Two members of my family are both die-hard, straight-ticket Democrats that are all about "thoughts and prayers."
I bet they hated it when the leftists started rejecting that philosophy (a couple weeks ago.) The priests of my church have been telling us that "our church is under attack," and I used to think they were exaggerating, but it's true. Democrats and their counterparts are trying to pressure people to losing
their faith.
However, the country was founded with a pretty clear separation of Church and ate. I think most Democrats really just want to prevent whatever weird brand o
Christian-Sharia-Law the evangelicals and Baptists are working so hard to enac
The difference is that "thoughts & prayers" are *all* that conservati offer. Democrats offer real solutions but they get shot down by Republicans.Which "solution" are you talking about? No more assault weapons for
18-20 year olds? That's not a solution!
No, they're not. They're bashing conservatives who offer nothing more than "thoughts & prayers" time after time after time after time after time.It's idiotic because Democrats often do the same thing. Congress is split almost evenly, so both parties are to blame, not just "conservatives."
Democrats have said it plenty of times too. Joe was just saying "GodNobody everThat's the inference when that's all that conservatives ever offer up
said that "thoughts and prayers will prevent more shootings."
bless the losses," whatever that means to the god of the slitherers.
I didn't watch the news that day when a Republican suggested using "thoughts and prayers" to thwart future attacks. Which Republican was that?
Restricting religious gatherings while allowing bars & restaurants to remain open (Cuomo) is a perfect example of your peoples' intentions.Part of[REDACTED]
your people's agenda is to stop people from praying, because the God is an enemy to them.
Cuomo loved it. He took his fight (against God) to the US Supreme Court.Democrats rejoiced with all the church closures[REDACTED]
from the pandemic.
The house bill says that you've got to be at least 21 years old to do a mass shooting. That's not as good as "thoughts and prayers."Republicans do is offer thoughts and prayers." That's more than Democrats have to offer.[REDACTED] Weren't you just complaining about a Democrat gun control-bill, or at least the distorted version of one that lives in your head?
Biden said "The prayers of the entire world are with Ukraine," but all o sudden, "It's time to tell Republicans that thoughts and prayers aren't enough."Interesting contrast here.
I never said he said he was draftable at 16. That's a straw man."Option" in quotes. The person who mentioned that it was an "option"
What I said was that Ron said he remembers *having to register* when he 16, and that is exactly what he said. You yourself just referred to this an "option." So did he or did he not *have to* register at 16?
when they got their driver's license also pointed out that there was no "option" to opt out.
So you either *had to* register at 16 when you got your license,
otherwise you *had to* find a place to do so (here, the post ofice) when you were 18. You can call that a "option" or a "choice" but, unless you don't make to 18 or the government did away with the requirement in
those two years it is not really one.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
When you registered for the draft, you probably had a country worth defending.
However, the country was founded with a pretty clear separation of
Church and State. I think most Democrats really just want to prevent whatever weird brand of Christian-Sharia-Law the evangelicals and
Baptists are working so hard to enact
We could do the same. If we wanted to. Pass legislation making it compulsory for everyone to vote. That should do it.
We can even make it vote by mail, thus saving everybody the high
cost of gas. And the time to go to a polling booth.
An assault weapons ban was passed in 1994. But chickenshit
Republicans let it lapse ten years later, and refuse to pass
another such assault weapons ban.
Is that secure enough?
Nothing is ever secure enough. But there is much that can, and
should, be done. And right now, that means a lot needs to be done.
For how many minutes was the door at Uvalde unlocked?
How many more people have to die before this country gets serious
about gun control?
It would have stopped him if the teacher didn't prop the door open.
One more time. The shooter walked into the school building without
To me, 21 seems a lot like 18. There's not much room for growth in those years. If someone is a psycho at 18, they'll still be a psycho at 21.
Likely, but if they are just immature at 18, they might be less so at 21. I was.
Which "solution" are you talking about? No more assault weapons for 18-20 year olds? That's not a solution!
It's not a full solution, but it's more of a solution than "thoughts & prayers."
It's idiotic because Democrats often do the same thing. Congress is s almost evenly, so both parties are to blame, not just "conservatives.
Congress is split almost evenly between liberals and conservatives, too. Imagine that. On the whole, though, Democrats are much more open to meaningful solutions.
Democrats have said it plenty of times too. Joe was just saying "God bless the losses," whatever that means to the god of the slitherers.
