*.  Which means either that you believe that black people are going to be inclined to shoot at people who are not threatening them (which would make you a racist, attributing to them a tendency to such gratuitous violence), or else that you expect to be in a position of threatening them to a degree that they'd be justified in shooting you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> No, they were, in each instance, creating a serious safety hazard, both to themselves, and to others.
> 
> In the two specific incidents that I can clearly remember, I'm pretty sure that in each case, the offender was white; not that the color of his skin is in any way relevant.
> 
> Only you would suggest, in your extreme ignorance about the actual circumstances and in your own madness and general depravity, that racism or any other kind of irrational bigotry had anything to do with it. I don't think that even a few of the more extreme and insane black racists on this forum, such as IM2 or Asclepias, would agree with you that racism was in any way relevant here. I think you truly are very much alone, in your own unique, solitary, racist fringe, trying to paint this as a racism issue.



Mormon Bob, the fact you tangled with those two gentlemen tells me all about your racism... So you've gone from "They were white" to "I'm not sure what they were, but it doesn't matter"



Bob Blaylock said:


> So, what would you have done in these situations? What would you have had me do? As far as I can tell, the only rational choices for me in either of these two situations, and in other similar situations that I've encountered in the past, would be to either do nothing, and leave the person creating the situation and any who might run afoul of it, to their fates, or else to call 911 and try to get someone dispatched there who is qualified to intervene.



I would have minded my own business and not called the cops.   Frankly, given what you describe, it's about typical of what I see in homeless people all the time living in Chicago.   It's what happens when you stop spending on mental health and start giving money to billionaires.  

The thing is, you don't know what these guys backstories were.  Maybe they were panhandling because they were veterans with PTSD who can't hold down a regular job.  Maybe they were suffering a mental illness.... but man, they were just annoying you slightly, so by all means, call the cops on them.  

Because that's totally what Jesus would do.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 31, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> _“Enlightened self interest”_ you say? That must mean that you think they'll be shooting at *you*. Which means either that you believe that black people are going to be inclined to shoot at people who are not threatening them (which would make you a racist, attributing to them a tendency to such gratuitous violence), or else that you expect to be in a position of threatening them to a degree that they'd be justified in shooting you.



Or that they might be taking Sister Souljah's advice and start killing white people for a change.  Point being that you can only hit a group with injustice for so long before they start striking back.   We really thought we were going to have race riots here in Chicago if Van Dyke was acquitted.  Thankfully, he was convicted and the protests were peaceful.   

Truth be told, the only reason we made any progress on race relations in the 1960's (I am just old enough to remember when we had race riots in Chicago) was because the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were threatening violence more than MLK's reasoned calls for justice.  

I like to defuse bombs before they go off.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Mormon Bob, the fact you tangled with those two gentlemen tells me all about your racism... So you've gone from "They were white" to "I'm not sure what they were, but it doesn't matter"



  I'm pretty sure they were white, in both cases, but it doesn't matter. Are you claiming that it did matter what race they were?




JoeB131 said:


> I would have minded my own business and not called the cops. Frankly, given what you describe, it's about typical of what I see in homeless people all the time living in Chicago. It's what happens when you stop spending on mental health and start giving money to billionaires.
> 
> The thing is, you don't know what these guys backstories were. Maybe they were panhandling because they were veterans with PTSD who can't hold down a regular job. Maybe they were suffering a mental illness.... but man, they were just annoying you slightly, so by all means, call the cops on them.
> 
> Because that's totally what Jesus would do.



  I'm not sociopathic enough to see as dangerous a situation as I saw in those instances, and, if there's a simple step I can take to mitigate it, to not do so.  You're trying to paint it as merely annoying.  As a matter of self-interest, I didn't have to get involved at all.  In neither of the cases that I described was I going to be directly affected.

  But in both these cases, the men creating the situation were in mortal danger, and they were putting others in danger as well.  Something needed to be done to mitigate that danger, but I was not and am not qualified to intervene in a direct manner, to try to convince or compel mentally-ill people who are engaging in dangerous behavior to stop doing so.  That's the job of the police.




JoeB131 said:


> Or that they might be taking Sister Souljah's advice and start killing white people for a change.  Point being that you can only hit a group with injustice for so long before they start striking back.   We really thought we were going to have race riots here in Chicago if Van Dyke was acquitted.  Thankfully, he was convicted and the protests were peaceful.
> 
> Truth be told, the only reason we made any progress on race relations in the 1960's (I am just old enough to remember when we had race riots in Chicago) was because the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were threatening violence more than MLK's reasoned calls for justice.
> 
> I like to defuse bombs before they go off.



  So you're a racist, then, as well as a f•••ing coward.  You perceive black people as inclined to unjustified violence, and you believe that _“justice”_ should bow to such threats of violence, rather that convicting or acquitting a suspect on the facts that support or refute his actual guilt or innocence.  Nothing about this, of course, is in any way inconsistent with what we all know about you.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 31, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > He wasn’t casual about it all. Why do you think he was trying to get out of the cruiser in the first place?
> ...



