(10-10-2015, 07:22 PM)blueberryhill Wrote:

(10-10-2015, 02:10 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: I find it distasteful that both you and Spy claim some sort of moral high ground, suggesting that those who desire and exercise their guaranteed 2^nd Ammendment rights, somehow don't care about victims ("innocents") killed by the actions of criminals or the deranged. Talk about the "same old horse-shit rhetoric"!

Tiki, Your statement above, "Why have the majority of mass killings happened while a Democrat is in the White House?" shows your lack of knowledge re this issue......and to be honest, I think you are full of shit. What "moral high ground" is so distasteful to you, oh wise one?

I thought my statement was clear. I interpreted both your and Spy's position as an "either or" proposition. Let's see if I can "dumb it down a bit":

To suggest 2^nd Amendment advocacy (passive or staunch) OR the safety of children and empathy for the victims of gun violence are mutually exclusive is unbelievable, extremely narrow-minded and unfathomable, to me. Ergo: I find it distasteful.

Stating that "gun enthusiasts", "gun owners" (or any other moniker placed on those who perceive any infringement of 2^nd Amendment rights) as being selfish people who CARE MORE FOR THEMSELVES and BELITTLE THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN OR VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE . . . potential or actual . . . is repugnant and is an example of emotional, anti-gun "same old horse-shit rhetoric".

In fact, I find it on par with the spew; if you disagree or criticize Obama, you are a racist.

My statement that more mass-shootings occur during a Democrat presidency was an attempt to make an absurd correlation, relating to gun violence. There are so many out there, I thought it would be fun to present another . . . a lampoon. It was in the same vein as having a gun buyer sign a paper (promising to break no laws) and comparing it with the Iran agreement.

Anyone with a modicum of sense, sanity and rationality would see the ridiculousness of the relationship. No . . . I take that back. Those who are governed by entrenched emotion, preconceived perceptions and contempt . . . prior to investigation . . . would predictably take offense. Maybe those with the flu, too.

However, even with your confident denial, the statement is, in fact, true (according to CNN). Let's examine their 28 Top Mass-Shootings:
32 Killed - April 16, 2007 - G. W. Bush
27 Killed - December 14, 2012 - Obama
23 Killed - October 16, 1991 - H. W. Bush
21 Killed - July 18, 1984 - Reagan
18 Killed - August 1, 1966 - Johnson
14 Killed - August 20, 1986 - Reagan
13 Killed - November 5, 2009 - Obama
13 Killed - April 3, 2009 - Obama
13 Killed - April 20, 1999 - Clinton
13 Killed - February 18, 1983 - Reagan
13 Killed - September 25, 1982 - Reagan
13 Killed - September 5, 1949 - Truman
12 Killed - September 16, 2013 - Obama
12 Killed - July 20, 2012 - Obama
12 Killed - July 29, 1999 - Clinton
10 Killed - March 10, 2009 - Obama
9 Killed - October 1, 2015 - Obama
9 Killed - June 17, 2015 - Obama
9 Killed - March 21, 2005 - G. W. Bush
9 Killed - June 18, 1990 - H. W. Bush
8 Killed - October 12, 2011 - Obama
8 Killed - August 3, 2010 - Obama
8 Killed - January 19, 2010 - Obama
8 Killed - March 29, 2009 - Obama
8 Killed - December 5, 2007 - G. W. Bush
8 Killed - July 1, 1993 - Clinton
8 Killed - September 14, 1989 - H. W. Bush
8 Killed - August 20, 1982 - Reagan

And the final mass-shooting occurrence tally: Democrat President - 17 (61%) . . . Republican President - 11 (39%)

In fact, 12 occurred during Obama's presidency (43%) . . . more than the number of occurrences for the 3 Republican presidents [Reagan, H.W. & G.W. Bush], combined (39%).

Adds a whole new meaning to "put a nigger behind the trigger". From Full Metal Jacket . . . not CNN.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

The facts are clear: A Democrat Administration causes people to commit mass murder. This conclusion is from The Onion. They also concluded you have a greater chance of being a victim of a mass-shooter in months beginning with an "A" or "J".

Hmmm . . . I wonder if I suggest a parallel to the gun deaths in Chicago by the hands of Blacks with illegal guns and the propensity to commit violence, by a specific race, per capita . . . ?
Wait! I know the answer to this one!

I'd be a selfish, shit-spewing, HALF-white supremacist. Unfortunately, half ain't a majority.