Joe also called for meaningful gun control laws to be passed.
I didn't watch the news that day when a Republican suggested using "thoughts and prayers" to thwart future attacks. Which Republican was that?
Pretty much all of them.
Restricting religious gatherings while allowing bars & restaurants to remain open (Cuomo) is a perfect example of your peoples' intentions.
That was during a pandemic.
Church services are not essential services.
However, the country was founded with a pretty clear separation of Church and State. I think most Democrats really just want to prevent whatever weird brand of Christian-Sharia-Law the evangelicals and Baptists are working so hard to enactIt's just warm-bloodedism. Christians/Catholics offer condolences, and sometimes they say "you're in my thoughts and prayers." It's not a big deal. Joe contradicted himself when he said "we need more than thoughts and prayers," because he said it himself after the Uvalde shooting when
he said "god bless the losses." (a prayer to whichever god human
smugglers pray to.)
He walked into the school via a door that was propped open by a teacher, based on news reports.
To me, it's less.Which "solution" are you talking about? No more assault weapons 18-20 year olds? That's not a solution!It's not a full solution, but it's more of a solution than "thoughts prayers."
Good opinion, but where's the facts?It's idiotic because Democrats often do the same thing. Congress almost evenly, so both parties are to blame, not just "conservatCongress is split almost evenly between liberals and conservatives, t Imagine that. On the whole, though, Democrats are much more open to meaningful solutions.
Joe calling for stuff is a joke. He can sign an executive order if he wants.Democrats have said it plenty of times too. Joe was just saying bless the losses," whatever that means to the god of the slitherJoe also called for meaningful gun control laws to be passed.
Oh ok, I'll take your word for it because you always prove everythingI didn't watch the news that day when a Republican suggested usi "thoughts and prayers" to thwart future attacks. Which Republica that?Pretty much all of them.
you say.
Why are churches more susceptible to transmissions than bars & restaurants?Restricting religious gatherings while allowing bars & restauran remain open (Cuomo) is a perfect example of your peoples' intentThat was during a pandemic.
Church services are not essential services.Church services are essential to the 1st ammendment. Catholics are required to attend weekly mass to be in compliance with the faith. Bars
& restaurants aren't essential.
It's just warm-bloodedism. Christians/Catholics offer condolences, an sometimes they say "you're in my thoughts and prayers." It's not a bi deal. Joe contradicted himself when he said "we need more than though and prayers," because he said it himself after the Uvalde shooting wh he said "god bless the losses." (a prayer to whichever god human smugglers pray to.)
"Thoughts & prayers" and "more than thoughts & prayers" are not mutually exclusive. There was no contradiction.
It should be self-evident to anyone who's been paying attention.
Democrats propose solutions; Republicans oppose them.
Uh, no. You appear to misunderstand what executive orders are. They are directives from the president to the executive branch, hence "executive
Pay attention When was the last time Republicans enacted legislation to prevent mass shootings?
Why are churches more susceptible to transmissions than bars & restaurants?
It's not that they're more susceptible; it's that they're deemed less essential. Additionally, although restaurants and bars were allowed to remain open, their occupancy was limited.
"God bless the losses..." and "Republicans only offer thoughts and prayers.." seems contradictory to me, but it's probably just fine with Boreas, or whoever you guys pray to.It's just warm-bloodedism. Christians/Catholics offer condolence sometimes they say "you're in my thoughts and prayers." It's not deal. Joe contradicted himself when he said "we need more than t and prayers," because he said it himself after the Uvalde shooti he said "god bless the losses." (a prayer to whichever god human smugglers pray to.)"Thoughts & prayers" and "more than thoughts & prayers" are not mutua exclusive. There was no contradiction.
It should be self-evident to anyone who's been paying attention. Democrats propose solutions; Republicans oppose them.It's not evident. Who are you talking about? You're just full of generalizations, and that's ignorant.
Uh, no. You appear to misunderstand what executive orders are. They a directives from the president to the executive branch, hence "executiYou explained something I didn't know. I'm not a know it all.
Pay attention When was the last time Republicans enacted legislation prevent mass shootings?What legislation? There's no legislation on mass shootings (that I know of.)
Deemed by Andrew Cuomo? What right does he have to deem the 1stWhy are churches more susceptible to transmissions than bars & restaurants?It's not that they're more susceptible; it's that they're deemed less essential. Additionally, although restaurants and bars were allowed t remain open, their occupancy was limited.
ammendment as "non-essential?"
