We don’t know who manages the Oconee County Georgia Sheriff’s MyFace page, but if he/she ever wants to write for a gun blog, we know one that’d be happy to have him/her: “The Party City was not robbed. Nothing close to that happened. What happened was two idiots fought over pills in the parking lot of the Epps Bridge Center. One of them got hit in the head, and the other ran off with the pills. The loser of this tête-à-tête not only refused to cooperate, he left the scene prior to the investigator arriving. He even made some sort of comment about a hot dog being worth more than the deputy’s salary. Two guys fighting over pills in a parking lot is not a store getting robbed.
Now, here is something that the paper didn’t have: The party of the first part struck the party of the second part in the head with a pistol. He left the pistol behind. Pistols aren’t much use if the ammunition is loaded in the magazine backwards. That’s been turning shootings in pistol-whippings since 1892. No yet-to-be-made balloon animals were harmed in the writing of this post.”
Video: Shootout With Baton Rouge Gunman – “The investigation into what led Gavin Eugene Long of Kansas City to kill three Baton Rouge law enforcement officers continued Tuesday as funeral arrangements were announced for two of the slain men. Also Tuesday, a newly seen video from the shootout, taken by a man who found himself trapped in his truck at a car wash, was posted online by ‘Inside Edition.'”
Raise your hand if you saw the venerable Browning Hi-Power leading GunBroker’s June sales race for semi-auto pistols. Check out the rest of the category winners here.
It’s come to this: Glenville Festival and Parade canceled over fears of gun violence – “The Glenville Festival and Parade planning committee and myself, for the first time in the seven years I have been Councilman, have doubts about our ability to prevent the violence from coming into the two events this year. I feel that the boldness and randomness of gun violence occurring weekly in Cleveland, including our area, creates too much uncertainty for the safety of citizens and for law enforcement officers and others working to protect us. I believe City Hall and other city leaders must do more to stop gun violence in our neighborhoods so that community events can occur without fear of participants becoming victims.”
Matt totally gets it:
Why It’s Consistent To Be Pro-Gun And Pro-Life – “Proponents of gun control legislation are often staunch supporters of the nebulous “right to choose” an abortion. Conversely, those who staunchly defend the right to keep and bear arms also frequently take the pro-life position. But to gun control proponents this is an untenable, even contradictory, position; ‘Guns kill people! They’re dangerous and deadly! Their only purpose is to kill! Yet you say you’re ‘pro-life’? You’re a hypocrite!’”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezCOx9mxBvc&feature=youtu.be
“And so I think a lot of people are not into shooting because of the noise of shooting. And suppressors help take that away. I California it’s not even an option.”
Police Provide Details of Shootout at El Centro – “Micah Xavier Johnson started his rampage by pulling his SUV onto Lamar Street. The street was empty, cleared out in anticipation of the police protest march that was just concluding downtown. He parked his vehicle sideways in the street, grill facing El Centro’s east entrance. There, El Centro College Police Chief Joseph Hannigan said Tuesday, he started a conversation with three Dallas police officers. ‘He got out and, we believe, engaged three Dallas police officers in a short conversation, then pulled his rifle and shot them,’ Hannifin said.” Where exactly was Johnson hiding the rifle when he was talking to the officers?
Wait but do we have to be pro-life if we are pro-gun?
I missed that memo.
I get that everyone has beliefs but not everyone believes life starts before birth. Combined with the fact that we have separation of church and state, there is only one option, and that’s to let people do what they want with their body.
Nothing after the fetus can survive on its own out of the womb though, that’s murder.
Compromise?
I believe in retroactive abortion.
I believe more firmly in retroactive abortion than normal abortion.
Abortion should be legal until the kid is 18yr old.
“Compromise?”
Yeah, right. Go put on your flame suit. Depending on who’s bored, it’ll get interesting. Like that old Chinese curse. You aren’t alone here by a long shot, but there’s nothing you can do but accept them calling you a murderer and the like. It’s what they actually believe and unlike the pro-choice folks, we don’t drag it up at every opportunity – so they have the bully pulpit.
Good luck!
