Mock - GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Is this the circular firing squad I've heard so much about? Smiley_emoticons_razz

The Prez doesn't want your guns, people. You are being manipulated.

(01-07-2016, 02:53 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Now why do you always have to post those long drawn out responses?

Why in the world would you think 6 sentences is a long, drawn out response?

(01-07-2016, 08:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2016, 05:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2016, 03:03 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, your ¹⁄₂ full vs. ¹⁄₂ empty analogy doesn't fit "opposite ends of the spectrum." But, I get what you mean.
In certain circles, being on the spectrum is enough.

There is no spectrum in the ¹⁄₂ full vs. ¹⁄₂ empty scenario, in any circle. It's an either/or perception of a fixed value, Gunnar.

As I already confirmed, I understood what F.U. meant. He considers himself a ¹⁄₂ empty kinda person and considers me a ¹⁄₂ full kinda person; good enough.

And, there's more than enough room on the spectrum of gun control positions for F.U., me, and everybody else in this circle.

I'm speaking of a different spectrum HoTD.

(01-08-2016, 05:52 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-07-2016, 02:53 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Now why do you always have to post those long drawn out responses?

Why in the world would you think 6 sentences is a long, drawn out response?

It was actually 9 sentences; not long by my standards in a discussion/debate thread, but I guess F.U.'s standards are different.

Anyway, some of the comments in here yesterday were pretty entertaining.

F.U., who's several times complained of me not being agreeable enough for his liking and has also tossed out the old "fuck you, HOTD!", now somehow considers me a kumbaya, "why can't we all just get along?" type of girl.

Ah well, he can't really be expected to own his words or self-contradictions in here because, of course, he could just be bored and tossing shit against the wall. So, when he looks foolish or riled up, that's exactly what he was going for...........or is it? Oh, the mystery of it all.

I'm not prone to giggling like F.U., but I find that shit almost as amusing as Maggot's contention that people who don't own guns are therefore 'irresponsible' by default, and his "Californians are abnormal and don't know it, so they need to be restricted by the state for their own good" comment.

Knuckleheads.

(01-08-2016, 12:22 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]It was actually 9 sentences; not long by my standards in a discussion/debate thread, but I guess F.U.'s standards are different.

Oops! I beg your pardon. Awink

Not long by my standards either.

My favorite part of all of this was FU not wanting to pay credence to the opinions of people who don't reside in America, Crash in particular, but lo & behold Australia was one of the places FU mentioned in his effort to prove a point. Hahaha!

I think there are more weird people in Cali than anywhere else, so there I've said it. hah

Especially the ones that wear goofy hats. So what? I still like you goofball. I'm kinda glad the state imposes more restrictions on guns out there, its needed.

I know someone who goes to a lot of auctions and at some of the auctions there are guns available. He talked a little about the protocol surrounding that and it looks pretty extensive to me. No winning bidder ever leaves the auction with the gun. It's sent to the person in the bidders community who handles that sort of thing and apparently it's so tough to get a gun into Jersey that the auctioneer has refused to accept bids from anyone living there. He said it is like trying to get into another country. hah

(01-08-2016, 12:38 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are more weird people in Cali than anywhere else, so there I've said it. Especially the ones that wear goofy hats. So what? I still like you goofball. I'm kinda glad the state imposes more restrictions on guns out there, its needed.

Yeah, that's what you said yesterday (except for the hats part).

There's no "so what?" It's not a problem; it's equally as amusing in its myopic ignorance as it was yesterday.

And, I like you too, Knucklehead.

(01-08-2016, 01:02 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2016, 12:38 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are more weird people in Cali than anywhere else, so there I've said it. Especially the ones that wear goofy hats. So what? I still like you goofball. I'm kinda glad the state imposes more restrictions on guns out there, its needed.

Yeah, that's what you said yesterday (except for the hats part).

There's no "so what?" It's not a problem; it's equally as amusing in it's myopic ignorance as it was yesterday.

And, I like you too, Knucklehead.

ok, just don't shoot the messenger.

(01-08-2016, 01:02 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-08-2016, 12:38 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]I think there are more weird people in Cali than anywhere else, so there I've said it. Especially the ones that wear goofy hats. So what? I still like you goofball. I'm kinda glad the state imposes more restrictions on guns out there, its needed.

Yeah, that's what you said yesterday (except for the hats part).

There's no "so what?" It's not a problem; it's equally as amusing in it's myopic ignorance as it was yesterday.

And, I like you too, Knucklehead.

Queen of the back handed compliment. hah

There's was no compliment of any kind in my statement to Maggot, Gunnar.