Wilson knew about the robbery before he ran into Johnson and Brown. I’ve told you this already:

Wilson was just finishing up on a callout regarding a sick infant when the call went out about two guys swiping cigarillos from the Ferguson Market. Wilson heard this but was still involved in the sick baby callout. 
When that was wrapped up and the child was in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, he called the two officers that had responded to the robbery call and were still there to see if they needed any help. They told him the two perpetrators were “in the wind” so Wilson just resumed his routine patrol.

This is all in the police radio dispatch transcripts which proves Wilson knew about the robbery and knew that the stolen items were cigarillos.

Not long after that is when he spotted Brown and Johnson walking down the middle of the street. At this time he did not know they were the two guys from the robbery. He confronted them to ask them to get on the sidewalk and when he did, he saw the cigarillos in Brown’s hand.
He then moved his cruiser to block their path and get out to confront them about the cigarillos but Brown slammed the door shut on him and then attacked him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He swiped merchandise he never paid for then assaulted the store owner when he tried to stop him. What difference does it make if the fucking video was in slow motion?





> You mean making a slight push look like an assault.



By definition, a push, no matter how slight, is an assault.



> Again. without the context of him trading the pot for the cigars earlier, (Which the cops hid for years) it all looked a lot more ominous than it was.  You know, like they knew Wilson fucked up by shooting him 8 times when he had his hands up.



It was ominous enough for the store owner to call the police.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you apparently don’t have a problem with black people lying about witnessing the shooting but have an embolism when a white person does it.





> I have no evidence that any of the black folks lied about what they saw...



You don’t, but they do. It’s in the report



> We do know the cops lied.



About what?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Would you be asking this question if most of them had said Brown had his hands up and was surrendering?
> 
> Since there were at least three different law enforcement agencies involved and interrogating witnesses, it’s possible one or two had a different system for witness designation. I’m thinking that for the DOJ report, they started at “101” (Johnson) and went from there.





> Well, there you go thinking again.



_Someone_ has to do the thinking around here. It sure as hell isn’t you.



> Point was, all the primary witnesses said he had his hands up, but that didn't fit the official Law Enforcement Narrative.



The primary witnesses were the people closest to the shooting with the best view: Johnson; the black man in the pickup who drove right up next to them while it was going on; the black family in the minivan watching from the intersection; the black couple in the car that Johnson was cowering behind; the contractor doing a home remodel just up the street; the two guys doing drainage work nearby and a handful of people watching from their apartments nearby.

All of these people closest to the shooting said Brown attacked Wilson in his cruiser, was not surrendering and was moving towards Wilson.



> LaQuan McDonald was lunging at the officers.  Sandra Bland assaulted the officer. Walter Scott took Slager's Taser and was trying to shoot him with it.  Oh... whoops.  You have video of what ACTUALLY happened?



None of these cases are relevant to the Brown case.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I only said it was _possible_ he had his hands up. But I don’t think he had them up as a gesture of surrender, I think he was looking at the gunshot wound on his hand. And hands up or not, he was moving towards Wilson. That’s what got him shot.





> What got him shot was being black.  We need to stop doing that shit.



Did he attack Wilson because he’s black? No? Then he was shot for attacking an officer.



> And no, this isn't because I want to be a "White Savior". Enlightened self interest.  At some point, they might start shooting back.



“Enlightened”? If you are so enlightened then why did you not know the cigarillos were not in a bag? 

Why did you not know that Brown was shot closer to the cruiser than from where he turned to face Wilson? 

Why did you not know that Wilson knew about the robbery and the cigarillos before he encountered Brown?

Why did you not know that Brown was not shot for jaywalking or the robbery?

Why did you not know that Johnson thought his friend seemed antsy and was behaving strangely?

Why did you not know that Wilson was not fired when they closed the precinct?

Just like with the Sandy Hook and Sandmann cases, virtually everything you think you know about the Brown case is false and based on lies and ignorance.

You know what makes this even more pathetic? I knew almost nothing about these three cases before debating you on them. 
I researched and read articles and watched videos during the discussions to learn what I could and due to this, I managed to know more about these cases in a matter of days and weeks than you learned in years.

Your premises for all three of these topics were built on falsehoods, lies, misconceptions, assumptions, intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 31, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> It was ominous enough for the store owner to call the police.



  Apparently, based on the most recent exchanges between JoeB131 and myself, calling the police is racist, no matter what danger or crime the subject of the call may be involved in, and even if the subject is white and so is the one making the call.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jan 31, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > It was ominous enough for the store owner to call the police.
> ...



Racism is all Joe has and has ever had. He gleefully jumped on the Merry Bandwagon of Liberal Paranoia and he’s going to ride that motherfucker to the bitter end.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 1, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I'm pretty sure they were white, in both cases, but it doesn't matter. A



Are you "pretty sure" or just "sure"? 

Never mind. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> I'm not sociopathic enough to see as dangerous a situation as I saw in those instances, and, if there's a simple step I can take to mitigate it, to not do so. You're trying to paint it as merely annoying. As a matter of self-interest, I didn't have to get involved at all. In neither of the cases that I described was I going to be directly affected.
> 
> But in both these cases, the men creating the situation were in mortal danger, and they were putting others in danger as well. Something needed to be done to mitigate that danger, but I was not and am not qualified to intervene in a direct manner, to try to convince or compel mentally-ill people who are engaging in dangerous behavior to stop doing so. That's the job of the police.