“and unlike the pro-choice”
Nice try at a moral high ground grab…tautology flag on the play.
Start with understanding what the separation of church and state means. It’s not a call for a ban on religion nor for the State to take the side of anyone who opposes religion.
As for abortion I guess you don’t agree the most defenseless deserve protecting. You just want the woman to take care of your mistake because both of you haven’t a clue how to prevent a baby in the first place.
Self righteous indignation? Check
Emotional reactionarism? Check
Ad-hominem attacks? Check
Straw manning? Check
You sound like the liberals you claim to dispise. Acting like a child is acting like a child, doesnt matter what your beliefs are.
Did I call for a ban on religion? No, just your book that you let run your life (and I support your freedom to believe whatever you want and practice it) shouldn’t be pushed den everyone else’s throat.
You fools sound like Muslims who want to enact Shariah law because “men are pigs who can’t control themselves”, it’s the same idiotic self rightousness, have some integrity and practice what you preach.
Ummm Fiveskin, 16V was agreeing with you. He’s on your side. The rest of what you speak?
“Self righteous indignation? Check
Emotional reactionarism? Check
Ad-hominem attacks? Check
Straw manning? Check”
I’m not seeing it. Maybe you can point out these examples, otherwise it sounds like you got started with the attacks, accusations, and Ad-hominem attacks first, before any debate could start.
Do you think you might be doing what is called projection?
Seems clear to be the response is to Gs650, not 16V.
That’s what I mean Peter. Gs650g’s response was relatively mild. I didn’t see any of what FiveSkin was accusing him of doing. It seems FiveSkin just came on this site, made a general statement about supporting abortion, then, when someone responded in mild disagreement with his stance, FiveSkin unloaded with a shot gun blast(pun intended) of hate, ad-hominems, and insults.
The guy was primed like a bomb to go off, regardless of how light a touch was encountered.
I’m just reminded, again, of how much hate Liberal/progressive have towards those that disagree with thier viewpoints. They really are only “tolerant” of those that agree with them. It reminds me of a class mate in a history class I’m taking. We disagreed about the minimum wage law, he thought it should be passed, I disagreed. After the class, I went to shake his hand and ask if he wanted to continue the debate. He refused to shake my hand and angrily said that I could look up the information on line. but he refused to talk to someone like me.
Yep, the culture of “tolerance”, but only towards those that have the same viewpoints as themselves..
My comment was a response to severals, but definately not 16v.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suit, eh?
I’m not gonna hold you hand and point out every instance of the examples I stated, it’s pretty cut and dry to anyone who doesn’t want to ignore it.
You are laughable, as I am anything but a liberal or progressive, just a reasonable person willing to discus without shit slinging.
Brush up on your reading comprehension and argumentative methods, because the only tactic you have is to call me a liberal and talk about how crazy I am. Don’t you realize you are giving the same treatment to opposing ideas that you later condemn in your post? Because you are, clear as day.
Protip: not everyone who disagrees with you is a liberal, wingnut.
You’re funny FiveSkin, I figured you could not give any concrete examples of what you were accusing those of what you were and are doing yourself. Just look at my post below showing concrete examples of your own use of the ad-hominem.
+1
Compromise comes when we discover how to safely and consistently preserve the life of the child/fetus every time it’s removed from the womb. Til then, there will be no compromise.
“Nothing after the fetus can survive on its own out of the womb though, that’s murder.”
So, just to be clear, then…you are okay with murder up to what, about age 4 or 5? We can call it 3 if you like, but I think that’s being pretty generous.
Because if your criterion is “can survive on its own out of the womb,” you are quite literally talking about baby murder.
And how can any person with one iota of a claim of belief in “science” at all say “life” begins at birth? At the moment of conception, new, unique DNA exists and from the very first cell division, that is “a life.” It’s parasitic at that stage, but it’s still life. Its DNA is distinct from its mother’s.
I always find it funny the hoops and rationalizations people go through to try to justify beliefs. So, thanks for your comment.
Nice straw manning, you need to learn how to have an intelligent conversation and not put words in people’s mouth.
Its easy to think you shut someone down when you define their arguement for them.
