Thanks, GOP & NRA! 384 Mass Shooting in 2024 (UPDATED 09/4/24)
- Thread starter DCGeneral
- Start date
Because Dems latch onto mass shootings and are reticent on the daily shootings that take place in the city. I have a far better chance of being victim of a random bullet going to lunch downtown than any mass shooting. IF you are blind to the political hypocrisy that's on you
What is it close to being then? For someone that goes on about other people's ''smarts'' you sure aren't very smart.
I probably have more responses in this thread than any other conservative and I have yet to mention blacks or Chicago so he pulled “standard conservative response” right out of his ass.
He’s gotta be a paid shill. No one posts like that.
perhaps you could tell us of all the things immigrants have done to make your life worse, so we can better understand your anger.
that said, immigrants have always come to America.
if we want to slow the flow, we should be looking harder at mitigating the need.
we have this massive military doing nothing.
why are we not deploying them to Haiti, to re-establish a credible govt there and stop what is essentially masses escaping a burning building.
and how much of the Central American problem did we help create, and what could we be doing to make life there such that males aren't forced to flee the region..
Wall St, who outright owns half the Dems and all the Pubs, wants as much immigration as possible, because it holds down wages and expands markets.
it's not personal. it's just business.
if one is against immigration, i would think they would also be pro a living min wage.
with a national living min wage and universal medicare for US citizens, you take away much of the incentive for employers to hire immigrants, since you could hire US citizens at the same wage as immigrants, and universal medicare for all citizens would take the massive employee healthcare costs out of the equation.
solving the problem is a better approach than trying to wall it off, since no wall is going to keep them out if it's their only hope, any more than it would keep you or i out if it was ours.
that said, trying to actually solve the problem is never even discussed, because neither party's funders wants it solved.
Last edited:
I can name five to ten others on here that do. i wish the bots would come back. their posts were better
I ususally don't even bother with what ever code/language you attempt to use when you post as it is basically unreadable. Please tell me exactly where I used the word immigrant in my post that you responded to?
nice try.
i box quoted you, or did you not notice in your troll rant.
by "illegals", i'm guessing the "code/language" you were spouting referred to immigrants, did it not.
i tried to make a civil reply to your post, that actually tried to deal with the problem rather than just weaponize it, as you always want to do.
if you act like a shthead all the time, good chance you're just a shthead.
try again with a civil response to my above post, or are you one of those who don't want the problem solved, because you'd rather it perpetuated so you can perpetually weaponize it?
The same laws you consider necessary to "being legally able to defend myself and family from the law breakers" are the same laws that create gun danger to your family in the first place by making firearms freely available to everybody without significant restriction.
One of the absolute best gunfighters in history was killed by a gun. You should Google "Aces and Eights." If he couldn't protect himself with his gun, why do you think you can?
You should read the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, because it lists multiple examples of actions by communities to ban or restrict firearms throughout history. It ain't nothing new. It ain't a 21st Century democrat plot.
Nor is it new for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue 100% political decisions like Bruen that afterward look exactly like the political bullshit they are:
Number one you would guess wrong as they are two separate words. Immigrant doesn't mean there illegally, illegal does.
''if you act like a shthead all the time, good chance you're just a shthead.'' You couldn't have described yourself any better .
I will make this response easy for you GFY
Two things:
1. You wrote: "If I had a prior felony charge, under psych eval on meds...history of domestic violence, mental illness blah blah." Maybe that should have read, "If I had disclosed a prior felony charge etc.", because few state agencies devote enough resources to actually confirm the bullshit gunowners routinely write in these forms. Parents of the gun crazies living in the parents' homes or who endorsed their crazy offsprings' gun applications are increasingly going to be held responsible for their gun-crazy offsprings' massacres, because they knew their crazy offspring (whom they loved) had guns and did not report it.
2. Don't kid yourself. You could never extract that life-saving million-dollar firearm from your highly secure gun safe in time to defend yourself from an intruder in your home. Ask Wild Bill Hickock. His gun was on his hip and did no good.
Wild Bill Hickok’s murderer sneaked up behind him and shot him point blank in the back of the head. No person with a gun would be able to defend him or herself in that situation.The same laws you consider necessary to "being legally able to defend myself and family from the law breakers" are the same laws that create gun danger to your family in the first place by making firearms freely available to everybody without significant restriction.
One of the absolute best gunfighters in history was killed by a gun. You should Google "Aces and Eights." If he couldn't protect himself with his gun, why do you think you can?
You should read the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, because it lists multiple examples of actions by communities to ban or restrict firearms throughout history. It ain't nothing new. It ain't a 21st Century democrat plot.
Nor is it new for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue 100% political decisions like Bruen that afterward look exactly like the political bullshit they are:
That’s the most compelling argument yet for gun control- it didn’t help Wild Bill Hickock!!! Can’t believe the Dems haven’t used that one yet.😂😂😂
DUH!
you arm all the idiots and low lifes, and they're not going to follow formal dueling code. (who knew).
no, no one could defend themselves in such situations.
and when everyone is armed, you'll never avoid such situations.
saying "you cheated" after the fact, isn't going to bring anyone back.
the ONLY defense, is keeping the idiocracy disarmed in the first place.