The next day, those guys were going to be back out on those same streets, so what did you actually accomplish?  I mean, besides reminding the world you are a Mormon Prick? 



Bob Blaylock said:


> So you're a racist, then, as well as a f•••ing coward. You perceive black people as inclined to unjustified violence,



No, that's the problem... it isn't "unjustified".  You push people far enough, they'll explode.  



Bob Blaylock said:


> and you believe that _“justice”_ should bow to such threats of violence, rather that convicting or acquitting a suspect on the facts that support or refute his actual guilt or innocence.



Uh, guy ,a jury found the Klansmen who lynched Emmit Till "innocent".  It found Darren Wilson innocent.  If we as a society don't treat the lives of black people terribly importantly, we shouldn't be surprised when they show a similar disregard for our lives.  

But don't worry, you're a guy who calls the police on someone if they are being dirty and homeless on a street you are using and annoying you.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 1, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wilson knew about the robbery before he ran into Johnson and Brown. I’ve told you this already:



That's what the lying sack of shit claimed, LATER, after the police found the video. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> By definition, a push, no matter how slight, is an assault.



Especially when it's an uppity negro doing it. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> None of these cases are relevant to the Brown case.



Sure they are. COPS LIE.  Especially when they might go to jail for their actions, because they just LOOOOOVE cops in jail. 

So you have live cop and a dead an UNARMED kid with EIGHT bullet holes in him, pardon me if I don't take his word at face value. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Just like with the Sandy Hook



Uh, guy, your rantings on Sandy Hook make Dale Smith and his "False Flag" claims sound rational.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 1, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Racism is all Joe has and has ever had. He gleefully jumped on the Merry Bandwagon of Liberal Paranoia and he’s going to ride that motherfucker to the bitter end.



As opposed to you, who will justify any racist cop because the little uppity bastard had it coming.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure they were white, in both cases, but it doesn't matter. A
> ...



  It doesn't matter what color their skin was.  In each of the cases that I described, what mattered was that there was an individual behaving in an insane and dangerous manner, putting his own safety at unreasonable risk, and putting the safety of others at an unreasonable risk.  You're trying to make this all about racism, when it has nothing at all to do with race; just as I just read, in just the past few minutes, you doing in this thread, and in another thread, about several other unrelated issues.  In this case, you're being particularly insane, in trying to characterize me as racist for being a white guy that called the police on two different instances of other white guys behaving in a manner that called for intervention by the police.

  It's very noticeable that you often cry _“Racism!”_, and that when you do, it is nearly always the case that you're the only one who claims that race has anything to do with it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Wilson knew about the robbery before he ran into Johnson and Brown. I’ve told you this already:
> ...



Wrong. As I said, it’s in the police radio dispatch transcripts. When Wilson finished up with the call he was on, he called the two officers responding to the robbery and asked them if they needed help. What he said, verbatim was: “_Do you guys need me?”  _One of the officers at the store responded: “_They disappeared into the woodwork.” _ Wilson didn’t quite make this out so he asked dispatch for clarification. The dispatcher responded: “_He thinks that they...disappeared.”_

Sorry, but the facts prove Wilson knew about the robbery of the cigarillos.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> By definition, a push, no matter how slight, is an assault.





> Especially when it's an uppity negro doing it.



I can’t speak to how “uppity” Brown was or even see how it’s relevant if he was. But he did assault the store owner and he did assault an officer.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> None of these cases are relevant to the Brown case.





> Sure they are. COPS LIE.



So do you. So what’s your problem?



> Especially when they might go to jail for their actions, because they just LOOOOOVE cops in jail.



Is this from experience?



> So you have live cop and a dead an UNARMED kid with EIGHT bullet holes in him, pardon me if I don't take his word at face value.



So you have an internet troll prone to prevarication, exaggeration and displays a complete lack of interest in learning the facts of an issue. Pardon me if I don’t take his word at face value.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Just like with the Sandy Hook





> Uh, guy, your rantings on Sandy Hook make Dale Smith and his "False Flag" claims sound rational.



Let’s talk about false flags. What about your false flag that the cigarillos were in a bag? 
What about your false flag that Wilson didn’t know about them? 
What about your false flag that Brown was shot for jaywalking?
What about your false flag that Brown was not approaching Wilson?

Talk about false flags, you’ve got a closet full of them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 1, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Racism is all Joe has and has ever had. He gleefully jumped on the Merry Bandwagon of Liberal Paranoia and he’s going to ride that motherfucker to the bitter end.
> ...



I haven’t justified a thing. I’m just informing you of the facts.