The survive on their own bit was a reference to life support machines that breathe, feed or filter the blood of fetuses. Meaning, they no longer require the mother for physical life support.
You can try and play dumb and straw man this statement too, saying that the mother and father are the life support machine or something rediculous.
Or perhaps you should imply that I don’t think preventative birth control is an option and think everyone should get pregnant willy nilly and just hand abortions out.
Its funny how you go all libtard this and libtard that, when you are guilty of the same behavior you condemn in them, hypocrit.
Emotion over taking logic? Check
Virtue posturing? Check
Straw manning? Check
Personal attacks? Check
You make me sick, I thought POTG were supposed to be reasonable? All I did was offer an open discussion and you come back with the same idiotic, emotional, reactionary cry baby attitude as these liberals you dispise.
Practice what you preach.
So, FiveSkin
I couldn’t find what you were accusing others in their response to you. Here’s some examples of your projection, you are doing what you are accusing others of the same behavior.
“Nice straw manning, you need to learn how to have an intelligent conversation and not put words in people’s mouth.” (Ad-hominem)
“You can try and play dumb and straw man this statement too” (Ad-hominem)
“You make me sick, I thought POTG were supposed to be reasonable?” (I don’t know, Ad-hominem?)
“All I did was offer an open discussion and you come back with the same idiotic, emotional, reactionary cry baby attitude as these liberals you dispise. Practice what you preach.” (Ad-hominem)
“You fools sound like Muslims who want to enact Shariah law because “men are pigs who can’t control themselves”, (ad-hominem)
Here are some of your examples of your projection. I would be interested if you can give the same concrete examples of what you are accusing other people of doing.
Reply
So, ForeSkin, let’s take a look at your nonsense, one thing at a time. I’ll use only actual quotes from your two posts. I’m trying to believe you are new here and want to be a member of this community, but I have my doubts.
“Nice straw manning,
What straw man? I responded directly to statements YOU MADE. I don’t think you really know what a straw man is, which will be a recurring theme as we proceed.
“you need to learn how to have an intelligent conversation”
Ah, so refuting comments you made with actual factual information is not “intelligent conversation?”
Again, I was simply addressing your own comments. You asserted that viability outside the womb as a criterion demarcating what is murder and what is not and I simply pointed out that babies and young toddlers are hardly viable on their own.
Why so angry? Does it hurt that someone somewhere actually challenged your precious snowflake opinion about something?
“and not put words in people’s mouth.”
Again, simply responded to what you actually wrote in your own comment.
Here; I’ll quote it for you as a reminder:
“Nothing after the fetus can survive on its own out of the womb though, that’s murder.”
This clearly infers that ‘survive on its own outside the womb’ is your demarcation for what is murder and what is not.
Pro Tip: Infants cannot survive on their own outside the womb. Toddlers either.
“Its easy to think you shut someone down when you define their arguement for them.”
Wow. Lot’s wrong with this statement.
First of all, where in the HELL in my comment was there anything about “shutting you down.” Did I even ask politely for you to not respond?
I think your understanding of “shut down” is on par with “Straw Man.”
You expressed some opinions on the Internet. Someone responded with counter-points referring directly to your own statements. How on this EARTH is that ‘shutting you down?’
“The survive on their own bit was a reference to life support machines that breathe, feed or filter the blood of fetuses. Meaning, they no longer require the mother for physical life support.”
But that’s the point…they DO depend on their mother (or someone) for physical life support…well into toddler-hood.
You don’t get to cherry pick the types of data you call “valid.” You said “survive on its own outside the womb.”
Show me an infant that can do so.
And what’s so magical about life support machines, anyway? Why do you get to make the claim that THAT is the demarcation for “murder” whereas others are not allowed to say the demarcation for murder is conception?
Your whole thesis rests on a very blatant tautology, and that’s never good.
“You can try and play dumb and straw man this statement too
Guessing you still have not looked up that definition of Straw Man.
“saying that the mother and father are the life support machine or something rediculous.”
You calling it ‘ridiculous’ does not make it so. See, this is why I know you are full of shit. You are not arguing my points on their merits. You are calling my counterpoint to your statements “ridiculous” and acting all offended that I dared respond to you with my own thoughts on the topic.
