Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

…however intelligent he may be, Barack Obama is no stranger to stereotype and prejudice.[/quote]

None of us know how intelligent Obama is. Unlike his many predecessors we are unable to view his college records, SAT’s or his IQ information.

Now why do you suppose that is?

And why do you suppose that the media is not talking about the lack of information endlessly?
[/quote]

It’s kinda strange to go after someone’s IQ… Because of the way they are written, a lot of the time if someone doesn’t have the vocabulary, they may not be able to understand clearly what the question is asking. Quite a few in my family that have amazing IQ’s but it doesn’t always transfer into success, but understanding.

If you ask me it isn’t Obama’s fault, he’s never been immersed in the culture of weapons or military so it’s impossible for him to get it. The media is a business, both Left and Right have their B.S. spewers… So long as the country is a dichotomy of D and R, that is how the news will market to us. The more we watch MSN or Fox, the more we buy right into the machine and it’s bullshit.

122

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Why did Obama not answer questions at a press conference like the other presidents?
[/quote]

NEVER QUESTION THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ !!!

123

469×570 104 KB

what am I missing here, seems pretty logical and makes you go DER!

124

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

…however intelligent he may be, Barack Obama is no stranger to stereotype and prejudice.[/quote]

None of us know how intelligent Obama is. Unlike his many predecessors we are unable to view his college records, SAT’s or his IQ information.

Now why do you suppose that is?

And why do you suppose that the media is not talking about the lack of information endlessly?
[/quote]

Because nobody gives a damn.

By the way, we know that he graduated in the top 5 percent at HLS, which goes a way toward establishing him as something of a smart guy.[/quote]

Wrong, the media doesn’t give a damn, so the people are not focused on it. If it were Bush or any other republican President the media would have dogged them until the grades were produced.

Tell me why do you think Obama’s grades are under lock and key? It’s a first for any President. Once again if he’s so frickin smart …and we know his ego is out of control…why are his grades not public information?

Of course we know why the media doesn’t care. The same reason they are not attacking him for his cover up statement on Benghazi…a film on the Internet …INDEED!

125

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]nrt wrote:
Awright, there seems to be a pretty much universal pro-gun consensus here. Because I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, I’m going to try to put forward the opposing point of view; perhaps I’ll get some thought-provoking responses. Basically, I think the case against gun control in this and the last thread is very weak.

First of all, let’s be clear about what I’m trying to argue: I think we’re safer without lots of guns than with them, so I’m in favour of gun control. Whether or not gun control could happen or would work in the particular case of the US is a different matter, and not really my business anyway.

I’ll start with four points: (1) more guns = more deaths; (2) why sensational shootings like Connecticut point to tighter gun control; (3) the 2nd amendment; (4) the “freedom” argument.

  1. Because so much has been said about how gun-control advocates ignore the facts and argue only on the basis of emotion, here are my facts: http://guncontrol.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/moregunsmoredeaths2012.pdf
    So that’s the first reason I think we’re safer without guns. In particular, the fact that we’re talking about international boundaries is significant. Because US state boundaries are open, the result of a city like DC (or a state) banning guns is not terribly meaningful - you can easily bring guns in from neighboring states.

  2. Really, a position on gun control shouldn’t be based on some media firestorm. Nevertheless, the reason that these mass shootings suggest to me tighter gun restrictions is that they will make such events less frequent. You’re never going to eliminate mass killings - in populations numbering tens of millions, the odds are, you’re going to get some pretty deranged whackos - but the harder it is to get implements of killing, the less these things will happen, and that applies to suicides, domestic shootings, etc. as well. Guys like the Colorado killer, who plot for months in advance, will always find a way, but many, many people who have some mental episode, or who lack self control, or who get extremely angry in some dispute (etc.) will simply never harm anyone if the means of killing someone almost effortlessly (i.e., guns) are not close at hand. I think the facts above back this up. The last thread had a lot of straw-man knocking on this sort of thing: nobody is saying we’re going to END murder or violence if we restrict guns.

  3. The 2nd amendment. Not really my business, and obviously I’m against it, at least in the way it’s interpreted today. I just want to point out the consequence of an argument I saw repeatedly in the last thread: if you’re going to ban guns to make us safe (it was said) why not ban knives and baseball bats and chainsaws (etc., etc., etc.)? (My answer is in pt. 2 above) This can be turned on its head: if you’re going to ALLOW guns, why not tanks, heavy artillery, surface to air missiles, nuclear material & other WMD? See, it seems to me that nobody actually believes that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed tout court. The question is where the line falls. More specifically, the question would be how to interpret the second amendment, which was written in a different world, for our own time.

