Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[Sparko]

Lets see, you call me names every other post. Pix calls me names every other post. Even Rogue, Sparko, and CP are not shy about expressing their utter disdain. And I simply use a funny line from Pirates of the Caribbean to let you know I'm not going to be driven by your attempts at mockery into some sort of emotional response, and I'm the one being condescending?

Did it ever, ever occur to any of you that being mocked and ridiculed on a daily basis by people whose respect I once had, who at one time I thought of as my friends and who at one time at least seemed like they thought of me as a friend or fellow comrade in these debates is not hurtful, or difficult?

No - the line from Pirates is not meant to be condescending. It is meant simply to say in a potentially funny way that you can't manipulate me through name calling.


Jim

Where did I "express my utter disdain?"

I don't disdain you at all Jim. I just disagree with your position on some matters. It isn't personal. I still think of you as a friend.

[Zymologist]

A couple random questions...

Is AG Barr saying a sitting president can't be indicted unprecedented? (I really have no idea)

What's his reasoning for this?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim just admitted I was right!

And there in lies the reason we have such a hard time communicating Sparko!

"Within your rights" != "right"



-yes I know you were teasing, as am I -

Jim

[lilpixieofterror]

In ox's defense, the discussion was reasonably civil and on-topic throughout most of the thread until lilpixie called him "the Jorge of Civics," and he shot back with what can only be reasonably described as a condescending rejoinder while claiming to be above such behavior. However, he never went off on questioning anybody's faith because of their support of Trump.

I say that in sadness because it’s sad to watch normally reasonable people dive into outright conspiracy theories in an attempt to keep a destroyed narrative afloat. There’s no conspiracy between Russia and Trump and there never was one, it was all lies. There was a conspiracy to overturn an election and taint everything Trump says or does with flat out lies and unfounded accusations though. I said a year ago no crime happened and guess what? No crime happened. This stuff might make the Democrat base happy, but your base doesn’t win your election, the middle voters do and having your narratives exposed as flat out lies will not win an election. Jorge has a tendency to ignore contradictory information in favor of a narrative and what is going on here? It’s sad and painful to watch and will not end well at all.

[lilpixieofterror]

It is not a conspiracy theory to say that taking on the policy that says a sitting President can't be indicted is potentially dangerous to the republic. Noting that when that policy is coupled with not being transparent about the content of the Mueller report it sets a dangerous precedent because it sets the stage for the possibility that the only remaining response to a president acting outside the law - impeachment - can be bypassed. IF the AG can hide the crimes the president committed that were discovered during the investigation, then there is no substance on which to impeach.

As I said when I first brought up the issue. This has nothing to do with whether or not actual crimes were discovered in this specific investigation. It has to do with the potential abuse of power that could be exercised through the abuse of such a combination of policies. If a sitting president can't be indicted, then the congress must be made aware of the full content of the investigation report so that they can decide if there is evidence of actual crimes that would necessitate or precipitate impeachment. And so I'm saying we should ALL be demanding that as much as possible, the content of the report be revealed - at least to the lawmakers in congress and the senate. That way at least enough eyes from enough different perspectives have seen the content and can confirm or otherwise deny the summary from the AG. IF that summary is accurate, then all following that path does is make sure some other president and some other AG can't abuse their power.

Almost everything about how our government is designed is to help reduce or prevent the abuse of power, because NO-ONE is immune from the seductions of power.

This is not an issue of conspiracy, I am not claiming the AG is doing this, or that the President has been found to have committed crimes. I'm saying that the combination of the two policies is very bad, and if not this president, some other president will be able to use it to stay above the law, at least while president.


Jim

Can you show a legal framework where a sitting president can be? That’s what impeachment exist for, to remove a president from office so he can be charged for a crime. Again, I see nothing to support your claims because it seems perfectly in line with much established legal thought. Seriously, just stop, you’re not doing any favors. You have no evidence to support your claims, unless you want to seriously argue that Muller and the rest of the anti Trumpers at the Justice department are all in on a cover up.

[Mountain Man]

Thanks MM, but could you please explain how "Sticks and Stones luv" is in any way an inappropriate response to being called "The Jorge of Civics"? It appears that from you and the pix's perspective, calling me names of almost any sort is ok as long as it is not vulgar enough to violate campus decorum, but even the mildest of retorts from me in response is not. How exactly do you justify that? All that response means is that calling me names will be ignored. that is how Jack Sparrow (Depp) uses it in the movie. And it refers to the common rhyme cited in childhood "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".