Okay, so, let’s say that I am ‘wrong’ and my point is ridiculous. How DOES a baby survive the first year of life on it’s own? Can it feed itself? Can it move out of danger?
You made the assertion that ‘before lone survivability’ is your line for ‘murder.’ Your words. No ‘straw man.’ So, that MUST imply then that babies are fair game…otherwise, you are moving the goal posts and just setting “survivable” to suit your own opinion.
Logic does not work that way.
Let’s make your model into a simple syllogism:
P1: Before Survivability On It’s Own…killing it is not murder.
P2: Babies cannot survive on their own.
C: Killing a Baby is Not Murder
You can try to change the ‘rules’ of what you mean by “survivable” all you want to…but that’s just arbitrary line-drawing. You could ‘breathing machine’ and I could respond with an equivalently arbitrary counterpoint that you’d label “ridiculous” because it’s not YOUR opinion.
“Or perhaps you should imply that I don’t think preventative birth control is an option and think everyone should get pregnant willy nilly and just hand abortions out.
Okay, now this is a Straw Man. No one has said one thing about preventing conception. You set that bad boy right up so you could tear it right down and try to make your argument look SOOOOOO “reasonable.”
Nice try, but that’s not how ‘logic’ works, either.
“Its funny how you go all libtard this and libtard that”
Please post a link to one single post or comment where I have used the term “libtard.”
I think this might be some kind of ultra-weak attempt at trying to “Shame” me…aka, ad hominem me…so others will sympathize with you. Or Something.
Hint: I do not use the term “libtard.”
when you are guilty of the same behavior you condemn in them, hypocrit.
Ah, see. Projection rearing it’s head.
What exactly have I done by simply posing my thoughts as counterpoints to your initial comment that is the behavior I condemn (and do you know I condemn anything? You’ve gotten so much else factually wrong in this nonsense that I am not sure you do know that).
Emotion over taking logic? Check
Projection again.
My comment was in response to assertions you made. Nothing “emotional” about it.
Seriously. Do you even know what the words mean that you have typed here?
I posed some rather simple counterpoints regarding defining life as “when DNA becomes unique” and “babies and toddlers can’t survive on their own” and you are calling my comments “emotional?”
It is but to laugh.
“Virtue posturing? Check”
Say what? What the heck does that even mean?
What “virtue” was I posturing for…or whatever? Seriously.
Changing your faceplant status to “JeSuisCharlie” is an example of virtue signaling. Offering a counterargument in a discussion on the Internet is not.
“Straw manning? Check”
Again, just typing the words does not mean you are using them correctly.
“Personal attacks? Check”
Did I call you any names? Did I insult you specifically in any way?
So, what “personal attack?”
“You make me sick,”
Nice. I question your precious “opinion” about something, and that makes you SICK?
Are you a child?
” I thought POTG”
So, you’re not one? You say that like you are talking TO us, not as one of us.
“were supposed to be reasonable?”
Yeah, ‘reasonable’ does not mean “agrees with me.” Reasoned discussions happen here at TTAG all the time…often in the form of debate and argument.
You don’t get to label opinions you don’t like as “unreasonable.”
“All I did was offer an open discussion”
Ok, this is a sh1t remark and you know it and so does everyone else.
You offered an “open discussion” then go into melt-down mode because someone DISCUSSED THE TOPIC WITH YOU?
I wasn’t going to say this. I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt. But…
That clearly identifies you as a TROLL. An SJW Troll. You can sod right off now.
Single Word Unfamiliar Username: Check
One or a few posts and done: Check
Righteous Indignation after a very short visit: Check
Extremely poor “logic”: Check
Poorly hidden Projection: Check
Thanks for playing, though. It’s good for us to out folks like you for the cancerous effect on “open discussion” you have everywhere you go.
JR,
Love you man, but you seem geeked up today. Everything alright? You’re 100% right but why waste time on these imbeciles? I try to truth bomb these trolls from time to time but if my replies exceed 50 words, I say fuck it and cancel reply.
Lets go get a drink my friend….and shoot some shit.
