Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[BlackSand]

Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
I'm surprised you don't know that. Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.

You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post. Some kind of fermata? That's a head scratcher.

Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.

Oh well, we all have our priorities...

If you can figure out how to shout at someone typing ... Then you are really smart.

Personally I don't much care what other people do or think about the way they choose to visually present their work.
Looking around sometimes ... And not talking about content in particular other than the basics ... It is easy to disregard what someone types ... By recognizing the effort they put forth in presentation alone.

But hey, that's just me ... And I don't impose my will on others ... As far as assuming they meet whatever standards I arbitrarily choose to employ.

Then again ... I don't have to be team player here ... Don't need your approval ... And didn't ask for it.
The period thing is probably a really puzzler for you ... But if you have been listening to me shout at you all this time ... Or at least the reason I gave for why I do it other than shouting ... I bet you are smart enough you can figure it out.

Edit:
As far as the part regarding talking about me ... You brought it up ... If you don't want to talk about it or think we should be talking about something else ... Then don't say anything about it.

.

 

[71sportstourer]

They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...

So what you're saying is, crickets sound like people proposing universal background checks?

What other lies are you propagating today?

FYI, the so called law and order party has no cred left in the area of public safety, sorta like they have no cred left with the middle class.

 

[Pogo]

Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
I'm surprised you don't know that. Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.

You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post. Some kind of fermata? That's a head scratcher.

Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.

Oh well, we all have our priorities...

If you can figure out how to shout at someone typing ... Then you are really smart.

Personally I don't much care what other people do or think about the way they choose to visually present their work.

Looking around sometimes ... And not talking about content in particular other than the basics ... It is easy to disregard what someone types ... By recognizing the effort they put forth in presentation alone.

But hey, that's just me ... And I don't impose my will on others ... As far as assuming they meet whatever standards I arbitrarily choose to employ.

Then again ... I don't have to be team player here ... Don't need your approval ... And didn't ask for it.
The period thing is probably a really puzzler for you ... But if you have been listening to me shout at you all this time ... Or at least the reason I gave for why I do it other than shouting ... I bet you are smart enough you can figure it out.

Edit:
As far as the part regarding talking about me ... You brought it up ... If you don't want to talk about it or think we should be talking about something else ... Then don't say anything about it.

.

It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting. And bolding every other sentence just distracts from your message. But then if you don't have much of a message, maybe that's what you want. Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.

That's so cute.

 

[BlackSand]

It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting. And bolding every other sentence just distracts from your message. But then if you don't have much of a message, maybe that's what you want. Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.

That's so cute.

Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?

Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.

I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.

As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.

.

 

[Pogo]

It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting. And bolding every other sentence just distracts from your message. But then if you don't have much of a message, maybe that's what you want. Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.

That's so cute.

Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?

Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.

I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.

As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.

.

You do whatever the fuck you want. I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.
Not everyone would bother. You're welcome.

Three posts in a row avoiding the question. OK then.

... Next?

 

[BlackSand]

It's not my approval we're talking about; it's universally accepted that what you're doing is shouting. And bolding every other sentence just distracts from your message. But then if you don't have much of a message, maybe that's what you want. Kind of like trying to distract from the fact that you can't defend your smoking/drunk driving Jefferson and you actually think that bolding on and off like a strobe light makes people forget that.

That's so cute.

Universal would include everyone ... And since I already said I don't accept it ... Who are you talking to?

Since you gave me a tip ... I will give you one ... Take it or leave it.
Look up the basic concepts of Jujitsu ... And then wrap your mind around the desire to apply them to internet conversation.

I pull, you push ... You pull, I push ... Simple really.

As far as anything else ... I will choose to respond to whatever you say that I feel like responding to ... And ignore whatever side roads you what to go down if it suits me.
You can make up whatever excuse suits your fancy as to why ... But you haven't gotten any of your assumptions correct yet.

.

You do whatever the fuck you want. I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.
Not everyone would bother. You're welcome.

Three posts in a row avoiding the question. OK then.

... Next?

I am sorry it took you that long to figure out I am going to do "what the fuck" I want to do ... And don't give shit what you think about it.
Finally you are catching on ... I told you that you were smart enough you would eventually figure things out.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They love to bring up comments about how Republicans are murdering people by not passing more laws, but when they get a chance to address how that's going to work, crickets...

So what you're saying is, crickets sound like people proposing universal background checks?

Universal background checks... which will have no effect on gun violence whatsoever...

 

[71sportstourer]

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.

