Today in mass shootings

[Sarge]

The folks in the ME seemed to do pretty well with inferior weaponry. Afghanistan, I think, has a better home field advantage than a lot of places, though. Even the ruskies could do much there.

In any event, your presumption seems to be that the entire military would turn on the population. That may be true, for some, but, I'd bet the majority would not and, in fact, would help protect the population.

Something else. If there were ever a revolution in this country, the Russians and Chinese would be lining up to provide weapons to support the fight against our military. It wouldn't be nearly as lopsided as SV thinks.

Before I retired, my fellow Soldiers and I would talk about this sort of stuff. No one i knew would be willing to fight against American citizens. That isn't to say that no one in the military would fight against Americans civilians, but no one I knew said they would. Personally, I think about 50% of the military would desert in such a scenario, give or take of course.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

We're the only country with fat poor people who watch cable TV all day. Oh, how unfair!

So not only should we pay for their food and healthcare because that's fair, they should also be able to easily afford to consume things that are bad for them and will make them sick?**** that kind of fairness!

You're a hater and probably watch Fox News and like Donald Trump.

 

[Troglodyte]

You're a hater and probably watch Fox News and like Donald Trump.

I hate most people, from (some of) my rich neighbors to the dregs of humanity my wife deals with daily. Lots of entitlement on each end of the spectrum.

I watch Fox News for the broads in tight fitting dresses and high heels.

I wouldn't say I like Trump, but I enjoy his insults and the reactions they get.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So my question stands: if you make high explosive ordnance readily and easily available for public consumption, what is your plan to keep these weapons from being used for mass murder?

What is your plan for stopping mass murder? I'm curious.

It will always exist, no matter the restrictions on the implements used. Because there will always be some very small, fringe portion of society that is crazy.

And you do realize that if you ******** libtards got your way, where no one has guns (which will never happen), the only mass murder that will occur will be by our Government towards it's citizens. See Cambodia, China, the USSR, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al. History does repeat itself, and mankind will never evolve to the point that we can say "those are the days of the past, a less civilized man."

Read Lord of the Flies. Man will always devolve to those behaviors.

For you to think an unarmed society with an armed government would be a good thing is absurdity..

 

[Steel Vanguard]

What is your plan for stopping mass murder? I'm curious.

It will always exist, no matter the restrictions on the implements used. Because there will always be some very small, fringe portion of society that is crazy.

I agree. What you are proposing is to take that crazy and increase it's firepower 10 fold. I've asked repeatedly how putting high explosive ordnance in the hands of society helps but neither you nor Superman seems inclined to answer that question. I've presented the very real cost of such proliferation, explosives easily available to crazies, and you've presented absolutely ZERO solutions to the problem of increased death tolls from mass killing by crazies. You avoid the issue entirely, which sandbags your argument.

And you do realize that if you ******** libtards got your way, where no one has guns (which will never happen),

I said this? I implied it? Show me where. Post the quote or you're just a liar.

the only mass murder that will occur will be by our Government towards it's citizens. See Cambodia, China, the USSR, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al. History does repeat itself, and mankind will never evolve to the point that we can say "those are the days of the past, a less civilized man."

There are all kinds of things wrong with this statement. Iraqi civilians under Saddam were heavily armed, and yet mass murder and torture by the government was common. Most of the West has much more restrictive gun laws than America, but when was the last time the governments of Sweden or Australia committed mass murder against their own civilians? Guns are completely banned in Japan, is the government committing mass murder in Japan?

Read Lord of the Flies. Man will always devolve to those behaviors.

For you to think an unarmed society with an armed government would be a good thing is absurdity..

I said this? I implied it? Show me where. Post the quote or you're you're Tim Liar Liar Pants On Fire.

I support the right to keep and bear arms because more freedom is always better than less freedom. I think restricting weapon of war (i.e. heavy weapons/high explosive ordnance) in a civilized society is a good idea because as you say, crazies will always exist and look to do harm just because they can. I would not restrict, for example, automatic weapons. I think that's kind of pointless given how easily a weapon can be modified to full auto. But hand grenades? What on earth are you going to use that for? Not self defense. And it will be useless in a fight against Uncle Sam because he's going to blow up your house with a drone strike from 3 miles away. Can you throw a hand grenade three miles?