“JR,
Love you man, but you seem geeked up today.”
Haha, what’s funny is that I’ve been tied up today afk and that was like my second or third comment.
Catch me on a day when I’m REALLY on a roll with nothing else going on.
” Everything alright? You’re 100% right but why waste time on these imbeciles?”
Yeah, man. I’m just having fun. It’s a gas when they Project so hard it had to hurt.
“I try to truth bomb these trolls from time to time but if my replies exceed 50 words, I say fuck it and cancel reply.”
I’ve been cursed with a fast typing skill, so I can do 50 words in about the time it takes to burp really good.
“Lets go get a drink my friend….and shoot some shit.”
Sure, man. Got some family in your neck of the woods. Will hit you up if I ever get down to the deep south to visit him.
Ammo’s on you, right? 😉
We can work something out. Bring me some of that Asheville Blonde Whiskey.
You’re right, the acceptance that one controls their own body is constitutional law when it comes a women’s right to murder her unborn child.
Hmmm, well, except for if that woman decides she wants to put an illegal drug into her body. Then, she can be put in jail for decades.
Makes sense, she can have the “right of privacy” if it means she can decide to murder her own child, but not if she puts an illegal drug into that same body, when no other person is being hurt.
The level of cognitive dissonance that people need, to hold these two thoughts in the same head, and accept this as logical and just, is….insane.
Just another example of the mental disorder/insanity that is being a liberal/regressive.
Anyone with enough time on their hands to worry about what someone else does with their baby must be awfully bored. Do I agree with abortion? NO! When I got a girlfriend pregnant in highschool did she get an abortion? NO! I realize not everyone has the courage or the sense of accountability for that. Furthermore I also understand not everyone shares my morals or beliefs. Do I think abortion should be illegal? NO! In fact I would rather our taxes pay for abortions than more welfare for future criminals.
Ummm, Wade. You sound like a sociopath, if not a full blown psychopath.
Hitler “only” murdered 5 or more million Jews; but if I would tell someone that they must be really “bored” to feel any concern or outrage at such an atrocity, I would be showing a lack of such empathy, being called a sociopath would be the least of it.
But we are “only” talking about 50 million babies murdered before they were born, just in our country alone, maybe I’m over reacting, ….. umm, no, I’m not.
I’m pro-life.
That’s why I carry personal protection devices.
Pro abortion vs anti abortion is an unrelated topic, but you’ll never hear idiotic euphemisms like “Pro Life” or “Pro Choice” when I really mean “Anti abortion” or “Pro abortion”, just like you’ll never hear me say “Gun safety” when I mean “Gun control”.
The flaw with the idea of “compromising” on abortion is that it requires both sides to already accept the belief that life doesn’t start at conception. It’s pretending to be fair by offering a “middle ground”, when in actuality, if someone takes it it’s because they’ve already accepted your premise. Do you really want to live with people who could devalue human life so much that they could believe that an unborn child is a human being and still support getting rid of it?
As an extreme example, suppose I didn’t believe that poor people were really people. Suppose I believed they were just parasites leeching off of society, and that I (as a member of society) wanted to get rid of them, I should be allowed to. Suppose, then, that someone else opposed the idea, claiming that poor people are still human beings and thus have inherent value. Would it be a fair “compromise” to say, “Ok, all the ones who can contribute to society can stay, but the rest are fair game”?
Pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-weed, anti-welfare, anti-bank…but that’s just my views on the scope of government. I don’t believe people need to have abortions, smoke weed, or tool up heavily if they themselves don’t see a need for it.
Is there a bigger tool in the whole universe than Matt Damon?
Okay, Ben Affleck is also a horse’s @ss.
And so is almost every other Hollywood actor.
And almost every director.
And Harvey Weinstein.
Okay, the town is full of them.
Which makes it commendable that in a town that hostile to gun rights, some celebrities are still willing to speak on record about being gun owners. Brad Pitt says he has been a gun owner since kindergarten. He spoke out against more gun restrictions after the Aurora shooting in 2012. He and his wife Angelina Jolie own a pair of matching custom Cisco 1911’s.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2016/01/29/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie-guns/#7d1e6bc145c6
Problem is these a holes are only pro gun when it might help them, after that not so much.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/25/brad-pitt-to-co-chair-brady-campaign-gun-control-awards-in-los-angeles/
Well, damn. Guess I picked a bad example in Pitt.