*NOTE* I added the Presidents from memory. Might wanna check my accuracy.

(10-10-2015, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yeah, silly me, a guy with grade school aged kids, concerned over another crazy wanting to 'outdo' Lanza.

Seems really 'out there' doesn't it?

I can see your attitude, with no dog in the fight, is much what I expect.

You could care less.

I could care less and do nothing, but then I'd be like you . . . with less estrogen.

I admit, when I read your post, the first image that popped into my mind was that of Maytee, in her Coca-Cola PJs, bawling over Kitty's grave. But then, you appeared!

There you were, fists balled with Kleenex, tears streaming down your face, kneeling on the kitchen floor . . . terrified to go to your kid's school recital.

Just like her, you wail and DO NOTHING PRODUCTIVE to prevent the harm of your "dogs" from your imagined, inevitable massacre scenario.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Give us some examples of Spy's real-life endeavors to combat the proliferation of guns, preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns and the security of schools . . . especially the school(s) your children attend.

You beautifully illustrated my position of claiming a moral high-ground. Your statement - by not having a dog in the fight and thus, prevents me from comprehending that schools are potential targets for mass-murderers is asinine.

Surprise! Another Spy generalization presented as fact!

According to you, here's how your "No Dog - No Care" works:
If you are not gay, you don't care about gay rights. If you aren't poor, you don't care about the poor. If you have no family in the military, you aren't concerned about those who and have served. If you don't own a home, you don't care about mortgage rates. If you don't have a child, you don't care about the education of children. If you aren't a minority, you don't care about racism. If you don't have a vagina, you're not concerned about women's rights.

Your belief that one only CARES ABOUT SOMETHING, when having a DIRECT AND PERSONAL CONNECTION, is condescending, myopic and illuminates your arrogance. It's completely absurd and baseless.

However, you've got a dog in the fight.

Grow a set and do something, sport . . . besides worrying and peeing yourself with fear.

Try and be more Iron Man and less Steel Magnolias.

Kids don't feel safe when dad is a puss. They know.

Yeah . . . they know daddy is the bitch of Lanza's ghost.

I'm a little surprised to see that a national child safety access law isn't on any of the Democratic candidates' gun control platforms; at least not that they've shared so far.

About a dozen states have such laws on the books which impose criminal liability on the negligent gun owner if a child accesses and shoots the gun. I'd like to see that be the case nationwide.

On Sunday, yet another toddler got a hold of a gun and fired it. He was 2 years-old. He found his aunt's loaded .357 revolver in the pouch on the back of the passenger seat while traveling in his aunt's car. His grandmother was riding in the passenger seat. The toddler shot his grandma in the back. She's now reportedly in stable condition, thankfully.

Police in Rock Hill, South Carolina are considering charging the aunt. I think she should be charged, without question.

Ref: http://www.wcnc.com/story/news/crime/201.../73813300/

(10-13-2015, 03:45 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(10-10-2015, 04:11 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Yeah, silly me, a guy with grade school aged kids, concerned over another crazy wanting to 'outdo' Lanza.

Seems really 'out there' doesn't it?

I can see your attitude, with no dog in the fight, is much what I expect.

You could care less.

I could care less and do nothing, but then I'd be like you . . . with less estrogen.

I admit, when I read your post, the first image that popped into my mind was that of Maytee, in her Coca-Cola PJs, bawling over Kitty's grave. But then, you appeared!

There you were, fists balled with Kleenex, tears streaming down your face, kneeling on the kitchen floor . . . terrified to go to your kid's school recital.

Just like her, you wail and DO NOTHING PRODUCTIVE to prevent the harm of your "dogs" from your imagined, inevitable massacre scenario.

By all means, correct me if I'm wrong. Give us some examples of Spy's real-life endeavors to combat the proliferation of guns, preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining guns and the security of schools . . . especially the school(s) your children attend.

You beautifully illustrated my position of claiming a moral high-ground. Your statement - by not having a dog in the fight and thus, prevents me from comprehending that schools are potential targets for mass-murderers is asinine.

Surprise! Another Spy generalization presented as fact!

According to you, here's how your "No Dog - No Care" works:
If you are not gay, you don't care about gay rights. If you aren't poor, you don't care about the poor. If you have no family in the military, you aren't concerned about those who and have served. If you don't own a home, you don't care about mortgage rates. If you don't have a child, you don't care about the education of children. If you aren't a minority, you don't care about racism. If you don't have a vagina, you're not concerned about women's rights.