On 06-12-22 15:31, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about House Bill <=-
I was being facetious. The horror of seeing all that blood and gore
on television would have been even more horrific than seeing all those dead bodies in Guyana, victims of Jim Jones having given them kool-aid
as a thirst quencher.
On 06-12-22 03:44, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Jeff Thiele about Re: House Bill <=-
The difference is that "thoughts & prayers" are *all* that conservatives offer. Democrats offer real solutions but they get shot down by Republicans.
Which "solution" are you talking about? No more assault weapons for
18-20 year olds? That's not a solution!
On 06-12-22 11:22, Jeff Thiele <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: House Bill <=-
No one "has to" register when they're 16. They have the option of
waiting until they're 18.
On 06-12-22 16:05, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: House Bill <=-
We can even make it vote by mail, thus saving everybody the high
cost of gas. And the time to go to a polling booth.
Sure, that way the leftists who open the envelopes can make the
decisions for us.
We could do the same. If we wanted to. Pass legislation making it
compulsory for everyone to vote. That should do it.
We can even make it vote by mail, thus saving everybody the high
cost of gas. And the time to go to a polling booth.
Sure, that way the leftists who open the envelopes can make the decisions for us.
An assault weapons ban was passed in 1994. But chickenshit
Republicans let it lapse ten years later, and refuse to pass
another such assault weapons ban.
Biden's regime is oppressing us, and a rebellion is imminent.
Most people aren't dumb enough to let Democrats disarm us at a time like this.
Maybe Republicans saw it coming since 1994.
Is that secure enough?
Nothing is ever secure enough. But there is much that can, and
should, be done. And right now, that means a lot needs to be done.
The weaker we are, the more easy we are to control.
For how many minutes was the door at Uvalde unlocked?
How many more people have to die before this country gets serious
about gun control?
That's great work on the narrative, but now try working on a solution that's
more foolproof.
If the house bill ends up getting signed, then future mass shootings will be
less likely to be carried out with semi-automatic weapons.
So to answer your question, I guess 4 or 5 more people need to die, or however many it takes before someone can tackle a shooter armed with a single-shot pistol.
I guess Joe would have less losses to "bless."
open.It would have stopped him if the teacher didn't prop the door
One more time. The shooter walked into the school building without
He walked into the school via a door that was propped open by a teacher, based on news reports.
You're making it sound like he was buzzed-in through the main entrance.
Uh, no. You appear to misunderstand what executive orders are. T directives from the president to the executive branch, hence "exYou explained something I didn't know. I'm not a know it all.
This information is widely available to anyone. Perhaps you should
educate yourself instead of offering ignorant opinions.
Nobody on Fidonet should be expected to know every damn thing. ShoveThis information is widely available to anyone. Perhaps you should educate yourself instead of offering ignorant opinions.Uh, no. You appear to misunderstand what executive orders a directives from the president to the executive branch, hencYou explained something I didn't know. I'm not a know it all.
your smug attitude up your ass!
Nobody on Fidonet should be expected to know every damn thing. Shove
your smug attitude up your ass!
Sure, that way the leftists who open the envelopes can make the decisions for us.
Rubbish. The people who open the envelopes consist of a Democrat and a Republican -- and they record the vote as written.
Biden's regime is oppressing us, and a rebellion is imminent.
We all saw how well that went on January 6. And that was before
Joe Biden was inaugurated. As such, your words of a rebellion are
an empty threat.
of funds to run their campaigns. And without campaign finance
reform, those voters will keep on voting for politicians who
vote the way those special interest groups want them to.
There will continue to be future mass shootings. But far less of them.
Face it. Without real gun control, there will continue to be mass shootings. Lots of them. And the NRA won't care. And neither will
I live in Sweden, even I know what an executive order is. I'm
surprised that a USAian don't.
It's confusing to me. Biden made an executive order that mandated covid vaccines for employees of companies with 100 or more employees (I think that was the number.) That policy affected most Americans, not just Americans who work on federal land.
I was being facetious. The horror of seeing all that blood and gore
on television would have been even more horrific than seeing all those
dead bodies in Guyana, victims of Jim Jones having given them kool-aid
as a thirst quencher.
The bodies in Guyana still had their heads on. Many of the children in Texas did not. Hence they could only be identified by DNA.
To me, 21 seems a lot like 18. There's not much room for growth in thos
years. If someone is a psycho at 18, they'll still be a psycho at 21.