Fact: Brown swiped cigarillos from a store.
Fact: They were not in a bag.
Fact: The store owner called the cops.
Fact: Police dispatch puts out call about robbery at Ferguson Market giving description of main suspect (red Cardinals hat, white t-shirt, yellow socks and khaki shorts) and merchandise stolen (Swisher Sweets cigarillos).
Fact: Wilson hears this but is involved with another callout.
Fact: Two officers respond to robbery call and go to the store.
Fact: Wilson finishes previous call and asks officers at Ferguson Market if they need help. They inform him the suspects are gone.
Fact: Wilson later sees Brown and Johnson walking down the middle of the street and pulls up next to them and asks them to get on the sidewalk. 
Fact: Wilson then sees the cigarillos in their hands and realizes Brown fits the description of the suspect from the store; red Cardinals hat, white t-shirt, etc.
Fact: Wilson reverses cruiser and maneuvers to block their path, then attempts to get out of the cruiser.
Fact: Brown slams cruiser door shut on Wilson and then proceeds to attack Wilson, punching him through the driver’s side window.
Fact: After the initial shots from the cruiser, Brown takes off running.
Fact: Wilson exits the cruiser and calls for backup.
Fact: After making the call, he goes after Brown with his gun drawn but down at his side yelling for Brown to stop.
Fact: Brown stops, turns around, looks down at his hands and then charges at Wilson.
Fact: Wilson orders Brown to stop but he does not so Wilson raises his gun and shoots.

These are the facts of the case and as you can see, Wilson doesn’t need any justification from me.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 2, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> It doesn't matter what color their skin was. In each of the cases that I described, what mattered was that there was an individual behaving in an insane and dangerous manner, putting his own safety at unreasonable risk, and putting the safety of others at an unreasonable risk. You're trying to make this all about racism, when it has nothing at all to do with race; just as I just read, in just the past few minutes, you doing in this thread, and in another thread, about several other unrelated issues. In this case, you're being particularly insane, in trying to characterize me as racist for being a white guy that called the police on two different instances of other white guys behaving in a manner that called for intervention by the police.



Guy, we've already established you are a racist.. your rants about undocumented immigrants, the fact you belong to a racist cult.    You just think that if you don't blurt the N-word out loud, that gives you a hall pass. 



Bob Blaylock said:


> It's very noticeable that you often cry _“Racism!”_, and that when you do, it is nearly always the case that you're the only one who claims that race has anything to do with it.



Naw, what's amazing is that the one percenters get people like you to vote away yoru rights as workers by playing on your racism.  Look out, that Mexican might take your job!!!


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 2, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Fact: After the initial shots from the cruiser, Brown takes off running.
> Fact: Wilson exits the cruiser and calls for backup.
> Fact: After making the call, he goes after Brown with his gun drawn but down at his side yelling for Brown to stop.
> Fact: Brown stops, turns around, looks down at his hands and then charges at Wilson.
> Fact: Wilson orders Brown to stop but he does not so Wilson raises his gun and shoots.



Again, all according to Wilson if you ignore the dozens of witnesses who said he had his hands up.  A guy who was FIRED for corruption from his last job. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I haven’t justified a thing. I’m just informing you of the facts.



You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.  You seem really invested in a thug cop murdering a black child.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 2, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wrong. As I said, it’s in the police radio dispatch transcripts. When Wilson finished up with the call he was on, he called the two officers responding to the robbery and asked them if they needed help. What he said, verbatim was: “_Do you guys need me?” _One of the officers at the store responded: “_They disappeared into the woodwork.” _ Wilson didn’t quite make this out so he asked dispatch for clarification. The dispatcher responded: “_He thinks that they...disappeared.”_
> 
> Sorry, but the facts prove Wilson knew about the robbery of the cigarillos.



Yes, he knew about an incident of SHOPLIFTING.  I mean, holy fucking shit, you really think that he was flinging into action because some guy got pushed into a chip rack?  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I can’t speak to how “uppity” Brown was or even see how it’s relevant if he was. But he did assault the store owner and he did assault an officer.



Neither of which merited murdering him in the middle of the street.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you have an internet troll prone to prevarication, exaggeration and displays a complete lack of interest in learning the facts of an issue. Pardon me if I don’t take his word at face value.



I do love how I live in your head, buddy...  but the fact is, the people of that city didn't buy it. Right after they were done rioting, they threw corrupt=ass McCulloch out of office.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, we've already established you are a racist.



  No, we haven't established any such thing.

  What we have established is that you are a lying piece of shit, who falsely accuses others of _“racism”_ over any disagreement, even over issues where race is completely irrelevant.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 2, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> No, we haven't established any such thing.
> 
> What we have established is that you are a lying piece of shit, who falsely accuses others of _“racism”_ over any disagreement, even over issues where race is completely irrelevant.



Again, says the guy who calls the cops on panhandlers...  

I mean, what kind of sucky person do you have to be is seeing a person who has been dealt an awful hand at life, and thinks, "I"m totally calling the cops on that guy!: 

I'll bet you kick puppies, too.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Again, says the guy who calls the cops on panhandlers...
> 
> I mean, what kind of sucky person do you have to be is seeing a person who has been dealt an awful hand at life, and thinks, "I"m totally calling the cops on that guy!:
> 
> I'll bet you kick puppies, too.



  I didn't call the police on anyone for panhandling.

  I called the police to report situations in which someone was creating a serious danger to himself and to others.