I didn't think so.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I agree. What you are proposing is to take that crazy and increase it's firepower 10 fold. I've asked repeatedly how putting high explosive ordnance in the hands of society helps but neither you nor Superman seems inclined to answer that question. I've presented the very real cost of such proliferation, explosives easily available to crazies, and you've presented absolutely ZERO solutions to the problem of increased death tolls from mass killing by crazies. You avoid the issue entirely, which sandbags your argument.

I believe you originally stated " High explosive ordnance is VERY hard to come by under current restrictions. You and others in this thread are proposing LIFTING those restrictions."

Please point to where I have stated this, anywhere? Please?

Here's what I am proposing, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I'm proposing absolutely NO restrictions to the 2nd Amendment.

Got it?

There are all kinds of things wrong with this statement. Iraqi civilians under Saddam were heavily armed, and yet mass murder and torture by the government was common. Most of the West has much more restrictive gun laws than America, but when was the last time the governments of Sweden or Australia committed mass murder against their own civilians? Guns are completely banned in Japan, is the government committing mass murder in Japan?

Did the examples I named happen? They did. Could they happen again? History shows they can and will. Why give the Government that power?

I said this? I implied it? Show me where. Post the quote or you're you're Tim Liar Liar Pants On Fire.

You have got to be kidding me right? Don't we have an age restriction to join this board?

I support the right to keep and bear arms because more freedom is always better than less freedom. I think restricting weapon of war (i.e. heavy weapons/high explosive ordnance) in a civilized society is a good idea because as you say, crazies will always exist and look to do harm just because they can. I would not restrict, for example, automatic weapons. I think that's kind of pointless given how easily a weapon can be modified to full auto. But hand grenades?

So who regulates this? Who sets the rules? Where do you draw the line? YOU believe automatic weapons are acceptable. Many on your side of the aisle disagree. Who gets the say? The Government?

Step into the trap, please.

What on earth are you going to use that for? Not self defense. And it will be useless in a fight against Uncle Sam because he's going to blow up your house with a drone strike from 3 miles away. Can you throw a hand grenade three miles?

I didn't think so.

As has been stated before, please look at actual case studies like Afghanistan, or Iraq. Does the Taliban have drones? Does ISIS? Did the Iraqis? Did we have drones? Do we currently use drones against many of those enemies? Have they been eradicated? Did the Afghanis drive out the Russians, the heavily armed Russians?

Did these enemies use more than Toyota pick-up trucks with guns and rpgs and grenades?

I'm pretty sure that American citizens armed with grenades would be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Please point to where I have stated this, anywhere? Please?

Here's what I am proposing, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I'm proposing absolutely NO restrictions to the 2nd Amendment.

Got it?

Same difference. The net result is the mass proliferation of high explosive ordnance. And you STILL have not addressed how to contain the resulting mass casualties. You won't even broach the subject, which leads me to believe your convictions are less than genuine. Clearly, you have not thought this through.

Did the examples I named happen? They did. Could they happen again? History shows they can and will. Why give the Government that power?

Did they happen HERE? Could they happen HERE? That is the question. The answer is, not bloody likely. History shows that in unstable regions of the world, ones that have NEVER had long standing stable democracies, those things can and do happen. But they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about The United States.

You have got to be kidding me right? Don't we have an age restriction to join this board?

You got caught in a lie. Be a man and own up to it. Or, I guess, be a ***** about it. If that's who really you are...

So who regulates this? Who sets the rules? Where do you draw the line? YOU believe automatic weapons are acceptable. Many on your side of the aisle disagree. Who gets the say? The Government?

I'm a Civil Libertarian. We have no "side of the aisle". Civil libertarians are critical thinkers and pragmatists, as such we are wholly unsuited for election to public office. People don't vote their intellect.

It's already regulated. As are many other things. With no regulation at all, you have anarchy. Regulation is a necessary evil to prevent abuse and should be limited to only that which is absolutely necessary. Now a test of your intellectual honesty: I have said (in this thread in fact) that I am open deregulating high explosive ordnance if the people proposing it can come up with some kind of reasonable countermeasure to their unlawful abuse by crazies. You have repeatedly ducked the issue. Here's another opportunity to make your point: how do you keep the nuts from blowing up Disneyland with these things?