Likely, but if they are just immature at 18, they might be less so at 21.
I was.
These are very iffy variables for people to bet their lives on.
Which "solution" are you talking about? No more assault weapons for 18-20 year olds? That's not a solution!
It is not enough of a solution, but it would have saved 21 lives in
Texas recently.
He could, but it would be sued into Oblivion faster than you can fire 30 rounds out of an AR-15.I live in Sweden, even I know what an executive order is. I'mIt's confusing to me. Biden made an executive order that mandated
surprised that a USAian don't.
covid vaccines for employees of companies with 100 or more
employees (I think that was the number.) That policy affected most Americans, not just Americans who work on federal land. He also
made an executive order that crippled the gas mining industry. But
he can't make one to cripple the assault weapon industry?
The key word there is "only""God bless the losses..." and "Republicans only offer thoughts and prayers.." seems contradictory to me, but it's probably just fineIt's just warm-bloodedism. Christians/Catholics offercondolences, an AT> sometimes they say "you're in my thoughts
and prayers." It's not a bi AT> deal. Joe contradicted himself
when he said "we need more than though AT> and prayers," because
he said it himself after the Uvalde shooting wh AT> he said "god
bless the losses." (a prayer to whichever god human AT>
smugglers pray to.) "Thoughts & prayers" and "more than thoughts
& prayers" are not mutually exclusive. There was no
contradiction.
with Boreas, or whoever you guys pray to.
Nobody on Fidonet should be expected to know every damn thing. Shove
your smug attitude up your ass!
I live in Sweden, even I know what an executive order is. I'm surprised that
a USAian don't.
Do you think you can pass a citizenship test?
are. TUh, no. You appear to misunderstand what executive orders
hence "exdirectives from the president to the executive branch,
You explained something I didn't know. I'm not a know it all.
This information is widely available to anyone. Perhaps you should
educate yourself instead of offering ignorant opinions.
Nobody on Fidonet should be expected to know every damn thing. Shove your smug attitude up your ass!
Biden's regime is oppressing us, and a rebellion is imminent.
We all saw how well that went on January 6. And that was before
Joe Biden was inaugurated. As such, your words of a rebellion are
an empty threat.
It's not my threat. Biden, Mayorkas, and Garland all said it first. 2 of those guys are white and the other one is a skinhead, so take it from the guys who know best.
of funds to run their campaigns. And without campaign finance
reform, those voters will keep on voting for politicians who
vote the way those special interest groups want them to.
I'm with you on wanting campaign finance reform.
There will continue to be future mass shootings. But far less of them.
How many is "far less?"
There's no guarantee that psychos will opt-out of mass shootings just because they're scared of getting carpal tunnel syndrome.
How do elites protect themselves from getting shot?
We need to do what they're doing.
Face it. Without real gun control, there will continue to be mass
shootings. Lots of them. And the NRA won't care. And neither will
I'm convinced that better security is the way to go.
On 06-13-22 16:45, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: House Bill <=-
Sure, that way the leftists who open the envelopes can make the decisions for us.
Rubbish. The people who open the envelopes consist of a Democrat and a Republican -- and they record the vote as written.
What qualifies one of those envelope openers as a Democrat or a Republican? (Please don't say their voter registration card!)
On 06-13-22 22:56, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about House Bill <=-
Hello Dale,
I was being facetious. The horror of seeing all that blood and gore
on television would have been even more horrific than seeing all those
dead bodies in Guyana, victims of Jim Jones having given them kool-aid
as a thirst quencher.
The bodies in Guyana still had their heads on. Many of the children in Texas did not. Hence they could only be identified by DNA.
Newspaper and television showed pictures of those dead bodies
in Guyana. None of the bodies in the Uvalde mass shooting were
shown by any newspapers or in the news media.
Dead bodies of civilians killed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine
were shown on television, and in newspapers. So why is it okay to
show bodies of the dead in other countries, but not here?
These are very iffy variables for people to bet their lives on.
So you think they should raise it higher?
"God bless the losses..." and "Republicans only offer thoughts and prayers.." seems contradictory to me, but it's probably just fine with Boreas, or whoever you guys pray to.The key word there is "only"
Republicans seem to only offer lip service during those events, and
refuse to actually do anything about it.
There will continue to be future mass shootings. But far less of the
How many is "far less?"