  That you are so mentally-retarded as to not understand the difference is not my responsibility.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Fact: After the initial shots from the cruiser, Brown takes off running.
> ...



These are not from Wilson’s testimony. Every fact I listed is proven by forensic and video evidence and is corroborated by witness testimony.

The radio dispatch recordings prove Wilson knew about the robbery of the cigarillos. Ergo, your Argument that Wilson only found out later and used that as justification falls flat.

The store video surveillance proves that the cigarillos were not in a bag and thus your argument that Wilson couldn’t see them also falls flat.

Forensic evidence on Wilson and at the scene prove Brown attacked Wilson and was facing him and moving towards him when Wilson shot him. Hence, your argument that Brown was surrendering and was shot where he stood falls - you guessed it - flat.

Also, Wilson was not fired, he was transferred. Most of the other officers were let go entirely but Wilson was given a position at the jail. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I haven’t justified a thing. I’m just informing you of the facts.





> You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.  You seem really invested in a thug cop murdering a black child.



You seem really invested in throwing a cop under the bus. You are so invested in it that you are not even aware that the cigarillos were not in a bag. Either that or you simply overlooked it. In which case, that would make you about the biggest chickenshit, self serving prick on this board.

To expand on this, you are so invested in throwing Wilson under the bus that you have tried to defend or justify all of Brown’s actions except one: attacking Wilson.

We’ve been discussing this for about two weeks now  and you’ve defended his jaywalking and swiping the cigarillos and conflated the motive for the shooting being one of these two things. 
You’ve been tap dancing around pointing out irrelevancies but not once have you addressed or acknowledged the fact that Brown attacked him.

You haven’t addressed it because it is indefensible. You can say what you will about why Wilson shot Brown and you can keep hysterically shouting that Wilson shot him EIGHT FUCKING TIMES!!, but there is no defense for Brown getting belligerent and attacking Wilson just for being told to get on the sidewalk.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 2, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. As I said, it’s in the police radio dispatch transcripts. When Wilson finished up with the call he was on, he called the two officers responding to the robbery and asked them if they needed help. What he said, verbatim was: “_Do you guys need me?” _One of the officers at the store responded: “_They disappeared into the woodwork.” _ Wilson didn’t quite make this out so he asked dispatch for clarification. The dispatcher responded: “_He thinks that they...disappeared.”_
> ...



That’s not what you said before. You claimed in Post #1079 on 1/20/20 that the store owner didn’t even call the cops.

I quote: _“...and then he claimed that he (Wilson) was responding to the "robbery" (not really)* which the owner didn't call in.”
*_
And just yesterday, in response to my comment that Wilson knew about the robbery, you said:
_
“That's what the lying sack of shit claimed, LATER, after the police found the video.”_

In the beginning you claimed the store owner didn’t even call the cops. Then you claim Wilson didn’t hear or know about it. Then you claim he didn’t know the merchandise stolen was cigarillos. Then you claim the cigarillos were in a bag and he couldn’t see them when they were not.

Everything you’ve said so far about this case was pulled straight of your ass and was whatever was necessary to counter a specific point at the time. You’re juggling so many lies you can’t keep them straight and each one contradicts all the others.



> mean, holy fucking shit, you really think that he was flinging into action because some guy got pushed into a chip rack?



No, I don’t. I think he “flung into action” when Brown attacked him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> I can’t speak to how “uppity” Brown was or even see how it’s relevant if he was. But he did assault the store owner and he did assault an officer.





> Neither of which merited murdering him in the middle of the street.



He wasn’t murdered, he was shot in self defense.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you have an internet troll prone to prevarication, exaggeration and displays a complete lack of interest in learning the facts of an issue. Pardon me if I don’t take his word at face value.





> I do love how I live in your head, buddy...



There it is again, pretending you’re not doing the exact same thing I am.



> but the fact is, the people of that city didn't buy it. Right after they were done rioting, they threw corrupt=ass McCulloch out of office.



Good for them. I think it’s important and necessary to loot, burn and rob businesses when the police do you wrong.

Don’t hand me that bullshit about righteous indignation when half of them were just using the riots as an excuse to steal shoes, phones and clothes and destroy shit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2020)

Bob Blaylock said:


> I didn't call the police on anyone for panhandling.
> 
> I called the police to report situations in which someone was creating a serious danger to himself and to others.
> 
> That you are so mentally-retarded as to not understand the difference is not my responsibility.



Yes, he was mildly reminding you that we have poverty in this country, that bastard!!! 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In the beginning you claimed the store owner didn’t even call the cops. Then you claim Wilson didn’t hear or know about it. Then you claim he didn’t know the merchandise stolen was cigarillos. Then you claim the cigarillos were in a bag and he couldn’t see them when they were not.
> 
> Everything you’ve said so far about this case was pulled straight of your ass and was whatever was necessary to counter a specific point at the time. You’re juggling so many lies you can’t keep them straight and each one contradicts all the others.



Stop with the shithouse lawyer stuff.  The Owner didn't call in the "robbery", other people in the store did.  The Cigarellos were in the bag, and Wilson was just making up a story to tie the kid he just shot into a police report, even though his casual actions belie his claims.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t murdered, he was shot in self defense.