As has been stated before, please look at actual case studies like Afghanistan, or Iraq. Does the Taliban have drones? Does ISIS? Did the Iraqis? Did we have drones? Do we currently use drones against many of those enemies? Have they been eradicated? Did the Afghanis drive out the Russians, the heavily armed Russians?

Did these enemies use more than Toyota pick-up trucks with guns and rpgs and grenades?

I'm pretty sure that American citizens armed with grenades would be a force to be reckoned with.

Possibly. But we're not losing in Iraq or Afhganistan and we didn't lose in Vietnam either. We quit those conflicts because the politics back home demanded it. Militarily we absolutely WRECKED the Iraqi resistance. But their ability to bleed us one or two soldiers at a time tugged at the heartstrings of American mommies. So we had to get out. Tactically and strategically, they had no chance. And would have been defeated even more soundly were civilian casualties not such a priority.

This is real life, not Red Dawn. You'd get your *** handed to you son. Forget even the weapons for a second. Where you gonna get TA-50 for all your people? How are you going to control your food and water supply? All that infrastructure belongs to the government. They don't even have to kill you, just isolate you to your domicile an wait for you to starve. Oh, you live in the countryside? Even easier. We just blow up your house with a single rocket attack, then use infrared to find you hiding in the woods. You might last 72 hours given home field advantage and difficult rocky or mountainous terrain. Then you'd be ****** just like every other Taliban hillbilly who was stupid enough to get caught in the sights of the US Army.

 

[Steelr4evr]

the middle guy is worthless oh i stand for nobody, what a ***** stance.."civil libertarian mr. know it all...haha That's comedy. You're just a ********. It shows clearly. I can relate to that,but you're still a dick.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

I believe Rand Paul. Any attempt by a conservative type to simply slow the growth of Medicare is branded an evil person that wants people to die. Not cut, slow the growth.

Most of the Tea Party candidates, to my knowledge, opposed the extension of Medicare that was part of Obamacare. All are EVIL.

Oh Rand Paul. He's the hero Gotham needs, but not the one it deserves.

 

[Rod Farva]

I'm a Civil Libertarian. We have no "side of the aisle". Civil libertarians are critical thinkers and pragmatists, as such we are wholly unsuited for election to public office. People don't vote their intellect.

It's already regulated. As are many other things. With no regulation at all, you have anarchy. Regulation is a necessary evil to prevent abuse and should be limited to only that which is absolutely necessary. Now a test of your intellectual honesty: I have said (in this thread in fact) that I am open deregulating high explosive ordnance if the people proposing it can come up with some kind of reasonable countermeasure to their unlawful abuse by crazies. You have repeatedly ducked the issue. Here's another opportunity to make your point: how do you keep the nuts from blowing up Disneyland with these things?

.

You can never, in a truly free society "guarantee" the absence of abuse of freedoms. The two notions are antithetical and one must choose. And while you self identify as a "civil libertarian" ( overlooking the egotistical braggadocio of your self identifying as a "critical thinking pragmatist" replete with the implication that others here are not) you seem to feel that government holds or should hold sway over your unalienable creator given rights. That is NOT libertarian in any way.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Same difference. The net result is the mass proliferation of high explosive ordnance. And you STILL have not addressed how to contain the resulting mass casualties. You won't even broach the subject, which leads me to believe your convictions are less than genuine. Clearly, you have not thought this through.

No, not the same difference at all. The 2nd Amendment is not to be altered, at all. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It's really simple and straightforward. Even you can grasp it. Arms isn't defined - on purpose.

Because I don't believe your question has any merit, I've not answered it (and because you didn't originally ask it of me). I find the question absurd. Proliferation means a rapid increase. There never has been, nor is there currently, a rapid increase in the spread of high explosive ordnance here. You asking anyone to address this issue is like me asking you to address the rapid rise in little green alien men that are moving into our neighborhoods across the country. It's moot.

Because we are by and large responsible people, I don't believe they would proliferate.

And Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Bombers showed, you can make your own. Have they "proliferated?" Nope. Those slow cooker bombs are EASY to make. No proliferation.

Did they happen HERE? Could they happen HERE? That is the question. The answer is, not bloody likely. History shows that in unstable regions of the world, ones that have NEVER had long standing stable democracies, those things can and do happen. But they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is about The United States.