I could care less if you use sarcasm, satire, or insulting rhetoric when you respond. What gets you in trouble is when you act like you're above that sort of thing while responding with what I think can only be reasonably described as a condescending tone.

And you might want to pick a better role model than Captain Jack Sparrow, a character who is a liar, thief, hypocrite, womanizer, drunkard, and braggart. When he says, "Sticks and stones, my luv," it's with a wink and a sneer that is calculated to anger his opponent, which is exactly how it came across when you responded in a similar fashion.

[Littlejoe]

This thread is supposed to be about the Mosque shooting, we have several OTHER threads to discuss Mueller's report. Let's get back on topic please....

Jim,

You and I have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to AR's in general. I certainly don't think you're ignorant of guns but, I do think it's irrational to think that you can take AR's out of the mix and that will somehow magically make mass shooting go away. I don't think it would even slow them down. I think this thinking is greatly flawed because, I believe it completely ignores the ingenuity of people. Think of a prison; even with tightly controlled in and out's, regular shake downs of both person's and cell's, there is still a thriving black market where you can get anything from dope to weapons to cell phones. Weapons are made from everything imaginable. An office lost an eye when he was struck in the eye from a arrow shot from a bow that a prisoner made while placed in isolation. He made both out of paper from a magazine, and took the elastic from his underwear.

Mass shootings, terrible as they are, (and they are!), are such a tiny portion of the problem. In addition, there are almost as many mass shootings with other weapons (5) vs "Assault weapons" (7.3) and other semi-auto's (6.4). There are other guns out there like the one my buddy owns, the Mini 14 that looks just like a hunting rifle but performs similar to the AR. (I can't attach pics from my work computer)

The bottom line is IMHO, that to stop a "madman" intent on harming people requires someone to be armed as well or better. As I pointed out, my sister successfully thwarted a home invasion while home alone from to 200+ lb men because she had her AR handy. They kicked in her door and came in with their pistols pointed down, but she was at the top of the stairs with the AR pointed right at the, they backed out the door and ran away before getting shot. They were arrested hours later as she knew one of them. This may have been a very different scenario with out the AR as a defense.

[oxmixmudd]

I could care less if you use sarcasm, satire, or insulting rhetoric when you respond. What gets you in trouble is when you act like you're above that sort of thing while responding with what I think can only be reasonably described as a condescending tone.

And you might want to pick a better role model than Captain Jack Sparrow, a character who is a liar, thief, hypocrite, womanizer, drunkard, and braggart. When he says, "Sticks and stones, my luv," it's with a wink and a sneer that is calculated to anger his opponent, which is exactly how it came across when you responded in a similar fashion.

Mm, it was meant to partly comical as was the role of jack sparrow.

And you most certainly do care when and if anything is said to you that calls into question any aspect if your integrity or intelligence, as you have demonstrated many times on these pages.

The reality is, any time anyone responds to you in a way that even slightly resembles how you often address me, you lose it.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Mm, it was meant to partly comical as was the role of jack sparrow.

Again, that's not at all how it came across. The least you could do is acknowledge that much.

The reality is, any time anyone responds to you in a way that even slightly resembles how you often address me, you lose it.

Please to post examples of me "losing it"

[rogue06]

No it isn't. These guns where out of the realm of possibility for the technology of the day. Again, a single crazed mad man with a rifle could not kill nearly 60 people and injure over 500 more in a few minutes from a distance of 500 to 600 yards in the day the 2nd amendment was penned. Further, to assume the founding fathers where nearly infinitely wise visionaries capable of foreseeing weapons technology 250 years hence is nothing more than fantasy. And they were wise enough to recognize they could not see that far, so we have the capacity to amend the constitution.

If it still makes sense for an armed public to be a true deterrent to potential governmental oppression, or an invading force, then we must adapt that 2nd amendment provision to accommodate for a larger potential population of nutcases willing to use the weapons to slaughter crowds of innocent civilians and for the order of magnitude more power and lethality available to a single crazed shooter with minimal resources in this day and age.


Jim

In only about 60 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified we were already producing rifles with rapid fire ability and with an effective range of the AR-15^[1] so what you are actually demanding is restricting firearms with mid 19th century capabilities. And while initially made for the military the carbine version (shorter and lighter version designed for the cavalry.) was being sold to civilians within a decade.




1. The Spencer Repeating Rifle .56-56 caliber effective range was 500 yards and the AR-15 .223 caliber is effective range is figured at between 437 and 656 yards. It had roughly half the ROF as an AR-15 (maximum 20 compared to 45 rounds per minute) but that is still putting a good deal of lead at a good distance.