He was unarmed.  Wilson was armed. 
Not self-defense. 

If you so much of a pussy you can't take on an 18 year old kid, maybe you shouldn't be a cop. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Good for them. I think it’s important and necessary to loot, burn and rob businesses when the police do you wrong.
> 
> Don’t hand me that bullshit about righteous indignation when half of them were just using the riots as an excuse to steal shoes, phones and clothes and destroy shit.



Hey, the riot was inevitable once Corrupt McColloch decided he was going to do a cover up.   This is why he was voted out of office.  

So was McGinty in Cleveland and Alvarez in Chicago.   These corrupt DA that let cops get away with shit are going away, and we are better off for it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 3, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> In the beginning you claimed the store owner didn’t even call the cops. Then you claim Wilson didn’t hear or know about it. Then you claim he didn’t know the merchandise stolen was cigarillos. Then you claim the cigarillos were in a bag and he couldn’t see them when they were not.
> 
> Everything you’ve said so far about this case was pulled straight of your ass and was whatever was necessary to counter a specific point at the time. You’re juggling so many lies you can’t keep them straight and each one contradicts all the others.





> Stop with the shithouse lawyer stuff.  The Owner didn't call in the "robbery", other people in the store did.



Why is that relevant? When the cops were called, dispatch announced it on the police radio net and Wilson heard. What fucking difference does it make who made the call?



> The Cigarellos were in the bag,



They were not. There are two different store surveillance videos that prove the cigarillos were not in a bag.

The earlier video is from a camera behind the counter and shows the clerk putting them in a bag. Brown grabs the bag and makes to leave with it but then turns around, puts the bag back on the counter and leaves. The clerk takes them back out of the bag and puts them back on the shelf.

In the later video just before the shooting, Brown grabs a pack from behind the counter and hands it to Johnson. You can see they’re not in a bag. He then grabs a second pack that he holds himself and leaves the store. These were also not in a bag.

I’ve told you this already and told you then to watch the video. Also - this is important - in the first video, both packs were in one bag. But in the later video, Brown reached behind the counter TWICE to grab the two packs, handing one to Johnson.

That would mean one of two things.

1) For some reason that makes absolutely no sense, the clerk took one of the packs out of the bag and put it in a separate bag. Or

2) They were not in a bag.



> and Wilson was just making up a story to tie the kid he just shot into a police report, even though his casual actions belie his claims.



Nope. His initial reaction was casual because, silly officer, he thought he was dealing with a jaywalker. He had no idea when he first spotted them that they were the two from the store. Even when he realized that they were, he had no idea Brown was going to attack him.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He wasn’t murdered, he was shot in self defense.





> He was unarmed.  Wilson was armed.
> Not self-defense.



Then it was pretty fucking stupid of him to attack an armed officer, wasn’t it?



> If you so much of a pussy you can't take on an 18 year old kid, maybe you shouldn't be a cop.



The 18 year old “kid” outweighed him by like fifty pounds. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Good for them. I think it’s important and necessary to loot, burn and rob businesses when the police do you wrong.
> 
> Don’t hand me that bullshit about righteous indignation when half of them were just using the riots as an excuse to steal shoes, phones and clothes and destroy shit.





> Hey, the riot was inevitable once Corrupt McColloch decided he was going to do a cover up.   This is why he was voted out of office.
> 
> So was McGinty in Cleveland and Alvarez in Chicago.   These corrupt DA that let cops get away with shit are going away, and we are better off for it.



That’s as good a reason as any to steal shit from people who had nothing to do with it I guess.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 3, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why is that relevant? When the cops were called, dispatch announced it on the police radio net and Wilson heard. What fucking difference does it make who made the call?



Because bystanders really didn't understand what was going on,much less gave the kind of detail that Wilson claimed he had when getting his story straight. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In the later video just before the shooting, Brown grabs a pack from behind the counter and hands it to Johnson. You can see they’re not in a bag. He then grabs a second pack that he holds himself and leaves the store. These were also not in a bag.



Whatever, guy, they were in a bag...  Did Wilson have super vision... or was he just "getting his story straight" after "Oh my God, ohmygodohmygod I just shot a kid!" 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. His initial reaction was casual because, silly officer, he thought he was dealing with a jaywalker. He had no idea when he first spotted them that they were the two from the store. Even when he realized that they were, he had no idea Brown was going to attack him.



Or he shot a kid, and was making up a story.  Um, yeah, that's exactly what happened.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then it was pretty fucking stupid of him to attack an armed officer, wasn’t it?



So he should have waited for Officer McRacist to shoot him in the back?  

You'd be justifying that, too. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> That’s as good a reason as any to steal shit from people who had nothing to do with it I guess.



Here's the thing. Most of those stores are owned by immigrants who gouge the community... and treat every customer of color like a potential shoplifter.. So no big surprise, they were the focus of the wrath of that community.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 3, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Why is that relevant? When the cops were called, dispatch announced it on the police radio net and Wilson heard. What fucking difference does it make who made the call?
> ...