Ask Trump supporters that question.
Breaking: Ted Cruz booed off stage for not endorsing trump.
Whelp, Ted can kiss his possible SCOTUS nomination goodbye…
It was never going to happen, anyway. I don’t think Hillary Clinton likes Ted Cruz enough to nominate him for the Court.
I just don’t get that, I voted for the guy, but he lost. If you aren’t a jerk about loosing, you can try again later, but if you are people will remember. I think Cruz just limited himself to never being more than a Senator from Texas.
Unless Trump somehow manages to win the election and then majorly f****s up the next four years to the extent that the mob turns on him. Then Cruz will be standing there in 2020 with a great big “I told you so”.
Well how would you feel if I Tweeted a picture of your wife next to a picture of my mail order gold digging arm candy wife and basically called yours ugly? How would you feel if I implicated your father in the JFK assassination plot? How would you feel if I mocked you in public tauntingly calling you a liar like a 2nd grader just because you questioned my New York values?
I don’t blame Ted for refusing to endorse an asshole. I actually admire him for defending his honor. I just wish he had ended the speech with “vote your conscience” rather than continue to wave the bloody shirt in the Dallas shooting. I truly believe Cruz knew he was going to upset the party. And I believe he intentionally ended the speech concluding the story of the 9 year old girl who lost her father. He made them boo while telling a heart breaking tale the way Palestinians launch missiles from elementary schools. It didn’t work, They fired back.
^ I think that was probably the smart gamble. Trump will fk it all up.
I don’t blame him-Trump is a total azzwhole. But I’ll vote for donnie.
There’s a handful of openly 2A celebrities, those who have enough star power, and a network of the right friends in the right places and contractual leverage so they can’t be blacklisted for openly voicing opinions contrary to the prevailing groupthink. Tom Selleck comes to mind, he’s very openly 2A, a proud NRA member and his acting career is none the worse for it. Also Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Christian Slater, to name a few.
Clint Eastwood is anti-gun:
“Despite being heavily associated with firearms in his Westerns and cop movies, Eastwood has publicly endorsed gun control since at least 1973. In the April 24, 1973, edition of The Washington Post, the star said “I’m for gun legislation myself. I don’t hunt.”[350] Two years later, in 1975, Eastwood told People magazine that he favors “gun control to some degree”.[351] About a year later, Eastwood remarked that “All guns should be registered. I don’t think legitimate gun owners would mind that kind of legislation. Right now the furor against a gun law is by gun owners who are overreacting. They’re worried that all guns are going to be recalled. It’s impossible to take guns out of circulation, and that’s why firearms should be registered and mail-order delivery of guns halted.”[352] In 1993, he noted that he “…was always a backer” of the Brady Bill, with its federally mandated waiting period.[353] In 1995, Eastwood questioned the purpose of assault weapons. Larry King, the television host and newspaper columnist, wrote in the May 22, 1995, edition of USA Today that “My interview with Eastwood will air on ‘Larry King Weekend’ … I asked him his thoughts on the NRA and gun control and he said that while people think of him as pro-gun, he has always been in favor of controls. ‘Why would anyone need or want an assault weapon?’ he said.”[354] -Wikipedia
Go hi power! I recently had the privilege of putting a few mags through a premium S&W E series 1911, I handed it back to the owner grateful I haven’t bought a 1911 yet, I’m still loving shooting my HP clone and will be spending my 1911 money on a FN or Browning soon(after Texas gun fest).
That’s funny, the gun in the top picture doesn’t look like an HK.
Looks like a S&W SD9 to me.
I was referring to the infamous HK catalog with the backwards loaded magazines…but you knew that.
Um, I do now.
Goes with the tag line:
HK Because you suck. And we hate you.
Not sure where the stupid tag line came from, but a picture of the catalog can be found here”
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2009/10/04/hks-catalog-photo-blunder/
Ad agencies. Can’t trust them to load a mag properly… can’t sell guns without ’em.