Typical of those who can only debate the gun issue as if it’s still the 1700s, instead of an age where many US school districts shell out for metal detectors and security guards. Of course, while nut you like to wish Ike was still President, today’s American students are competing with those of China, which has more students studying science than the U.S. has students. And of course, our kids will be even more in debt to the Chinese than this generation is. What do you think Jefferson and Monroe would think of that, gun nuts? But no, let’s pretend the Chinese aren’t there and talk about what Jefferson REALLY intended by allowing Americans to be armed with muskets. Enjoy the dumbed down America your delusional, ignorant selves have created.

 

[zeke]

And if I may offer a tip in return, you'd look less silly imagining that boldface makes your posts somehow superior.

I thank you for the tip ... But that is your way of looking at it not mine.

I often do it because it breaks up the monotony of endless fine print ... As well as even further separates the thoughts.
To me it is more visually appealing as far as aesthetic purposes alone ... And has nothing to do with any thoughts of superiority or anger.

I believe that your misconceptions are founded in your own fears of inadequacy.

See how that separates that thought from "why I do it" ... And makes the transition to "why I think it bothers you enough to comment on it".

Have A Good Evening ... It's Been A Pleasure (woo ... watch out, used caps there too)

.

Well, on the internet it's shouting, so it's not "my" way of looking at it -- it's everybody's.
I'm surprised you don't know that. Perhaps what you need is an optometrist.

You also have this really weird habit of putting a carriage return and period at the end of every post. Some kind of fermata? That's a head scratcher.

Finally I can't help noticing your post is entirely about you and not at all about the topic, which in the moment was that drunk smoker Thomas Jefferson.

Oh well, we all have our priorities...

Hot damn. A new word. I knew I could learn something from a gun nut thread. Thanks.
BTW, who is playing the music? Cause I already know who is dancing.

 

[Wildman]

You do whatever the fuck you want. I'm just telling you how stupid it looks.
Not everyone would bother. You're welcome.

Three posts in a row avoiding the question. OK then.

... Next?

it only looks stupid to stupid liberal pukes ... ... get off it you stupid fuck.

 

[Geaux4it]

All we need to do is kill more bad guys with guns, or at the least, let them kill themselves, more than they kill good guys.

Its all about attrition

-Geaux

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.

Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.

Why do you choose to lie to yourself?

 

[Geaux4it]

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.

Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.



Why do you choose to lie to yourself?

And the anti-loons now want to say it is a right limited to the home. That is being challenged and will ultimately wind up at SCOTUS. Just a matter of time before all the criminal sheriffs who are denying concealed carry on a 'just cause' will then have to become 'shall issue.

Then crime drops nationally

-Geaux

 

[jon_berzerk]

another one bites the dust

to a seat he won unopposed the last time — in part because he signed up Chambersburg as one of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun cities.

Pennsylvania Town Clings to Its Guns, Ousts Mayor | RealClearPolitics

 

[kaz]

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.

Typical of those who can only debate the gun issue as if it’s still the 1700s, instead of an age where many US school districts shell out for metal detectors and security guards.

Irony, I love it. The point in the op was that our drug laws do nothing to prevent high schoolers from getting all the drugs they want. You're without answering the question why gun laws will work when drug laws don't, actually going to high schoolers in order to beg the question and assume that gun laws will work where drug laws don't. LOL.

Of course, while nut you like to wish Ike was still President, today’s American students are competing with those of China, which has more students studying science than the U.S. has students. And of course, our kids will be even more in debt to the Chinese than this generation is. What do you think Jefferson and Monroe would think of that, gun nuts? But no, let’s pretend the Chinese aren’t there and talk about what Jefferson REALLY intended by allowing Americans to be armed with muskets. Enjoy the dumbed down America your delusional, ignorant selves have created.

WTF, China? Was this a demonstration that our drug laws don't work?

 

[M14 Shooter]

M14 says without citing a shred of info to support his hollow statement.

Typical anti-gun loon, speaking from complete ignorance and/or dishonesty.

Fact:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You many not like that fact, but to pretend it isnlt a fact means you choose to lie to yourself.



Why do you choose to lie to yourself?

And the anti-loons now want to say it is a right limited to the home

Yes... it s impossible to soundly argue that you have less of a right to self-defense outside your home than you do inside it.

But, as they cannot provide a sound argument for any of the gun control laws they suupport, this is no surprise.

 

[Geaux4it]

If I lived in a big city like New York, I would pack everyday. Law or no law.

-Geaux

 

[Pogo]

If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):

>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.

Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too—in the form of capital punishment—sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined—not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.

Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What’s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions—dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest—masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don’t respect state boundaries.

To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles—and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain—each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors—for land, capital, and other settlers—and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There’s never been an America, but rather several Americas—each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.

...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link

 

[BlackSand]

If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):

>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.

Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too&#8212;in the form of capital punishment&#8212;sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined&#8212;not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.

Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What&#8217;s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions&#8212;dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest&#8212;masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don&#8217;t respect state boundaries.

To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles&#8212;and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain&#8212;each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors&#8212;for land, capital, and other settlers&#8212;and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There&#8217;s never been an America, but rather several Americas&#8212;each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.

...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link

Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.

File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is probably some sense in the argument that culture and the Nations spoken of have some influence on tolerance towards violence ... But that may have a lot do with other factors.

.

 

[Pogo]

If anyone cares to ponder (rather than continue parroting standard demagogue catch phrases) -- this article may prove worthy of ponderation (credit: MisterBeale):

>> Last December, when Adam Lanza stormed into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, with a rifle and killed twenty children and six adult staff members, the United States found itself immersed in debates about gun control. Another flash point occurred this July, when George Zimmerman, who saw himself as a guardian of his community, was exonerated in the killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin, in Florida. That time, talk turned to stand-your-ground laws and the proper use of deadly force. The gun debate was refreshed in September by the shooting deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard, apparently at the hands of an IT contractor who was mentally ill.

Such episodes remind Americans that our country as a whole is marked by staggering levels of deadly violence. Our death rate from assault is many times higher than that of highly urbanized countries like the Netherlands or Germany, sparsely populated nations with plenty of forests and game hunters like Canada, Sweden, Finland, or New Zealand, and large, populous ones like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan. State-sponsored violence, too&#8212;in the form of capital punishment&#8212;sets our country apart. Last year we executed more than ten times as many prisoners as other advanced industrialized nations combined&#8212;not surprising given that Japan is the only other such country that allows the practice.

Our violent streak has become almost a part of our national identity. What&#8217;s less well appreciated is how much the incidence of violence, like so many salient issues in American life, varies by region. Beyond a vague awareness that supporters of violent retaliation and easy access to guns are concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy and, to a lesser extent, the western interior, most people cannot tell you much about regional differences on such matters. Our conventional way of defining regions&#8212;dividing the country along state boundaries into a Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Northwest&#8212;masks the cultural lines along which attitudes toward violence fall. These lines don&#8217;t respect state boundaries.

To understand violence or practically any other divisive issue, you need to understand historical settlement patterns and the lasting cultural fissures they established. The original North American colonies were settled by people from distinct regions of the British Isles&#8212;and from France, the Netherlands, and Spain&#8212;each with its own religious, political, and ethnographic traits. For generations, these Euro-American cultures developed in isolation from one another, consolidating their cherished religious and political principles and fundamental values, and expanding across the eastern half of the continent in nearly exclusive settlement bands. Throughout the colonial period and the Early Republic, they saw themselves as competitors&#8212;for land, capital, and other settlers&#8212;and even as enemies, taking opposing sides in the American Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Civil War. There&#8217;s never been an America, but rather several Americas&#8212;each a distinct nation. There are eleven nations today. Each looks at violence, as well as everything else, in its own way.

...If you understand the United States as a patchwork of separate nations, each with its own origins and prevailing values, you would hardly expect attitudes toward violence to be uniformly distributed. You would instead be prepared to discover that some parts of the country experience more violence, have a greater tolerance for violent solutions to conflict, and are more protective of the instruments of violence than other parts of the country. That is exactly what the data on violence reveal about the modern United States. Most scholarly research on violence has collected data at the state level, rather than the county level (where the boundaries of the eleven nations are delineated). Still, the trends are clear. The same handful of nations show up again and again at the top and the bottom of state-level figures on deadly violence, capital punishment, and promotion of gun ownership. << -- "Up in Arms" by Colin Woodward, much more @ the link

Lolz ... I bet you really think your map is about guns and violence ... When I was certain I had seen a map like yours before.

File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, the article is about that. That's why I left a link.
Then again, I left it for the thinkers, not the superficial. I even quoted the opening points.

But I understand, for some of us just looking at pictures is a full plate. Hence the disclaimer at the top. I do understand that ponderable information is like kryptonite for the superignorant.

Woodward is riffing here on the sociocultural treatise The Nine Nations of North America ([ame="http://www.amazon.com/The-Nine-Nations-North-America/dp/0380578859"]q.v.[/ame])