  4. I don’t see any argument that guns support freedom. First of all, I don’t think freedom is any more secure in the US than in most other Western democracy, but the real question is, how could guns secure freedom? I see several possible scenarios. (a) A tyrant has control of the US government, but not its army. An armed populace is irrelevant here; the tyrant won’t last long. (b) A tyrant has control of the US government and the whole army. I don’t see a populace armed with guns & rifles being very significant here: they’re not stopping the US military for very long. And even if the people of, say, Denver, with their small arms and MacGuyver-like ingenuity succeed in holding out, the tyrant will just nuke Denver. Does that mean we need to legalise personal nukes? (c) A tyrant has control of the US government, and the army divides 50/50. Maybe an armed populace might have some small effect here, but I don’t really think so. (d) Some foreign tyrant is invading. If he can beat the army, he can beat citizens with handguns.
    Maybe it’s wrong to spell out specific scenarios: the basic point is that personal firearms, which could be decisive 200 years ago, are no longer going to accomplish much on their own. You can wage a guerilla war; you’re not going to hold the field. To give the populace the sort of weaponry with which it could meaningfully hold out against a government, you’d need to legalise things that would make major terrorist attacks unthinkably easy to carry out. So I don’t see that guns=freedom.

Also, here’s a link about Israel and guns: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/officials-challenge-nras-claims-about-israeli-gun-policies/article6704341/

Sorry, that was a long post.[/quote]

LOL[/quote]

Amazing, we actually agree on something.[/quote]

It just means that as you are getting older you are getting smarter. It happens a lot around here.

126

Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery

The Constitution’s Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.
?I don?t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,? he said. ?The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.?

Wow. This dude is Cuh-Loo-Less!

How about this-- “Gun Control” laws were made to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks.

Go.

I question the sanity of any black or Jew who supports gun control/confiscation.

127

[quote][quote]smh23 wrote:

Ah yes, a journalist whose only steady work involves intermittent trips to Mexico lives 8 exits on i-84 away from the site of a monumental news story and decided not to make the trip. Because, you know, gas is so expensive.[/quote]

^ This is unbelievable, but it’s totally possible that an entire town full of paid actors and bought-off cops, first responders, firefighters, coroners, and funeral directors was enlisted by the Obama administration to fake the deaths of 26 people in broad daylight. Right? Right?[/quote]
Forgive me for not being able to devote as much time to this as I’d like.

How many people do you think it would take? I think I could probably fool an entire town into believing there was a mass murder with about 100 people, maybe less. Add the media’s help, and I could fool the entire nation very easily.

I am actually still going through some of the details to put pieces together.

I know, and have documentation, that DHS has used Sandy Hook Fire Department for emergency response drills in the past. I also know that there was an emergency response class scheduled for Bridgeport (12 miles away) on the 14th of last month that specifically deals with providing for children during a disaster. I remember, from the police audio, hearing some specific directions for how to get to Sandy Hook Elementary. I also remember them saying something about a shooter again at about 10:30, after the event was over.

I also have an article interviewing some of the medical first responders, saying that it seemed more like a drill than the real thing.

I just have a bunch of other stuff going on right now, and it’s going to take me a little while.

128

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote][quote]smh23 wrote:

Ah yes, a journalist whose only steady work involves intermittent trips to Mexico lives 8 exits on i-84 away from the site of a monumental news story and decided not to make the trip. Because, you know, gas is so expensive.[/quote]

^ This is unbelievable, but it’s totally possible that an entire town full of paid actors and bought-off cops, first responders, firefighters, coroners, and funeral directors was enlisted by the Obama administration to fake the deaths of 26 people in broad daylight. Right? Right?[/quote]
Forgive me for not being able to devote as much time to this as I’d like.

How many people do you think it would take? I think I could probably fool an entire town into believing there was a mass murder with about 100 people, maybe less. Add the media’s help, and I could fool the entire nation very easily.

I am actually still going through some of the details to put pieces together.

I know, and have documentation, that DHS has used Sandy Hook Fire Department for emergency response drills in the past. I also know that there was an emergency response class scheduled for Bridgeport (12 miles away) on the 14th of last month that specifically deals with providing for children during a disaster. I remember, from the police audio, hearing some specific directions for how to get to Sandy Hook Elementary. I also remember them saying something about a shooter again at about 10:30, after the event was over.

I also have an article interviewing some of the medical first responders, saying that it seemed more like a drill than the real thing.

I just have a bunch of other stuff going on right now, and it’s going to take me a little while.[/quote]
You are a fucking lunatic. If you like I’ll source a ton of the shit conspiracy theory websites I know you got this from.

All the nutjobs love the picture of the guy smiling for a few seconds while he’s in a sea of grief. No one knows how another person feels their grief. No one.

People like you are the reason that conservatives have began to lose the national discourse and it will continue. Its batshit fucking crazy to think that this is a conspiracy.

If you really think that these events didn’t occur you are so divorced from reality that you shouldn’t own guns. No way you pass a psych evaluation with delusions of this nature.

129

So for shits and giggles.