This is conjecture and opinion. While I agree, being a democracy makes a massive difference, you assume this will always be the case. In a day and age when our Government, and other global governments are working on redistributing wealth around the globe, I and many Americans are worried about the stability of our country. Our economy is on the verge of another collapse. We are so in debt to foreign nations, it's beyond the pale. We have grave issues we need to address, but that's a full other thread.

But could these things happen here, yes, just as it's happened in other countries. You are the American that scares me. You're the one that wakes up every day and says "America is just fine, well and good. Nothing needs to be done. I live in Disney Land and it always will be." People with your attitude and mentality led to the fall of Rome.

We have to work every day to prevent becoming another failed nation, one with tens of millions of deaths the result of its Government.

I suggest you read this wonderful article by JPFO: "Jews For the Protection of Firearms Ownership" - http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

Just a small excerpt: "...governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone...the mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold."

8.5Million people in the 20th century were killed by DEMOCRATIC governments.

You got caught in a lie. Be a man and own up to it. Or, I guess, be a ***** about it. If that's who really you are...

I am still waiting on you quoting me from any of these pages and pointing this out. Find my quotes.

I'm a Civil Libertarian. We have no "side of the aisle". Civil libertarians are critical thinkers and pragmatists, as such we are wholly unsuited for election to public office. People don't vote their intellect.

You may think you are, but clearly are not. And you said it takes critical thinking and intellect. You fail the entrance exam.

It's already regulated. As are many other things. With no regulation at all, you have anarchy. Regulation is a necessary evil to prevent abuse and should be limited to only that which is absolutely necessary.

Speaking of intellect, "it's"? Do you mean high explosive ordnance? Or Automatic weapons? Are pressure Cookers are regulated? Are Ryder trucks with fertilizer regulated?

Now a test of your intellectual honesty: I have said (in this thread in fact) that I am open deregulating high explosive ordnance if the people proposing it can come up with some kind of reasonable countermeasure to their unlawful abuse by crazies. You have repeatedly ducked the issue. Here's another opportunity to make your point: how do you keep the nuts from blowing up Disneyland with these things?

Until this page, you have repeatedly asked this question of other people. I'm not ducking anything. The question was not asked of me. That intellect thing again... Do you recall who you originally asked your question to? Can you to point to when I jumped into the fray? I'll give you a clue - post #454. Go back and read it. Prior to post #454, YOU stated - "You and others in this thread are proposing LIFTING those restrictions." I'll ask you again - point to where I indicated this sentiment. Then, if you can find me expressing that sentiment, the question would apply to me.

Possibly. But we're not losing in Iraq or Afhganistan and we didn't lose in Vietnam either. We quit those conflicts because the politics back home demanded it. Militarily we absolutely WRECKED the Iraqi resistance. But their ability to bleed us one or two soldiers at a time tugged at the heartstrings of American mommies. So we had to get out. Tactically and strategically, they had no chance. And would have been defeated even more soundly were civilian casualties not such a priority.

Good Lord, could you stay on track? You brought up the issue of hand grenades. YOU. You suggested Americans not be able to have hand grenades because they can't throw them 3 miles and a drone would take them out first. You said this. My statement was full of merit - that individuals with hand grenades could well in fact do damage to a more heavily armed oppressor. And I gave you examples of situations where a much more sophisticated, heavily armed, world power was held at bay by rebels in trucks with AKs and grenades - as an EXAMPLE to point out the absurdity of your point that they would be "useless." You can't even remember the arguments you make LOL.

Tactically and strategically the Taliban and others WON these conflicts. My God you are lost. They leveraged civilian casualties to their advantage to keep us at bay. They bled us one or two soldiers at a time on purpose. Do you not see this was strategy? By design? That with hand grenades and AK-47s, these enemies stopped the mighty USA and Russia? The Russians spent from 1979-1989 and couldn't win, as an example. You say, tactically and strategically they had no chance, but that statement shows your idiocy. They DID drive out the world's two largest countries after more than 2 decades of conflicts - using rifles and hand grenades. SMH.

So to wrap this portion up, addressing your "view" that allowing us to have access to hand grenades would be senseless, I showed you perfect evidence that "if" we were to go this direction, it absolutely could make a difference, as these hand-held weapons of war have and will be enough to allow Americans to fight a Government gone-wild.