Two things I could care less about…1) Lena Dunham’s opinion on guns. 2) Lena Dunham’ opinion on anything else.
Couldn’t care less, you couldn’t less about Lena…
I’m not a grammar nazi, I just don’t think you want people believing you could actually care less (meaning you do care) about the Ham.
What?
Couldn’t (could not) care less is the proper phasing… Saying it is not possible for you to care less about X,Y, or Z.
Saying you “could care less” is saying, you care about X, Y, or Z and that it is possible for you to care less about X,Y, or Z.
Oh, and just in case the “what” was for “the Ham” reference, Lena is a disgusting pig and her last name ends with ham…
It’s a play on words.
Weird Al’s “Word Crimes” music video should be required viewing in schools, every day K-12.
Babies(and fetuses) are INNOCENT. So it’s EZ for me to be pro-gun AND pro-life. +100000000 jwm…
You are plus +10000000’ing yourself?
I bet Matt Damon has never illegally carried in California. Or Illinois.
Retroactive abortion is appropriate for you. Is there a contrete reason you think jwm and I are the same guy? Drugs? Low IQ? Buggered by your boyfriend? Continuing your quest to be nominated as “most retarded troll”…
🙂 !
fww, sometimes you kill me. I’m soooo glad we’re on the same side.
? Good laugh first thing in the morning.
Well done; thanks.
He’s a low iq racist troll, fww. But we knew that. I’ve made a couple of comments that I believed Sam I Am and 2asux are the same guy. Our stalking troll picked up on that and put it in his bag of tricks.
He hates us. But he copies us. He’s very conflicted.
I would like to know how liberals are OK with aborting a child they don’t want ( not judging, just asking) but insist on keeping murders, rapists, and child molesters alive, fed, and payed for with tax payer money in prison for the rest of their useless lives. This is not a pro choice or pro life question, I would just like to know the logic behind it.
They operate in a logic-free zone bereft of coherent thought.
But we already knew that.
Well when your entire knowledge on the topic of firearm ownership is “guns are only used to kill!”, you may be lacking on critical thinking skills.
There are innocent people on death row.
I am not qualified to answer your question, but my best guess is that once a “social progress” label gets affixed to something, it gets swallowed hook, line and sinker with no further thought to the fact that they are practically opposed concepts. Add in willful ignorance and some emotional decision making and POOF! No problem.
Reminds me of a spoiled 4yr old kid who had a tangle with grandpas electric fence. He was told it would zap him if he touched it. So he touched it. 8-9 zaps later, he was ready to concede defeat, the red snapper was more stubborn that he was. Thank god it was a pulse charger, a constant would have probably killed him.
A proper Liberal is still right no matter how many times he gets zapped, because that’s what he wants and disregards the facts he dont like.
Fetuses can’t vote. Felons can have rights ‘restored’. There’s the logic for you.
Well Crowbar, It’s called professional courtesy. Liberal/regressives support robbery by government; (taxes, asset forfeiture, etc) and murder by government (abortion), as just two examples. They know some where inside that in a just universe, they would be in jail or death row with other “criminals” are currently in jail for doing it free Lance without governmental approval.
I’m not morally opposed to the death penalty, but it does actually end up costing more than life imprisonment.
We need to avoid putting people to death out of an emotional response, mistakes have been made.
It needs to be on the table though, for deterance.
There have been a lot of surplus Hi-Powers, mostly from Israel, imported this year. Most in fair to good condition and under $300.
It didn’t say the Dallas shooter walked away from his vehicle before talking to the government employees he shot. He could have been standing in the driver’s door with the rifle on the seat beside him but out of sight of the government employees.
Where are you seeing these surplus Brownings for under $300?
For the love of God please do tell. If anyone can get me an even halfway decent Hi-Power for under $300 I will buy 10.
Where was he hiding the rifle? Clearly up inside his ass, as it’s a shorter bullpup configuration that is highly concealable…
He got out of the vehicle but doesn’t say he walked away from it. He may have pulled the rifle out of the SUV.
Wrong shooter barn.