So far this year (as of a few days ago) there have been 288 mass
shootings in the USA. And only 5 mass shootings in the rest of the
world combined. Mass shootings meaning at least 4 persons.
Assault-style weapons (such as AR-15s) are too easily available
for those who commit such horrific crimes. Taking away easy access
to those weapons (and large capacity magazines) would be a start.
A ban, with real teeth, and no loopholes.
How do elites protect themselves from getting shot?
Children and adults alike are getting murdered as a result of the
lack of real gun control legislation being passed. Something needs
to be done NOW to prevent future carnage from happening.
I'm convinced that better security is the way to go.
I'm convinced getting rid of easy access to assault-style weapons
and other types of weapons is an integral part of the solution.
I live in Sweden, even I know what an executive order is. I'm
surprised that a USAian don't.
It's confusing to me.
Of course it is. But not to me. Go figure...I live in Sweden, even I know what an executive order is. I'mIt's confusing to me.
surprised that a USAian don't.
Maybe you should starting to get your information from something else than a
media outlet driven by an Aussie multibillionair?
Rubbish. The people who open the envelopes consist of a Democrat and Republican -- and they record the vote as written.
What qualifies one of those envelope openers as a Democrat or a Republican? (Please don't say their voter registration card!)
What would you use instead?
Perhaps your "psychic" and your imagination are leading you astray as well.
You also seem to have trouble comprehending nuance, such as the fact
that New York can have cashless and cash bail, as well as cash-ineligible offesnes, at the same time.
??? Please elaborate. ERROR: Does not compute.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I only
commented on the executive order thing.
My sincerest apologies, Bjorn. Those comments were intended for Aaron, not you.
Dead bodies of civilians killed by Russian soldiers in Ukraine
were shown on television, and in newspapers. So why is it okay to
show bodies of the dead in other countries, but not here?
Because the media decided it would be too gross for the public to view.
On 06-14-22 07:21, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: House Bill <=-
Rubbish. The people who open the envelopes
consist of a Democrat and
Republican -- and they record the vote as written.
What qualifies one of those envelope openers as a Democrat or a Republican? (Please don't say their voter registration card!)
What would you use instead?
Voting record, campaign contribution record, checking account history.
Switching parties to complete a task doesn't seem like it would be difficult.
On 06-15-22 01:24, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about House Bill <=-
Why was it not too gross to show dead bodies of dead Ukrainian
civilians killed by Russian soldiers but too gross to show dead
bodies of school children killed by a crazy guy in Texas?
On 06-14-22 06:30, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: House Bill <=-
Assault-style weapons (such as AR-15s) are too easily available
for those who commit such horrific crimes. Taking away easy access
to those weapons (and large capacity magazines) would be a start.
A ban, with real teeth, and no loopholes.
Yea but those heroic house Democrats don't want to take
assault weapons off the
market, they just want to confine the mass shootings to aggressors age
21 or older. Is that how they're gonna stick it to the gun
manufacturers? Surely it won't be that big of a setback for them.
Voting record, campaign contribution record, checking account history.
Is there a record of how one voted in previous elections? I think not
since one's vote is a secret.
Voting record, campaign contribution record, checking account history
Is there a record of how one voted in previous elections? I think not since one's vote is a secret.
How many people of either party make contributions? I cannot see that
as a litmus test.
Would you want to have people digging into your checking account
history? I certainly would not.
I hope that your tongue did not hurt your cheek with that statement. People in Congress know that a total ban against AR-15 assault weapons would be blocked by the Republicans.
Why was it not too gross to show dead bodies of dead Ukrainian
civilians killed by Russian soldiers but too gross to show dead
bodies of school children killed by a crazy guy in Texas?
It is a matter of media standards.
The pictures of civilians who were killed did not show them as having their
heads or limbs chopped off.
The bodies of the school children had severe mutilation, including
their heads being blown up so badly that were unrecognizable. That is what an AR-15 does to human flesh.
historyVoting record, campaign contribution record, checking account
Is there a record of how one voted in previous elections? I thinknot
since one's vote is a secret.that
How many people of either party make contributions? I cannot see
as a litmus test.
Would you want to have people digging into your checking account
history? I certainly would not.
Maybe knowing who they voted for is not possible but if someone donated to a
Democrat's campaign, then I wouldn't trust them with my ballot. Are you gonna
trust Ted Nugent with yours?
I hope that your tongue did not hurt your cheek with that statement.
People in Congress know that a total ban against AR-15 assault weapons
would be blocked by the Republicans.