This is real life, not Red Dawn. You'd get your *** handed to you son.

How old are you? Really?

Forget even the weapons for a second. Where you gonna get TA-50 for all your people? How are you going to control your food and water supply? All that infrastructure belongs to the government. They don't even have to kill you, just isolate you to your domicile an wait for you to starve. Oh, you live in the countryside? Even easier. We just blow up your house with a single rocket attack, then use infrared to find you hiding in the woods. You might last 72 hours given home field advantage and difficult rocky or mountainous terrain. Then you'd be ****** just like every other Taliban hillbilly who was stupid enough to get caught in the sights of the US Army.

I simply laugh at this last part. I mean, laugh out loud. The Taliban are still alive, well, and running Afghanistan. You discuss how very easy it would be, if our government went rogue, for them to wipe out the opposition here at home. But our same military couldn't wipe out the Taliban by using the means you just discussed. But it would work here in the USA. Got it, LOL.

Odd "intellect" you use.

Much like the intellect used before when you expressed your wild disbelief at statements that mosques are used to recruit terrorists. *GASP*. I'm still waiting for your reply to post #375. Speaking of ducking questions

And you used the word "*****." LOL.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

You can never, in a truly free society "guarantee" the absence of abuse of freedoms.

I never said anything about "guaranteeing" anything. I asked you to describe some countermeasures. You've so far failed to identify even a single means by which you would minimize civilian casualties resulting from the mass proliferation of high explosive ordnance through lifting the existing regulations against them. You haven't even suggested ONE THING. You support the hunting down and killing of terrorists to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. But you can't come up with a single plan of action to prevent legalized high explosive ordnance from being routinely used by mass shooters? Or to at least minimize the damage? Because that's all I've asked for, and neither your nor Tim seems to be up to the task.

Because we are by and large responsible people, I don't believe they would proliferate.

What is that belief based on. Mine is based on the mass proliferation of handguns and automatic weapons (most of which were modified from semi) that has resulted from legalization. There is a precedent for my point of view, and none for yours. OF COURSE people will buy these weapons en mass, but more importantly, most of the crazies have little or no prior recorded criminal history. They will be able to easily acquire these tools for misuse. You have proposed exactly ZERO countermeasures to this eventuality.

And Timothy McVeigh and the Boston Bombers showed, you can make your own. Have they "proliferated?" Nope. Those slow cooker bombs are EASY to make. No proliferation.

Not as easy to make as it is to buy a legal RPG or hand grenade. It takes some work and expertise. Certainly alot more than simply striking your ATM card and carrying home weapons never designed to be used outside the battlefield. Imagine the theater shooter with hand grenades. Think about what it is you're proposing. Mass murder on steroids.

This is conjecture and opinion. While I agree, being a democracy makes a massive difference, you assume this will always be the case. In a day and age when our Government, and other global governments are working on redistributing wealth around the globe, I and many Americans are worried about the stability of our country. Our economy is on the verge of another collapse. We are so in debt to foreign nations, it's beyond the pale. We have grave issues we need to address, but that's a full other thread.

But could these things happen here, yes, just as it's happened in other countries. You are the American that scares me. You're the one that wakes up every day and says "America is just fine, well and good. Nothing needs to be done. I live in Disney Land and it always will be." People with your attitude and mentality led to the fall of Rome.

You are mistaken, you are confused, and you are apparently paranoid.

The economy is not nearly about to collapse. America is still the center of banking and innovation in the world. It's a consumer state that manages to not only be the largest economy, but to also maintain the cheapest consumer goods. The American economy isn't going anywhere, and is flourishing against it's rivals in China, Brazil and Russia.

The "redistribution of wealth" already happened. The rich got richer. Wages have stagnated for almost 40 years while dividends and executive pay have skyrocketed. The pittance paid to social welfare has largely been paid by the middle classes (as measured by a percentage of their income) not the wealthy. The power brokers are very happy, and have no desire to allow chaos to descend. So fear not, the collapse is not even remotely imminent.