The idea of a conspiracy started with Jay Johnson. Johnson has several highlights to his credit. Including the self proclaimed only person to have solved the show “Lost”…:slight_smile:

So in his own words …

“I never intended to expose who was behind it because I dont know, and I could be wrong. But history repeats itself and i’m really glad people are waking up to it. […] People seem to mistake my video for exploitation of victims and children and that is totally wrong. As I said in the beginning of the video, we in no way claim this shooting did not take place and our hearts go out to anyone affected by the tragedy, weather one person was responsible or another. [… S]tay tuned for part 2, we have learned from the first one how to improve upon the delivery so hopefully it will be even better than the first.”

I love how he spells whether, homonyms are hard.

Johnson also thinks that the operation may have been a cover-up for the murder of Adam Lanza’s mother, who was costing his dad a lot of money:“Peter Lanza is reportedly an executive with GE, which is locally into genetic research and closely tied to the Obama regime.” (Lanza does work for G.E., which is not into genetic research, and is not particularly closely tied to the current administration.)

Here’s his website. Where the source material for this crap undoubtably is. One stop shopping for crazy…and only five bucks for a bumper sticker.

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/

If you wonder where he gets the inspiration for this shit…well in his own words again…
“Goddess Tefnut, aka Ma’at, of Egypt”. always a good source for a “new age messiah”.

This masterpiece is also from the wingnuts that think 9/11 was a conspiracy as well.

Remember no aliens, rituals or um holigrams…very important when you make your truther video in your mom’s basement run a spell checker.

130

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

Actor Danny Glover tells students 2nd Amendment was created to protect slavery

The Constitution’s Second Amendment was created to bolster slavery and capture land from Native Americans, award winning actor Danny Glover told a group of students at a Texas A&M sponsored event on Thursday.

Actor Danny Glover told students at Texas A&M University the intent of the Second Amendment was to protect slavery.
?I don?t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,? he said. ?The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.?

Wow. This dude is Cuh-Loo-Less!

How about this-- “Gun Control” laws were made to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks.

Go.

I question the sanity of any black or Jew who supports gun control/confiscation.[/quote]

Fuck that mother fucker. Sorry for being vulgar but good god does this piss me off. What an ignorant, lazy and utterly clueless man he is.

Thank god Mel Gibson going crazy already ruined the Lethal Weapon movies for me…

131

Thanks, groo, but I do my digging in credible sources. Matter of fact, all those conspiracy sites are a major obstacle to finding real information. You have to be a search ninja to find anything real.

https://hseep.dhs.gov/DHSResource/Glossary.aspx

This is a good place to start to get a handle on the terminology used by DHS in order to make web searches more efficient. There is also some good info just in the definitions themselves.

132

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Thanks, groo, but I do my digging in credible sources. Matter of fact, all those conspiracy sites are a major obstacle to finding real information. You have to be a search ninja to find anything real.

https://hseep.dhs.gov/DHSResource/Glossary.aspx

This is a good place to start to get a handle on the terminology used by DHS in order to make web searches more efficient. There is also some good info just in the definitions themselves.[/quote]

In the spirit of helping my friend here you go.

[photo]38079[/photo]

133

This is just as crazy as the 9-11 truthers. To think that GW Bush, or Barack Obama would actually be behind the murder of innocent Americans is absolutly incredible. Those who actually believe this fairy tail need far more help than what any of us can give them over the Internet.

And I am the biggest critic of Obama on this site…but I absolutely know he would never promote such a thing.

134

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is just as crazy as the 9-11 truthers. To think that GW Bush, or Barack Obama would actually be behind the murder of innocent Americans is absolutly incredible. Those who actually believe this fairy tail need far more help than what any of us can give them over the Internet.

And I am the biggest critic of Obama on this site…but I absolutely know he would never promote such a thing. [/quote]

If you hear the words “CIA” and “conspiracy” in the same sentence you know you’re about to read a load of horseshit. Federal intelligence agencies can’t even keep their Columbian whores under wraps.

135

They can keep their whores under wraps, they just need to remember to pay them. Pay your whore fellas, and don’t throw her out of a moving car. That’s just common courtesy.

136

Why is asking for background checks OK when purchasing a gun, but a Voter ID law is racist ?

137

Death threats against NRA President, irony ?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/17/Hundreds-of-Death-Threats-Reflect-Obama-s-Tactics-Says-NRA-President-Keene

138

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Columbian whores under wraps.[/quote]

Are these girls from the university?

139

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Columbian whores under wraps.[/quote]

Are these girls from the university?
[/quote]

Yeah, probably from the department of gender studies or something.

140

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Columbian whores under wraps.[/quote]

Are these girls from the university?
[/quote]

Yeah, probably from the department of gender studies or something.[/quote]

I was kidding with you because I thought you meant Colombia ( the country is South America ) and not Columbia ( the university in New York ).

“Columbian whores” would be American girls attending the university in NY.