[oxmixmudd]

Again, that's not at all how it came across. The least you could do is acknowledge that much.

Well at first it seemed so obvious to me what it was all about I couldn't take the responses seriously - just more over the top craziness from the pix is what I thought it was. Then you jumped in and I'm like "Are you serious?" And of course - everybody is making like I intended to be this really nasty fellow when in fact the only one being attacked and demeaned is myself (please don't try to claim being called "hypocrite" or "The Jorge of Civics" is not meant to be demeaning). So there you go. I was never dishonest though, as many of you claimed me to be. It was never meant to be demeaning. It was only meant to be a light-hearted defense against all the name calling coming from you and pix.

I still don't understand how in the world either of you thinks you deserve some sort of apology over that reference as mean and obnoxious as both of are to me continuously. It boggles the mind - though I will admit you have been easier to talk to lately most of the time, and I appreciated that.

And I intend to continue using it as a response to name-calling. At least now everyone should be clear as to what it means and to what it refers.

Please to post examples of me "losing it"

When you thought something I said implied you hated democrats. I'm not sure you ever got over that, even though most of it was a misunderstanding on your part.

but ... I'm not going to get into any discussion over did you or did you not beyond the above. Sooner or later you'll lose it again and I can make the point then. Or maybe, since I've made the point, you'll be on your guard and you'll never lose it that way again. Time will tell.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Well at first it seemed so obvious to me what it was all about I couldn't take the responses seriously - just more over the top craziness from the pix is what I thought it was. Then you jumped in and I'm like "Are you serious?" And of course - everybody is making like I intended to be this really nasty fellow when in fact the only one being attacked and demeaned is myself (please don't try to claim being called "hypocrite" or "The Jorge of Civics" is not meant to be demeaning). So there you go. I was never dishonest though, as many of you claimed me to be. It was never meant to be demeaning. It was only meant to be a light-hearted defense against all the name calling coming from you and pix.

I still don't understand how in the world either of you thinks you deserve some sort of apology over that reference as mean and obnoxious as both of are to me continuously. It boggles the mind - though I will admit you have been easier to talk to lately most of the time, and I appreciated that.

And I intend to continue using it as a response to name-calling. At least now everyone should be clear as to what it means and to what it refers.

So a refusal on your part to acknowledge the fact that your post came across as condescending. Got it.

And I never asked for an apology, I simply pointed out your apparent hypocrisy.

When you thought something I said implied you hated democrats. I'm not sure you ever got over that, even though most of it was a misunderstanding on your part.

I asked you to post examples, not give your own biased interpretation of what you think I said or did.

[oxmixmudd]

This thread is supposed to be about the Mosque shooting, we have several OTHER threads to discuss Mueller's report. Let's get back on topic please....

Jim,

You and I have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to AR's in general. I certainly don't think you're ignorant of guns but, I do think it's irrational to think that you can take AR's out of the mix and that will somehow magically make mass shooting go away. I don't think it would even slow them down. I think this thinking is greatly flawed because, I believe it completely ignores the ingenuity of people. Think of a prison; even with tightly controlled in and out's, regular shake downs of both person's and cell's, there is still a thriving black market where you can get anything from dope to weapons to cell phones. Weapons are made from everything imaginable. An office lost an eye when he was struck in the eye from a arrow shot from a bow that a prisoner made while placed in isolation. He made both out of paper from a magazine, and took the elastic from his underwear.

Mass shootings, terrible as they are, (and they are!), are such a tiny portion of the problem. In addition, there are almost as many mass shootings with other weapons (5) vs "Assault weapons" (7.3) and other semi-auto's (6.4). There are other guns out there like the one my buddy owns, the Mini 14 that looks just like a hunting rifle but performs similar to the AR. (I can't attach pics from my work computer)

The bottom line is IMHO, that to stop a "madman" intent on harming people requires someone to be armed as well or better. As I pointed out, my sister successfully thwarted a home invasion while home alone from to 200+ lb men because she had her AR handy. They kicked in her door and came in with their pistols pointed down, but she was at the top of the stairs with the AR pointed right at the, they backed out the door and ran away before getting shot. They were arrested hours later as she knew one of them. This may have been a very different scenario with out the AR as a defense.

It is very hard to know what would actually reduce the number and frequency of mass shootings. But high capacity, high velocity, low recoil weapons that can be bought without any sort of filtering requirement is the type of weapon that makes this sort of crime very much easier to accomplish. It's not that it can't be done with other weaponry by someone determined enough to do it, it's that it doesn't take a whole lot of training or smarts to be successful with something like an AR15 so more people can and are successfully executing these kinds of attacks.