Besides. Americans are ******* pantywaists anyway. I knew none of you "prepper" fake tough guys were for real when Snowden came out. You should have taken to the streets with your guns then. Demanded an end to Soviet style domestic spying. But you didn't, did you? You're too fat and comfortable to ever ACTUALLY fight for a cause, so you come on internet forums and *****. You "survivalist" types are all talk.

We have to work every day to prevent becoming another failed nation, one with tens of millions of deaths the result of its Government.

I suggest you read this wonderful article by JPFO: "Jews For the Protection of Firearms Ownership" - http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

Just a small excerpt: "...governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone...the mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold."

8.5Million people in the 20th century were killed by DEMOCRATIC governments.

I didn't say "democratic" governments. I said "long standing stable democracies". Who in that pile represents that? Hitler was democratically elected, as were a number of other dictators. But this happened in countries that were unstable, had new or poorly defined democracies, or there the election themselves were a sham.

Speaking of intellect, "it's"? Do you mean high explosive ordnance? Or Automatic weapons? Are pressure Cookers are regulated? Are Ryder trucks with fertilizer regulated?

This entire discussion has been about high explosive ordnance, so this is just a dodge on your part.

Until this page, you have repeatedly asked this question of other people. I'm not ducking anything. The question was not asked of me. That intellect thing again... Do you recall who you originally asked your question to? Can you to point to when I jumped into the fray? I'll give you a clue - post #454. Go back and read it. Prior to post #454, YOU stated - "You and others in this thread are proposing LIFTING those restrictions." I'll ask you again - point to where I indicated this sentiment. Then, if you can find me expressing that sentiment, the question would apply to me.

This is the meat of the discussion, right here. You're ducking and dodging and running away from the question because YOU DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. That's the bottom line. You think high explosive ordnance should be readily available to the masses, but have NO PLAN WHATSOEVER to reduce or mitigate the mass of civilian casualties that would result from such a policy.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

You think high explosive ordnance should be readily available to the masses, but have NO PLAN WHATSOEVER to reduce or mitigate the mass of civilian casualties that would result from such a policy.

You keep telling me what I think, and I keep telling you I've made no such statements. You insist I have. You've been asked twice now to point to where I, Tim Steelersfan, have stated that explosives should be more readily available. You have failed to point out such an instance. But you persist, "imagining" I've said these things.

Like the rest of your diatribe, this example points out the "lack of intellect" you bring to the table.

Hell, you were the same guy that laughed when it was stated (factually) that Muslim mosques recruit, foster, and train terrorists. You still won't touch that one will you?

Until you can come to the board with rationality and remember who said what and when, save your fingers.

 

[Superman]

The military absolutely could drone strike me from 3 miles out.
I can't throw a grenade 3 miles.
Military wins that 10 times out of 10.

So why not let me have my precious grenades if they give me security?

 

[Steel Vanguard]

You keep telling me what I think, and I keep telling you I've made no such statements. You insist I have. You've been asked twice now to point to where I, Tim Steelersfan, have stated that explosives should be more readily available. You have failed to point out such an instance. But you persist, "imagining" I've said these things.

Sure thing, bub. You said....

Here's what I am proposing, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I'm proposing absolutely NO restrictions to the 2nd Amendment.

Got it?

Yep. Got it. Loud and clear. With "no restrictions" on the 2nd Amendment high explosive ordnance would be legal for every Tom Dick and Harry to buy at the local hardware store. So my question still stands. Now that you've accomplished your mission to remove all restrictions to the 2nd Amendment, and high explosive weapons and launchers are flowing out into a suburb near you, what's your plan to mitigate the impending misuse of these weapons? I'm prepare to wait until Hell freezes over to get an answer.

Like the rest of your diatribe, this example points out the "lack of intellect" you bring to the table.

Hell, you were the same guy that laughed when it was stated (factually) that Muslim mosques recruit, foster, and train terrorists. You still won't touch that one will you?
.

I didn't laugh, I scoffed. If you had said "some mosques" I would have been more receptive. But you paint the entirety of Muslims and Mosques with a broad brush of terrorism, and you don't have factual data to back that up. There are almost 3 million Muslims in America and only a tiny fraction are radicalized. You were fear mongering.

The military absolutely could drone strike me from 3 miles out.
I can't throw a grenade 3 miles.
Military wins that 10 times out of 10.

So why not let me have my precious grenades if they give me security?