Yea, or the media will have you thinking so.
They need a bill with more than just a gun take-away; significantly more.
Because otherwise that's all it is, and there's no guarantee that the guns are being taken away from would-be murderers.
Having a secret ballot is integral to democracy. Without it, there
would be far too much abuse, making it impossible for liberty and
freedom to exist. That is why there are curtains in polling booths.
And no signature line on any paper ballots.
They need a bill with more than just a gun take-away; significantly m
How good of you to be so supportive of the bipartisan bill passed by
the House, thanks to Speaker Pelosi's leadership. Too bad Moscow Mitch will never allow it to even be brought up for a discussion, much less
a vote, in the Senate.
Having a secret ballot is integral to democracy. Without it, there would be far too much abuse, making it impossible for liberty and freedom to exist. That is why there are curtains in polling booths. And no signature line on any paper ballots.Yes, you're right, but to say "we've got one conservative and one liberal handling the ballots" is unprovable BS, unless it's going by their actual voting records, and even that wouldn't be an accurate way to judge their affiliation.
It's not "one conservative and one liberal;" it's "one Republican and one Democrat" (plus one independent, if applicable). They are generally appointed by either a Republican/Democrat on the ballot, or by the local
It's not "one conservative and one liberal;" it's "one Republican and Democrat" (plus one independent, if applicable). They are generally appointed by either a Republican/Democrat on the ballot, or by the lThat sounds good (appointed by a candidate.) But you said "generally" so that makes me worry.
"We generally have a republican and a democrat but the republican didn't show up for duty and he was last seen with a wad of cash in his hand."
Having a secret ballot is integral to democracy. Without it, there
would be far too much abuse, making it impossible for liberty and
freedom to exist. That is why there are curtains in polling booths.
And no signature line on any paper ballots.
Yes, you're right, but to say "we've got one conservative and one liberal handling the ballots" is unprovable BS, unless it's going by their actual voting records, and even that wouldn't be an accurate way to judge their affiliation.
significantly mThey need a bill with more than just a gun take-away;
How good of you to be so supportive of the bipartisan bill passed byMitch
the House, thanks to Speaker Pelosi's leadership. Too bad Moscow
will never allow it to even be brought up for a discussion, much less
a vote, in the Senate.
If any good comes out of this gun-grab, then I'll be grateful for that. Any
Republicans voting against it are rino power for November.
More measures to come later?
This is just a starting point?
Yea right - that's a pitch to give people a false sense of security; like "don't worry about gun violence anymore because the senate fixed it all up." Yea right. Not good enough.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
That sounds good (appointed by a candidate.) But you said "generally"
so that makes me worry.
That sounds good (appointed by a candidate.) But you said "generally" so that makes me worry.Weasel words are the way that the ignorant left get out from losing arguments.
An individual's party affiliation (if any) has nothing to do with
the price of rice in China. Fairness in elections and the election
process is necessary for democracy to survive. We all know how fair Putin's "democracy" is in Russia. Is that what we should want here
in the USA? I don't think so ...
An assault weapons ban was passed in 1994. The number of mass
shootings went down. Way down. The number of other shootings also
went down. Way down. Republicans let the legislation lapse ten
years later. The number of mass shootings tripled ...
An individual's party affiliation (if any) has nothing to do withMaybe Russian voters are too scared to vote against Putin, and that's a shame, but we've got a similar phenomenon going on here already: people want to be friends with the elites, and the only way they know how is by voting Democrat.
the price of rice in China. Fairness in elections and the election process is necessary for democracy to survive. We all know how fair Putin's "democracy" is in Russia. Is that what we should want here
in the USA? I don't think so ...
Ted Danson voted Democrat, and he ended up in bed with Whoopi Goldberg. Keep it up, and you'll wind up in bed with her some day too ;)
An individual's party affiliation (if any) has nothing to do with
the price of rice in China. Fairness in elections and the election
process is necessary for democracy to survive. We all know how fair
Putin's "democracy" is in Russia. Is that what we should want here
in the USA? I don't think so ...
Maybe Russian voters are too scared to vote against Putin, and that's a shame,
but we've got a similar phenomenon going on here already:
people want to be friends with the elites, and the only way they know how is
by voting Democrat.
Ted Danson voted Democrat, and he ended up in bed with Whoopi Goldberg.