Irrelevant. A call was put out of a robbery in progress at Ferguson Market and that the suspect stole cigarillos. Wilson heard the call because - surprise, surprise - he had a police radio. Duh.

This is not rocket science for Christ’s sake.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> In the later video just before the shooting, Brown grabs a pack from behind the counter and hands it to Johnson. You can see they’re not in a bag. He then grabs a second pack that he holds himself and leaves the store. These were also not in a bag.





> Whatever, guy, they were in a bag...  Did Wilson have super vision... or was he just "getting his story straight" after "Oh my God, ohmygodohmygod I just shot a kid!"



I’m not pulling this shit out of my ass like you do; it is a fact, proven by the videos, that the cigarillos were not in a bag. 

Why haven’t you watched the video yet? And don’t tell me you did because I know damn well you never watched the other video from behind the counter.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Nope. His initial reaction was casual because, silly officer, he thought he was dealing with a jaywalker. He had no idea when he first spotted them that they were the two from the store. Even when he realized that they were, he had no idea Brown was going to attack him.





> Or he shot a kid, and was making up a story.  Um, yeah, that's exactly what happened.



You’re pretty good at making up stories yourself. Everything you’ve said about this case is made up. They’re neither plausible nor true or convincing, but they are creative.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Then it was pretty fucking stupid of him to attack an armed officer, wasn’t it?





> So he should have waited for Officer McRacist to shoot him in the back?



Wilson didn’t pull his gun until Brown attacked him you fucking idiot. And Brown attacked him while he was still in the cruiser. When he did pull his gun, Brown tried to take it from him.



> You'd be justifying that, too.



You mean like the way you are justifying Brown attacking a cop for telling him to get on the sidewalk?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> That’s as good a reason as any to steal shit from people who had nothing to do with it I guess.





> Here's the thing. Most of those stores are owned by immigrants who gouge the community... and treat every customer of color like a potential shoplifter.. So no big surprise, they were the focus of the wrath of that community.



Bullshit. You pulled that one out of your ass too. You have no fucking clue what kind of relationship the community has with these store owners.

Are you trying to justify their looting and destroying property?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 4, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rrelevant. A call was put out of a robbery in progress at Ferguson Market and that the suspect stole cigarillos. Wilson heard the call because - surprise, surprise - he had a police radio. Duh.



Um, yeah, that's the story racist Wilson went with after the fact. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why haven’t you watched the video yet? And don’t tell me you did because I know damn well you never watched the other video from behind the counter.



I have watched the video... it doesn't show what you say.  He reaches behind the counter and grabs the merch he already traded for, which was waiting for him.  The owner says something to him he didn't like and he pushes the guy.  

A little shove is not  a good reason to murder a kid, even if he's black. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. You pulled that one out of your ass too. You have no fucking clue what kind of relationship the community has with these store owners.



We know exactly what the relationship was. They burned those stores out.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 4, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > rrelevant. A call was put out of a robbery in progress at Ferguson Market and that the suspect stole cigarillos. Wilson heard the call because - surprise, surprise - he had a police radio. Duh.
> ...



Which part of this is wrong or a lie?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why haven’t you watched the video yet? And don’t tell me you did because I know damn well you never watched the other video from behind the counter.





> I have watched the video... it doesn't show what you say.



Which part of what I say is not in the video? Be specific.



> He reaches behind the counter and grabs the merch he already traded for, which was waiting for him.



Right. He reaches behind the counter TWICE. He grabs the first pack, hands it to Johnson and then reaches behind the counter a second time to grab the second pack which he holds himself and then leaves after shoving the store owner.



> The owner says something to him he didn't like and he pushes the guy.



What did the owner say that Brown didn’t like, “You have to pay for that.”?



> A little shove is not  a good reason to murder a kid, even if he's black.



He wasn’t shot for shoving the store owner.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Bullshit. You pulled that one out of your ass too. You have no fucking clue what kind of relationship the community has with these store owners.





> We know exactly what the relationship was. They burned those stores out.



Who’s “we”? I know nothing of the kind. All I know is, a bunch of punks stole and destroyed property of people who had nothing to do with the shooting because they could.

Are you telling me that these punks looted and destroyed property of store owners because the store owners looked at them like they were looters and destroyers of property?

Seems to me that, if what you say is true, all they managed to do was prove to the store owners that they were, indeed, thieves and vandals after all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> What did the owner say that Brown didn’t like, “You have to pay for that.”?



I"m sure the N-word was involved. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who’s “we”? I know nothing of the kind. All I know is, a bunch of punks stole and destroyed property of people who had nothing to do with the shooting because they could.
> 
> Are you telling me that these punks looted and destroyed property of store owners because the store owners looked at them like they were looters and destroyers of property?
> 
> Seems to me that, if what you say is true, all they managed to do was prove to the store owners that they were, indeed, thieves and vandals after all.



Point is, if the stores were part of that community, the community wouldn't have turned on them.  

Instead, what you have are stores run by immigrants who exploit the neighborhood (where many people wrongly believe they are getting government money) and man, when things fell apart, they got theirs.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > What did the owner say that Brown didn’t like, “You have to pay for that.”?
> ...