I'm all for you standing up to the government. Be my guest. The issue with high explosive ordnance is the crazies and terrorists. Same question I keep asking Tim I also put to you: what is your plan for mitigating the use of these weapons for mass murder?

 

[ZonaBurgh]

The operative words here are crazies and terrorists.

They really don't care what the method is, just the outcome.

Do we ban airplanes, knives, hammers, crock pots, etc.

Perhaps we should get the government to require a warning label on mattresses to the effect "getting out of bed may be hazardous to your health".

 

[Superman]

I'm all for you standing up to the government. Be my guest. The issue with high explosive ordnance is the crazies and terrorists. Same question I keep asking Tim I also put to you: what is your plan for mitigating the use of these weapons for mass murder?

the same question shall be posed to you. what is your plan for mitigating the use of crock pots for mass murder? i see that the usage of crock pots in such a way has been more recent than the use of claymores or holy hand grenades. so my question is more pertinent than yours.

 

[Hypocycloids]

I didn't laugh, I scoffed. If you had said "some mosques" I would have been more receptive. But you paint the entirety of Muslims and Mosques with a broad brush of terrorism, and you don't have factual data to back that up. There are almost 3 million Muslims in America and only a tiny fraction are radicalized. You were fear mongering.

You libs always gotta play your "fear mongering" card don't you?

Yes, we were "fear mongering" after the first attack on the WTC in the early 90's.
Then when 9/11 finally did happen, we were "fear mongering" again.
And to quell our "fear mongering" your dear leader Obama marginalized ISIS calling them a JV team.
And we were "fear mongering" after the first beheadings were televised...how many more since then hmmmm?

An now in San Bernardino, after a 'very religious' Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead we are once again "fear mongering" as if none of this ever happened:

11/5/2009 USA Ft. Hood, TX 13 31 A Muslim psychiatrist guns down thirteen unarmed soldiers while yelling praises to Allah.
12/4/2009 USA Binghamton, NY 1 0 A non-Muslim Islamic studies professor is stabbed to death by a Muslim grad student in revenge for 'persecuted' Muslims.
4/14/2010 USA Marquette Park, IL 5 2 After quarrelling with his wife over Islamic dress, a Muslim convert shoots his family members to 'take them back to Allah' and out of the 'world of sinners'.
4/30/2011 USA Warren, MI 1 0 A 20-year-old woman is shot in the head by her stepfather for not adhering to Islamic practices.
9/11/2011 USA Waltham, MA 3 0 Three Jewish men have their throats slashed by Muslim terrorists.
1/15/2012 USA Houston, TX 1 0 A 30-year-old Christian convert is shot to death by a devout Muslim for helping to convert his daughter.
11/12/2012 USA Houston, TX 1 0 A 28-year-old American man is shot to death by a conservative Muslim over an alleged role in converting a woman to Christianity.
2/7/2013 USA Buena Vista, NJ 2 0 A Muslim targets and beheads two Christian Coptic immigrants.
3/24/2013 USA Ashtabula, OH 1 0 A Muslim convert walks into a church service with a Quran and guns down his Christian father while praising Allah.
4/15/2013 USA Boston, MA 3 264 Foreign-born Muslims describing themselves as 'very religious' detonate two bombs packed with ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and causing several more to lose limbs.
4/19/2013 USA Boston, MA 1 1 Jihadists gun down a university police officer sitting in his car.
8/4/2013 USA Richmond, CA 1 0 A convert "on a mission from Allah" stabs a store clerk to death.
3/6/2014 USA Port Bolivar, TX 2 0 A Muslim man shoots his lesbian daughter and her lover to death and leaves a copy of the Quran open to a page condemning homosexuality.
4/27/2014 USA Skyway, WA 1 0 A 30-year-old man is murdered by a Muslim fanatic.
6/1/2014 USA Seattle, WA 2 0 Two homosexuals are murdered by an Islamic extremist.
6/25/2014 USA West Orange, NJ 1 0 A 19-year-old college student is shot to death 'in revenge' for Muslim deaths overseas.
9/25/2014 USA Moore, OK 1 1 A Sharia advocate beheads a woman after calling for Islamic terror and posting an Islamist beheading photo.
7/16/2015 USA Chattanooga 5 2 A 'devout Muslim' stages a suicide attack on a recruiting center at a strip mall and a naval center which leaves five dead.
12/2/2015 USA San Bernardino, CA 14 17 A 'very religious' Muslim shoots up a Christmas party with his wife, leaving fourteen dead.