Keep it up, and you'll wind up in bed with her some day too ;)
An assault weapons ban was passed in 1994. The number of mass
shootings went down. Way down. The number of other shootings also
went down. Way down. Republicans let the legislation lapse ten
years later. The number of mass shootings tripled ...
I believe it, but now we're gonna raise the age from 18 to 21 for purchasing
assault weapons, during a time when 70 year olds are doing mass shootings in
churches with single shot pistols, because Matthew Mcconaughey knows best.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.
It also makes no difference if they're being shot at by 18 year olds or
70 year olds; it hurts either way.
Get serious! Find ways to protect people instead of just finding ways
to disarm people.
The Ignorant Elitists don't want to address the elephant in the room:
1. There are already many laws on the books about guns - but often they aren't enforced.
2. Criminals don't obey laws.
3. Places like Chicago already have very draconian gun laws, yet that did nothing to prevent the 47 shootings over the Memorial Day weekend there.
On 22 Jun 2022, Ron L. said the following...
The Ignorant Elitists don't want to address the elephant in the room: 1. There are already many laws on the books about guns - but often th aren't enforced.
Then clearly they're not the right laws.
2. Criminals don't obey laws.
They can be punished for disobeying them, though. And laws that non-criminals follow can prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
3. Places like Chicago already have very draconian gun laws, yet that nothing to prevent the 47 shootings over the Memorial Day weekend the
This is an extremely dated comment. Chicago no longer has the strict gun laws that it once did, and hasn't for some time.
Since when do thugs and perps abide by gun laws?
The Ignorant Elitists don't want to address the elephant in the room:
1. There are already many laws on the books about guns - but often they aren't enforced.
2. Criminals don't obey laws.
3. Places like Chicago already have very draconian gun laws, yet that did nothing to prevent the 47 shootings over the Memorial Day weekend there.
On 22 Jun 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...It's because most people who own guns are responsible gun owners, ya know
Since when do thugs and perps abide by gun laws?
Since when do criminals abide by any laws? And yet, we have and have always had laws. Strange, that.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
The narrative that's floating around is that gun laws are the answer to our problem (even though a few of us can see that it's not the answer.)
By promoting anti-gun laws, Democrats/rinos are appealing to the idiots who are under that spell.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Since when do thugs and perps abide by gun laws?
This is what happens when a mayor who looks helluva a lot like the shrunken head of beetlejuice runs the city.
It's because most people who own guns are responsible gun owners, ya know hard working people who are contributing members of society.Since when do thugs and perps abide by gun laws?Since when do criminals abide by any laws? And yet, we have and have always had laws. Strange, that.
I am sure you would not know anything about that though.
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?For the same reason when a cop pulls us over, most of us comply with the rule of law, but there are others who want to make this about race, and would
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?For the same reason when a cop pulls us over, most of us comply with the rule of law, but there are others who want to make this about race, and would rather flash their race-card as they argue and even fight with the officer.
On 23 Jun 2022, Jeff Thiele said the following...
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?For the same reason when a cop pulls us over, most of us comply with
the rule of law, but there are others who want to make this about
race, and would rather flash their race-card as they argue and even
fight with the officer.
That's a non-answer.
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?So that the criminals can be punished for breaking them when they get caught.
There are also some honest people that may find themselves in desperate situations, and having laws discourages them from doing something they would not normally do.
Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every typeRegistered Gun Owners are not the ones scratching off serial numbers. Typically they are not the ones in da hood acting like ganster wannabe either.
of law except gun laws?
Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every ty of law except gun laws?Registered Gun Owners are not the ones scratching off serial numbers. Typically they are not the ones in da hood acting like ganster wannabe either.
Why do we have any laws at all, if criminals don't obey them?So that the criminals can be punished for breaking them when they get caught.
There are also some honest people that may find themselves in desperate situations, and having laws discourages them from doing something they would not normally do.
Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every type of law except gun laws?
Bingo. So how is it that conservatives think that applies to every tRegistered Gun Owners are not the ones scratching off serial numbers. Typically they are not the ones in da hood acting like ganster wannabe either.
of law except gun laws?
Gun laws are not the only laws that criminals break. And yet, we still have laws.
By promoting anti-gun laws, Democrats/rinos are appealing to the idio who are under that spell.
I think that the Dems/RINOs are doing the "squeeky wheel gets the
grease". They hear from a very small, but loud, group and are not bothering to find out what the majority actually think.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
It's because most people who own guns are responsible gun owners, ya
know hard working people who are contributing members of society.