Your belief that one only CARES ABOUT SOMETHING, when having a DIRECT AND PERSONAL CONNECTION, is condescending, myopic and illuminates your arrogance. It's completely absurd and baseless.

However, you've got a dog in the fight.

Grow a set and do something, sport . . . besides worrying and peeing yourself with fear.

Try and be more Iron Man and less Steel Magnolias.

Kids don't feel safe when dad is a puss. They know.

Yeah . . . they know daddy is the bitch of Lanza's ghost.

And this is precisely what pro-2^nd Amendment nut jobs sound like.

"If you don't like the amount of guns in our society, and you don't like how many people get senselessly murdered every year, you're a fucking pussy."

Did I miss something?

Great argument, barrister.

Wow, you're a real fucking genius. Talk about taking the focus off (again) of the real issue, by suggesting that I arm myself and stand guard at my kids school. Or pull them out and home school them.

You're a piece of shit and you know it.

Do you feel better somehow trying to insult me, when all I've done is state the truth that no matter how many people get murdered by guns, you don't give a shit. Period.

Just don't fuck with your 'right' to own them.

At least FU admitted it. I respect him for saying it.

You, on the other hand, think that the solution to this is to get all the pussies to either own guns, or simply shut the fuck up.

Nice.

Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

(10-13-2015, 04:22 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: You're a piece of shit and you know it.

Oh simmer down, you. Insulting the members here is no way to solve gun violence.

Tiki - 2

Liberals who want more laws so they can feel warm and fuzzy - 0

You're gonna have to dumb it way down for me Tiki.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your "Top 28 mass murders by president's political affiliation" statistics.

Are you contending that the political affiliation of the president in office is a direct contributor to the number of shooters who pull the trigger and murder 4 or more people in a single incident?

Do you think that Republican presidents cause fewer shooters to commit mass murder, but somehow inspire higher-achieving mass murderers on average (14 victims per Republican-inspired killer vs. 11 victims per Democrat-inspired killer in your Top 28)?

Whatever your point, I'm not seeing a direct correlation, myself. There are too many variables to be considered for me to draw any such conclusion from the data set. So, if a Republican is elected president next and more mass murder incidents with fewer victims per incident occur during his/her presidency, I won't imagine that his/her political affiliation alone directly caused the reversal of any supposed current correlations.

(10-13-2015, 06:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You're gonna have to dumb it way down for me Tiki.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make with your "Top 28 mass murders by president's political affiliation" statistics.

Are you contending that the political affiliation of the president in office is a direct contributor to the number of shooters who pull the trigger and murder 4 or more people in a single incident?

Do you think that Republican presidents cause fewer shooters to commit mass murder, but somehow inspire higher-achieving mass murderers on average (14 victims per Republican-inspired killer vs. 11 victims per Democrat-inspired killer in your Top 28)?

Whatever your point, I'm not seeing a direct correlation, myself. There are too many variables to be considered for me to draw any such conclusion from the data set. So, if a Republican is elected president next and more mass murder incidents with fewer victims per incident occur during his/her presidency, I won't imagine that his/her political affiliation alone directly caused the reversal of any supposed current correlations.

"My statement that more mass-shootings occur during a Democrat presidency was an attempt to make an absurd correlation, relating to gun violence."

(10-13-2015, 04:49 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

............The kettle is black because the pot says its true.

(10-13-2015, 06:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: "My statement that more mass-shootings occur during a Democrat presidency was an attempt to make an absurd correlation, relating to gun violence."

You're either an exemplary idiot or a terrible troll, Gunnar.

In any case, I'll wait for Tiki to answer about the point she was making, if she feels like it.

You can tell that my questions weren't aimed at you because (a) I specifically addressed them to "Tiki", and (b) even if you missed that subtle hint, I'm certain no one has ever had to ask you to dumb your thoughts down -- ain't no lower than your natural state of mind.

Gun Dealer Liable for Police Officer Shootings

Here's a case that's getting national attention now that Hillary Clinton pledged to repeal the law that protects gun dealers and manufacturers from liability when their guns are used to commit crimes or are used to cause injury/death.

In this case, a judge allowed a rare civil case to be brought against a dealer because prosecutors showed a direct correlation between the gun sell and the crimes committed.