But does it really make sense to do nothing, and to push back against all efforts to reduce accessibility to these weapons? With what I'm proposing, your sister would still have had an AR15. I'm not talking ban per se. Just tight controls. Jump through the right hoops, show you are a responsible sane person with the skills to use the weapon and you can still buy it. You just can't head down to the local gun store and walk out 15 minutes later with an AR15 and 200 rounds of ammunition (assuming the area you live in doesn't impose single purchase limits on ammunition).

I hope you are wrong about what it would take to stop or at least put a dent in what we see. There are advantages to being able to own guns, the 2nd amendment has a valid purpose. But I really don't believe a country full of people toting immensely powerful weaponry is a very good answer. We've had that before in the west and in Chicago. We KNOW that is a bad idea. But we will not really know if controls can work until several years - maybe decades due to the number already owned - after a program that restricts access to these sort of weapons is put in place. Strict gun laws DO work in the countries that have them. They don't have 'this weeks mass shooting event' in their news headlines. The question is, can there be something between the rather draconian restrictions found in those countries and what we expect here in terms of the 2nd amendment that is also effective.


Jim

[Sparko]

It is very hard to know what would actually reduce the number and frequency of mass shootings. High capacity, high velocity, low recoil weapons that can be bought without any sort of filtering requirement is the type of weapon that is the problem, the make this sort of crime very much easier to accomplish. It's not that it can't be done with other weaponry by someone determined enough to do it, it's that it doesn't take a whole lot of training or smarts to be successful with something like an AR15.

But does it really make sense to do nothing, and to push back against all efforts to reduce accessibility to these weapons? With what I'm proposing, your sister would still have had an AR15. I'm not talking ban per se. Just tight controls. Jump through the right hoops, show you are a responsible sane person with the skills to use the weapon and you can still buy it. You just can't head down to the local gun store and walk out 15 minutes later with an AR15 and 200 rounds of ammunition (assuming the area you live in doesn't impose single purchase limits on ammunition).

I hope you are wrong about what it would take to stop or at least put a dent in what we see. There are advantages to being able to own guns, the 2nd amendment has a valid purpose. But I really don't believe a country full of people toting immensely powerful weaponry is a very good answer. We've had that before in the west and in Chicago. We KNOW that is a bad idea. But we will not really know if controls can work until several years - maybe decades due to the number already owned - after a program that restricts access to these sort of weapons is put in place. They DO work in the countries that have them. The question is, can there be something between the rather draconian restrictions found in those countries and what we expect here in terms of the 2nd amendment that is also effective.


Jim

The thing is though Jim, that 99.99% of legal AR15 gun owners are responsible, law abiding citizens who are not insane or have any criminal intent. So what would your further restrictions gain us? And how would you enforce these new restrictions 100% and prevent anyone who is a risk from getting an AR15? Even if someone did pass all of the checks and balances you put on them, what is to stop them from going nuts or turning criminal later on?

If law abiding gun owners WERE a problem you would definitely know it. The country would be in complete chaos. There are a LOT of gun owners. The truth is only a very minuscule number of legal gun owners end up using their guns in an illegal manner and 99% of those are in personal disputes, not mass attacks.

oh and the "wild, wild, west" really wasn't. That is just a hollywood legend.

[rogue06]

From the Babylon Bee:

Source: Opinion: We Are Not Coming For Your Guns—We Just Want A Sensible Ban On All Automatic, Semi-Automatic, Bolt-Action, Pump-Action, Lever-Action, Break-Action, And Muzzle-Loading Firearms

GC.jpg

Every time the gun debate flares up in America, conservatives act like we're trying to take all the guns. It's a ridiculous straw man argument. We don't want to take your guns away, and we don't want to ban common firearms. That's all just Republican fearmongering. Very typical on the right.

Here are the facts. All we want to ban are automatic, semiautomatic, bolt-action, pump-action, lever-action, break-action, and muzzle-loading firearms. It's not that difficult, people. All we had to do was pull up Google and search for all kinds of guns and add them to our ban list.

That's it! If your gun is some other kind of gun, you'll be totally unaffected by our proposals. Unless you think of something that's not on this list. Then we'll add it, of course, because someone who tries to get around a gun ban is obviously up to no good.

This is what leadership looks like: immediately rushing to unilaterally take away constitutional rights. And we can do it, America, if we can find the moral courage and fortitude to pass sensible, common-sense gun legislation. It doesn't have to infringe on gun owners' rights. It just has to ban literally every type of gun under the sun.



Source

© Copyright Original Source