Last edited:
Not sure I'm very concerned to know that you and jet disagree with my assesment of the anger of the MAGA crowd. They always seem pretty angry to me...
As to the studies, I'm basing my opinion there on the examples that have been posted on this board, and the one study in particular that I believe was from circa 2013. I'm not aware of anything current within the past 5 yrs or so, but if you have an example (since you said "studies show") I'll concede the point...
Since cray and doc liked your post I'll address all three of you as if you all agree...
I'm pretty sure that MI's law is not an additional law, as prior to the 2008 SCOTUS Heller decision, it would have been illegal anywhere in the US to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle. So it wasn't MI that abolished sensible laws, it was the GOP Legislatures that mandated open carry. It's even a hugely popular cause among the right to push for "constitutional carry", the notion that open carry laws superceded any states ability to restrict open carry in their jurisdiction...
So my first assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong... The pro-gun crowd on this board believes in the concept of open carry as a constitutional right. And at least as it pertains to you three, if you believe it is your "right" to open carry, that would mean you believe having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is also a "right"...
Again correct me if I'm wrong... So unless you feel that right only extends to certain folks, would you say that the crime of having a loaded weapon in your vehicle is not really a crime, but rather a "constitutional right"? And if you're going to say "it's MI law" and make that distinction I'll remind you that none of you were willing to apply that distinction when it came to Rittenhouse and his violation of WI law. Again, correct me if I'm wrong and any of you argued against that charge being dropped by the judge...
So my point is that it's the height of cynicism and basically hypocrisy to now attack the "liberal" prosecutor because he declined to prosecute a law that none of you personally agree with. Esp since you oppose the law itself and seemingly agree with activist Legislatures who have basically done away with the law that you're now upset wasn't enforced?
I disagree with the Prosecutors decision not to prosecute just as I disagree with the judge throwing out the violations of WI law that Rit was guilty of. But that's because I agree with both laws, and I don't believe in open carry as some sort of a right.
I just see it as a cynical self serving argument to conveniently blame the DA for not enforcing a law you disagree with. The reality is had the stop occurred in IN it would not have been a crime and YOU personally prefer the IN scenario. So now you disingenuously want to use this as an example of gun laws (which you hate) not being enforced?
But again if any of you do actually think it should be against the law to carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle, then I apologize for lumping you in with the hypocrites...
Nah, mostly I just laugh at how you write ten paragraphs about everything
Thanks cray, I knew I could count on a well reasoned argument in reply. You never disappoint...
I doubt the first sentence of your second paragraph is true. I’m pretty sure that was legal in several states. Link?
no one disagrees that you trolls like to keep it short.
They understood, Ivegotwinners.
Their argument is "I'm not only a Republican but I'm also very responsible, so there's no Constitutional need to supervise me and my obsession with guns or supervise all the irresponsible gunloving crazies in the world who should have the same rights I do to own and shoot guns at whatever and whomever they want regardless whether they are (1) a Republican, and/or (2) responsible/lawabiding to even the slightest degree.
Republicans' political views on guns allow far more absolute criminals to have guns than they allow peaceful, lawabiding Republicans to have guns.
Wait, you think leaving the corporate media owned government as the ONLY one with weapons is a good idea?
I definitely did not understand him because I don't read more than the first couple of words of his headache inducing posts. If he posted like a serious adult, I'd read his stuff and respond in kind.
However, I do not agree with you. You misrepresent my views and those of probably most Republicans.
Last edited:
This post is impressive in the amount of fail it contains. It’s almost every word.
1. Sounds like a parenting problem and a state resource problem, not a gun problem
2. Do you not think I’m aware of that already? Those two are for plinking at the range. I have other methods of home defense in place that I’d rather not disclose on the internet.
Before we go into a history lesson, just acknowledge the second amendment does not exist to protect me in a gun fight against the bad guys. Our founding fathers put it in place to defend ourselves against our own government if it turned tyrannical. They had the foresight to add that after what they had just gone through. This isnt about gunslingers, Cowboys and the wild west. I never said it was.The same laws you consider necessary to "being legally able to defend myself and family from the law breakers" are the same laws that create gun danger to your family in the first place by making firearms freely available to everybody without significant restriction.
One of the absolute best gunfighters in history was killed by a gun. You should Google "Aces and Eights." If he couldn't protect himself with his gun, why do you think you can?
You should read the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, because it lists multiple examples of actions by communities to ban or restrict firearms throughout history. It ain't nothing new. It ain't a 21st Century democrat plot.
Nor is it new for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue 100% political decisions like Bruen that afterward look exactly like the political bullshit they are:
Here’s the problem with that argument. At that time governmental immunity was a real thing. Nowadays, not only is immunity out the window, the government is usually required to pay the attorney’s fees and expenses in successful suits against the government. This is why an independent judiciary is vital for all of our protection. And as I’ve said for years, a good lawyer is more important than a good gun to protect us from government overreach.
Similar threads