You often see and respond to things that aren't there and more often fail to comprehend what is, which is occasionally amusing. <--HINT: there's no compliment in that true statement either.

However, I admire how you don't let the fact that you're so clueless deter you from participating. <-- Hint: there's a backhanded compliment in that true statement.

You've got a winning smile, Gunnar. <---Hint: that's a straight up compliment.

(01-08-2016, 02:55 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]There's was no compliment of any kind in my statement to Maggot, Gunnar.

You often see and respond to things that aren't there and more often fail to comprehend what is, which is occasionally amusing. <--HINT: there's no compliment in that true statement either.

However, I admire how you don't let the fact that you're so clueless deter you from participating. <-- Hint: there's a backhanded compliment in that true statement.

You've got a winning smile, Gunnar. <---Hint: that's a straight up compliment.

I have big feet too. You know what they say about guys that have big feet don't you? Loooooong shoe laces. Blowing-kisses

(01-08-2016, 04:22 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]I have big feet too. You know what they say about guys that have big feet don't you? Loooooong shoe laces.

I'm gonna take your word for it. I like your pics and you do have a nice smile, but I don't wanna see pics of your big ol' hairy feet.

So, you know who else has big feet? President Barack Obama. Size 12. I don't know who's gonna fill his shoes when he leaves office, but he'll be making the final State of the Union Address of his presidency on Tuesday, January 12^th.

Normally, the first lady's box (no wisecracks) is occupied by a sort of guest of honor, typically someone related to a significant national issue or event for the year.

This year, the seat next to Michelle Obama will be empty. Today, the White House announced that the empty seat will be symbolic of those lost to gun violence; to give victims a voice, "because they need the rest of us to speak for them. To tell their stories. To honor their memory. To support the Americans whose lives have been forever changed by the terrible ripple effect of gun violence -- survivors who've had to learn to live with a disability, or without the love of their life. To remind every single one of our representatives that it’s their responsibility to do something about this." Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...g-history/

I just watched the full Gun Violence Town Hall held on 1/7/16.

It was good to see gun control advocates, gun control opponents, and the President in one room discussing the issue.

I didn't learn anything new, but the Q&A was interesting. There were no restrictions put on what questions could be asked of the President.

It would have been more interesting if the NRA had accepted CNN's invitation to attend, but they declined to send any representatives to participate in the televised forum.

(01-10-2016, 12:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]they declined to send any representatives to participate in the televised forum.

How 'bout that given they were right down the street and live tweeted throughout the discussion. As much as they bleat I would have thought they would welcome the opportunity to debate face to face with the Prez but no, they choose to live tweet instead. Hahaha. The one and only reason I take them even semi-seriously is because of their reach and how easily they get others to follow. It's similar to how sheep follow, get one to go and they all fall into line.

Did you notice how one of the biggest underlying issues/concerns expressed by gun control opponents surrounded their inability to carry wherever they wanted for self-protection, Duchess? Obama explained that carry laws are determined by the individual states and he is not proposing to change that.

The gun control opponents also confirmed their agreement that their ability to buy a gun would not be impacted by the Executive Actions, but doubted that the Actions would deter murderers and rapists from getting guns because those people don't have a moral code. Obama mentioned throughout the meeting that the Actions give LE more ability to enforce existing laws and won't stop everybody who shouldn't have a gun from getting one; but they will stop some and it makes no sense to do nothing (in his view).

I thought Obama answered some of the questions well and others pretty weakly. In any case, I think his willingness to take all questions in a televised exchange surrounding such a divisive issue was a good move.

We need the ability to protect our families at all costs, when the shit hits the fan there will be no cops to protect you. The LA riots can happen anywhere.

At the 58:40 mark in the video, Obama addresses the allegation that he wants to take everyone's guns, which he calls a "conspiracy".

For me, that was one of the most interesting parts of the Town Hall Meeting.

(01-10-2016, 01:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Did you notice how one of the biggest underlying issues/concerns expressed by gun control opponents surrounded their inability to carry wherever they wanted for self-protection, Duchess? Obama explained that carry laws are determined by the individual states and he is not proposing to change that.

I didn't hear that specific thing but I didn't watch the entire town hall either. I did hear the chat about only law abiding people pay attention to rules but I kinda zoned out on that because I've heard it so much. What I did hear sounded much like how we discuss it here in Mock and I heard him reiterate over & over that he wasn't proposing any of this in order to take anyone's guns and I think I finally understand that the extreme gun lovers are never going to believe that, their paranoia outweighs their sense. They are scared shitless of their weapons being taken away, absolutely bonkers about it and nothing anyone says will make a difference to them. They are convinced they are right.