It was reported that police were called for a man walking with a rifle. It is entirely possible that he was open carrying, pretending to be a protestor, when they confronted him. Be prepared, it could be bad.
If that was the case, there would already be youtube videos of it.
So, if I am reading it correctly, they canceled a parade to make a political point. Got it.
The leftist in our country has gotten bold. For some reason, they think the American people will tolerate a bully…a tyrannical political party…cramming their garbage down our throats. If they shutdown a public event for the fear of the remote chance that a lone anarchist may kill a few people, what are they going to do when there is an open revolt by thousands, perhaps millions, of American people.
“For some reason, they think the American people will tolerate a bully…a tyrannical political party…cramming their garbage down our throats.”
I can’t imagine how they got such an idea… Perhaps it’s the last 50 years or so of the American people tolerating tyrannical politicians cramming garbage down their throats?
50 year is being generous…
100, by my reckoning.
Funny, I was going to say 100, but I figured someone would accuse me of exaggerating, so I settled on 50 as a minimum number that would be hard to argue against.
“Abortion is my right. But guns are murderrrrrr!!!”
Should earn you an M1 Garand buttplate tatoo on the forehead. Perhaps several as a buy one, get one kind of deal.
I had to laugh at the way you said this.
“Pistols aren’t much use if the ammunition is loaded in the magazine backwards. That’s been turning shootings in pistol-whippings since 1892.”
ROFL this brings back memories. When I was maybe… 23(?) I was at home visiting the parents. Dad and I went to range. Some guy was sitting there loading his brand new 1911’s mags backwards. My dad sees this and points it out to me. I shrug with this look on my face like “Well that’s just stupid”.
So my dad, who’s in his late sixties at the time, goes over to this guy, taps him on the shoulder, gestures to the magazine in the guy’s hand and basically asks “What are you going to do with that? Throw it at someone?”.
The guy gets this confused look on his face so my dad reaches over for the instruction manual that’s lying on the bench, hands it to the guy and tells the guy to read the instruction manual. The guy replies Why?. Now my dad’s never been one for bullshit. Spending your entire life in a job where mistakes kills a ton of people does that to you I guess. Dad’s losing his patience at this point. He says something to the effect of“Because it’s a dangerous item that you can kill people with if you fuck up, that’s why” but likely with saltier language. The guy asks “Why?” again and at this point I’m thinking my dad might just rip the guy’s throat out but dad sees the look in this guy’s eyes, like a deer in the headlights, and my dad’s demeanor totally changes. He spends the next 30 minutes giving the guy a safety lesson after which the guy picks up the mag and basically screams “Holy shit I put the bullets in backwards!” so damn loud that everyone on the range rubber necks the guy and I can see a few people chuckling pretty damn hard.
I am not pro-life, can I still be pro gun?-
So the reports that the Dallas shooter was a sniper that had an elevated position in a parking garage was all bullshit.
He shot more than just those initial three officers. No reason he couldn’t have moved to the parking garage after shooting them.
Did you read the entire report? There is a link to it in the post. No mention of the parking garage which is on the other side of the street. I was wondering how he made it across the street filled with police to the Centro building. The report reveals that the entire gun battle took place in and around the Centro building and until the shooter ran upstairs to his final position, all gunfire occurred at street level.
Correction:
He did fire from the Library window on the second floor and killed another cop from that elevated position.
The reports initially pointed to the red brick parking deck across the street as the start of the rampage.
Want to fix the whole abortion problem, Provide free Norplant implants to everone (requre it for welfaire checks). Done
Fuck that!
start sterilization, every unwed mother and Father should have it mandatory after first kid, save the BS Abortion Dialogue, ( Democrats Baby from the git go!)
Yes, because eugenics was such a good idea the first time around…
Inside – PROPAGANDA – Edition calls the bad guy vs. Police , ” gun play . ” – Commie assh*les !!
Guess how many murders were commited in massachusetts in 2014? Zero, yep thats right. 3 were killed by limbs, 34 by sharp instruments. (No stats for 2015,16, but i bet they are very low or zero)
I meant by semi auto rifles. (Sorry)
Comments are closed.