I am sure you would not know anything about that though.
I believe it, but now we're gonna raise the age from 18 to 21 for purchasing
assault weapons, during a time when 70 year olds are doing mass shoot in
churches with single shot pistols, because Matthew Mcconaughey knows
Unfortunately, not even that baby step of raising the legal age from
18 to 21 for assault weapons will be mandated. Such a sad state of
affairs this country's refusal to take any serious steps towards
real gun control. More mass shootings to come, endorsed by the NRA
and Republican politicians ...
On 06-21-22 18:59, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Lee Lofaso about Re: Ar-15 <=-
Unfortunately, not even that baby step of raising the legal age from
18 to 21 for assault weapons will be mandated. Such a sad state of
affairs this country's refusal to take any serious steps towards
real gun control. More mass shootings to come, endorsed by the NRA
and Republican politicians ...
It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.
It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.
I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With
I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With
the former I have a decent chance of survival, especially if the shooter
is not a marksman who can hit the head or center mass. With the AR-15,
it hardly matters where the first bullet hits you. The remaining
bullets spray all over and when they hit, they explode to do maximum
damage. That is why the childred at that Texas school could not be identified by normal means -- their heads had been turned into chopped
meat.
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
To change your question up a bit, why is it that leftists think that
yet another new gun law will be any different?
We were still a country of armed citizens 40-50 years ago, but yet
there did not seem to be the same number of mass shootings. So, if
people had guns and were not shooting each other, why not? Maybe it
would be worthwhile to figure out why and try and fix that?
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dale Shipp <=-
Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.
Ron L. wrote to Mike Powell <=-
We were still a country of armed citizens 40-50 years ago, but yet
there did not seem to be the same number of mass shootings. So, if
people had guns and were not shooting each other, why not? Maybe it
would be worthwhile to figure out why and try and fix that?
But that would require work, research and, **gasp** they might find out that their Narrative is false.
Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.
Hence the push, in the People's Socialist Utopia of California right
now, to require people to "get insurance" for all their guns. A sneaky way of gun registration, which is the first step to gun confiscation.
On 06-26-22 12:08, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Ar-15 <=-
It's not good enough. People don't want to be shot at by single shot pistols any more than they want to be shot at by automatics.
I would much rather be shot by a single shot pistol than an AR-15. With
Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.
On 06-26-22 13:26, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: Ar-15 <=-
Thanks for that explanation, I get what you mean, but gun laws aren't going to give people that choice. As much as Democrats would love to
have the power, they can not control what kind of guns are already in circulation.
Hence the push, in the People's Socialist Utopia of California right
now, to require people to "get insurance" for all their guns. A sneaky way of gun registration, which is the first step to gun confiscation.
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
To change your question up a bit, why is it that leftists think that
yet another new gun law will be any different?
Because the Ignorant Elitists will never admit that their policies are failures. Therefore they must double down on their failed policies. To do otherwise would imply that their policies are failures.
States require insurance to drive a car. Why not insurance to have a
gun.
Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-
What you are describing would be a fully-automatic rifle, which IIRC
the military model AR-15 could be configured as. I don't know what he
had but, since it was supposedly acquired legally, it is possible it
was altered in a way that might not be legal, or he somehow purchased legally a former military weapon.
Mike Powell wrote to DALE SHIPP <=-
What you are describing would be a fully-automatic rifle, which IIRC
the military model AR-15 could be configured as. I don't know what he had but, since it was supposedly acquired legally, it is possible it
was altered in a way that might not be legal, or he somehow purchased legally a former military weapon.
I'm pretty sure that making an AR-15 fully automatic would be a felony.
Semi-automatic weapons range from AR-15s to hunting rifles to pistols. Most of the "assault weapon" bans have dealt with magazine size and specific brands, which make lots of loopholes. At the end of the day, they all can shoot rounds as quickly as you could pull the trigger - and can cause the kind of pain and suffering we see all too often.
I'd like to see all of the removeable magazine guns off the streets, but allow semi-automatic with a limited internal magazine, as a semi-automatic rifle that's manually fed into an internal magazine still has a use in hunting. I don't need to be able to shoot 60 rounds in 10 seconds using 3 20-round magazines to hunt, but being able to shoot 6 rounds at a time
before manually reloading seems like an effective compromise.
Then again, we fought a world war and a half with bolt-action, manually-fed rifles.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 212:56:31 |
| Calls: | 6,619 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,382 |