Evidence?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Who’s “we”? I know nothing of the kind. All I know is, a bunch of punks stole and destroyed property of people who had nothing to do with the shooting because they could.
> 
> Are you telling me that these punks looted and destroyed property of store owners because the store owners looked at them like they were looters and destroyers of property?
> 
> Seems to me that, if what you say is true, all they managed to do was prove to the store owners that they were, indeed, thieves and vandals after all.





> Point is, if the stores were part of that community, the community wouldn't have turned on them.



So they turned on the stores, not because of anything the stores did, but because of some vague notion that the stores were not part of the community? What does that even mean? And how is this justification for robbing and vandalizing them?



> Instead, what you have are stores run by immigrants who exploit the neighborhood (where many people wrongly believe they are getting government money) and man, when things fell apart, they got theirs.



You mean immigrants like the ones you boo hoo about in the “concentration camps”? So now immigrants are the bad guys?

What evidence do you have for this?

Also, I had two questions:

1) Which part of my comments about Wilson hearing the radio call is wrong or a lie?

2) Which part of what I say is in the video do you say is not in the video?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 5, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So they turned on the stores, not because of anything the stores did, but because of some vague notion that the stores were not part of the community? What does that even mean? And how is this justification for robbing and vandalizing them?



Same justification for giving a cop a walk for shooting an unarmed black kid... because they could.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Also, I had two questions:



No longer interested in any of your questions...  I made my point, you continuing to repeat your questions like Corky the Retard banging his head against the wall bores me.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 5, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > So they turned on the stores, not because of anything the stores did, but because of some vague notion that the stores were not part of the community? What does that even mean? And how is this justification for robbing and vandalizing them?
> ...



In other words, there is no justification. They behaved like hoodlums because that is what they are and they saw an opportunity to rob and vandalize with impunity.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Also, I had two questions:





> No longer interested in any of your questions...  I made my point,



You were never interested in my questions because you never had the evidence to answer them. And the more questions I asked, the shorter your responses. Which means you’ll be bailing on the discussion soon just like you did before when pressed for evidence or validation of your arguments.



> you continuing to repeat your questions like Corky the Retard banging his head against the wall bores me.



How can they bore you when you never answered any of them?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 6, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> In other words, there is no justification. They behaved like hoodlums because that is what they are and they saw an opportunity to rob and vandalize with impunity.



Sure there was.  YOu can't tell people to obey the "Law" and then break it yourself.  That's the whole point. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You were never interested in my questions



No, I answer them once, you are the one who keeps pounding his head against the wall like Corky the Retard.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 6, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, there is no justification. They behaved like hoodlums because that is what they are and they saw an opportunity to rob and vandalize with impunity.
> ...



Wait, you lost me. What does that have to do with the store owners?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You were never interested in my questions





> No, I answer them once, you are the one who keeps pounding his head against the wall like Corky the Retard.



Wrong. You never answered my last questions regarding Wilson hearing the robbery call and what was in the video. You avoided those questions altogether and excluded them when you quoted and responded to my post.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 6, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Wait, you lost me. What does that have to do with the store owners?



I can't use any smaller words, Corky. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You never answered my last questions



Yes, I did.  I didn't believe a fucking thing Wilson said.  He's a racist lying corrupt cop.


----------



## Bruce Daniels (Feb 6, 2020)

2aguy said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> > Great news.  The gun industry has been irresponsible in selling weapons for mass killing to the public.  Hopefully they will be soon paying for it.
> ...


You're wrong. Guns are made for the purpose of killing people. Cars, booze, computers, not so much. Suck it, assholes!


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Feb 6, 2020)

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, you lost me. What does that have to do with the store owners?
> ...



You can’t use words at all, that’s the problem.

Are you now saying that store owners preach to these punks about the law and then break it themselves? If that is what you’re saying, how are they breaking the law, exactly?
If this is not what you’re saying then I’m afraid I don’t understand why these punks looted these stores because somebody else preached and broke the law.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> You never answered my last questions





> Yes, I did.  I didn't believe a fucking thing Wilson said.  He's a racist lying corrupt cop.



This is an opinion of the man’s character, not an answer to the question.

Are you saying the call was not made? Or if it was, that Wilson didn’t hear it? If you’re saying either of these things, what’s your evidence?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 6, 2020)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You can’t use words at all, that’s the problem.



I use them just fine, given how much I live in your head. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you now saying that store owners preach to these punks about the law and then break it themselves? If that is what you’re saying, how are they breaking the law, exactly?
> If this is not what you’re saying then I’m afraid I don’t understand why these punks looted these stores because somebody else preached and broke the law.



Because the police are more about protecting the stores instead of protecting the people.  You know, shooting an unarmed kid with his hands up because he stole $25.00 in cigarellos. 



Ghost of a Rider said:


> This is an opinion of the man’s character,



Yes, it is. So nothing he says at this point is believable, given that his story was pure bullshit.  

Some black kid gave him some lip, and he shot him.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 6, 2020)

Closing the thread. The last several pages are no longer about the original topic


----------