Today, jurors in Milwaukee County have ordered Badger Guns to pay almost $6 million to Officer Bryan Norberg and now-retired Officer Graham Kunisch, who were both shot in the face while in the line of duty in 2009.

The two officers sought financial compensation and sued for negligence, alleging that the West Milwaukee gun shop should have known that the gun used in their shooting had been sold as part of a "straw" purchase. In those cases, someone buys the gun on behalf of someone who is not legally permitted to purchase guns themselves.

At trial, the prosecution showed video of Julius Burton entering Badger Guns a month before he shot the two officers. He came with a friend, Jacob Collins -- paying him $40 to purchase the gun.

A federal form asks whether the buyer is purchasing the weapon for himself. At first, Collins said "no," and then changed his answer to "yes." He changed his address as well. The prosecutor said the Badger Guns salesman should have asked questions.

"Who is responsible when a criminal points a gun at point blank range and tries to kill them? Yes the criminal pulled the trigger -- but there needed to be a trigger to pull. That came from the straw buyer," Prosecutor Dunphy said. Dunphy contended that the illegal straw purchase should have been thwarted by the Badger Guns clerk and would have been if he'd followed protocol and regulations.

Badger Guns was also previously called Badger Outdoors, and at times was the No. 1 seller of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. — moving 537 guns that were recovered from crime scenes in 2005 alone, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Officers Norberg and Kunisch weren't the only members of the police force injured by a gun bought at Badger: Between 2007 and 2009, six Milwaukee cops were hurt by guns sold by Badger Guns or Badger Outdoors, according to the suit.

http://fox6now.com/2015/09/30/trial-to-b...gun-store/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-shop-fou...-officers/
----------------------------------------

Prior to this civil trial, Collins was sentenced to two years for straw purchasing and Burton was sentenced to 80 years for the shootings.

Got to agree with that one, hang his ass

(10-13-2015, 07:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm certain no one has ever had to ask you to dumb your thoughts down -- ain't no lower than your natural state of mind.

Oh shit, sick burn! She just knocked you da fuck out!

(10-13-2015, 06:57 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(10-13-2015, 04:49 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: Tiki,

Only have a few words for you....let's see if I can dumb it down enough for YOU to understand....In my travels through life, I find that people who consistently and constantly put other people down, do so because of
massive insecurities....You resort to name calling and insults when other persons of equal or superior intelligence disagree with you....When I was in High School, we called such people, bullies......
I find that your dry humor turns sour at some point in your quest to showcase just how "special" you are...
I fail to understand why you can't make your points (for us dummies) without personal insults. I just think that reflects immaturity on your part....

............The kettle is black because the pot says its true.

Oh, yeah, Mister......Tiki would never be a black kettle so you are making no sense as usual....and I am not a pot...I only smoke it....for medical reasons......so there, you, FU, and Tiki need to go on a trip together since you suck up to each other all the live long day.
And I will have you know, that I am the most mature person I know. I would never act like some of you.

WOOOooooooooo HOOOOoooooooo, sounds like a ...

(10-13-2015, 10:36 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-13-2015, 07:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm certain no one has ever had to ask you to dumb your thoughts down -- ain't no lower than your natural state of mind.

Oh shit, sick burn! She just knocked you da fuck out!

Well, I was gonna be a real bad-ass and say, "step off, dullard!".

But, I like Gunnar alright and figured that might be too cutting.

Anyway, leave it to Gunnar to answer on someone else's behalf by quoting the post that I was playing off and questioning in the first place.

(10-13-2015, 10:29 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Got to agree with that one, hang his ass

I think the jury got it right finding Badger Guns liable in that case too, Six.

(10-14-2015, 12:44 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(10-13-2015, 10:29 PM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: Got to agree with that one, hang his ass

I think the jury got it right finding Badger Guns liable in that case too, Six.

I agree too. That would never happen in our shop. If you fuck up a 4473 like that, too bad Charlie, get out and don't come back. If you come in with a friend and we hear mention of, this is the one I want get it, get out and don't come back. If a person even starts acting funny we find reason to point out the cameras and say every transaction is caught on tape.
Its dealers like Badger that give us all a bad name.

(10-13-2015, 10:36 PM)sally Wrote:

(10-13-2015, 07:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'm certain no one has ever had to ask you to dumb your thoughts down -- ain't no lower than your natural state of mind.

Oh shit, sick burn! She just knocked you da fuck out!

I can't help it. I had to push that button. She has blonde moments.