There are 3million muzzies living in the US...8% believe terrorist attacks on civilians is often or sometimes justified. Do the math.
Eh, you may struggle with that..its 240,000 muzzies living in the U.S. that believe terrorist attacks on civilians is sometimes or often justified. No reason to fear monger though.

There are over 1.6 billion muzzies in the world...and if only %2 believe that terrorist attacks on civilians is justified, then its 32,000,000 that do...but no reason to fear monger though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism

 

[Superman]

if 240k muzzies were to somehow kill 10 people each, that would equate to 2.4 million people.

but they ONLY kill people who vote for (R)s, so it's all good.

 

[deljzc]

The poll numbers are a lot worse than that Stewey:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Sure thing, bub. You said....

Here's what I am proposing, so you can stop putting words in my mouth. I'm proposing absolutely NO restrictions to the 2nd Amendment.

Got it?

You really are one daft SOB aren't ya? Let's start this from the beginning in painstaking detail, even you can grasp. You began spouting off about high explosives with others. I jumped in and posted ONE reply to it, that began with a question for you - "What is your plan for stopping mass murder? I'm curious. It [murder] will always exist, no matter the restrictions on the implements used. Because there will always be some very small, fringe portion of society that is crazy."

In your very next reply to me, you said the following: "I believe you originally stated " High explosive ordnance is VERY hard to come by under current restrictions. You and others in this thread are proposing LIFTING those restrictions."

I never said that, I asked you to point to where I did say that, and you couldn't. You were wrong at the beginning, and you continue to be wrong. You've put words in my mouth I haven't said since October in this thread.

Now, in your feeble attempt to back up your feeble attacks, you point to a quote where I proposed absolutely no changes to the 2nd Amendment. And that means just that, don't **** with our 2nd Amendment. It does NOT mean add RPGs to it, or tanks, or to remove muskets. It means, in it's most literal sense - don't change it. Leave it right where it is.

That does not mean I proposed lifting restrictions.

Is this that hard for you to grasp? Or is this like you believing that mosques do not recruit and train terrorists? LOL

I didn't laugh, I scoffed. If you had said "some mosques" I would have been more receptive. But you paint the entirety of Muslims and Mosques with a broad brush of terrorism, and you don't have factual data to back that up. There are almost 3 million Muslims in America and only a tiny fraction are radicalized. You were fear mongering.

Here we go again. Is this the only skill you bring to the board, to take people's comments, twist them, and start petty arguments you can't back up?

Remember the whole "inferring" discussion? You do a lot of that, but you often infer wrong, because you take too much time trying to imagine the writer's intent instead of taking it at face value, and you twist and pervert their words. One only needs to read about 20 or 30 of your posts on here to see that. This is a classic example.

You took IndySteel's words, and attempted to twist them (like I said, your only skill), and suggest he intended for mass shooters to go into places of worship and kill kids (which wasn't at all what the man was saying - but you thought it was). Someone with a 10 IQ could figure that one out.

Later in the thread I posted - "It was clear his "intent" was to suggest these nuts on psychiatric drugs take their shooting rampages to mosques where terrorists are being recruited and worship.

Note, it does not say "to mosques, all of which train terrorists" nor does it say "to mosques, [note the comma] where terrorists are being recruited". In the latter, the comma could lead one to infer the intent was that all mosques recruit terrorists. No, the original quote said specifically - "to mosques where terrorists are being recruited" as in, to those mosques where terrorists are being recruited.

In your classic manner, you reply "Wow, really? You think that? Maybe I've got the wrong URL, I didn't know this was Stormfront."

No one painted. No one fear mongered. You, as usual, jumped to the wrong conclusions.

Mosques do recruit terrorists. It's been pointed out. It's been backed up. And note - I didn't say all do LOL. It's been proven here in the US. Hundreds of mosques have been shut down in France...well, I reported those facts before, but in your classic style when corrected on here, you wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. You can lead a horse to water...

Like Peezy once said, sucking oxygen from a mask in Cincinnati - "I'm tired...tired...tired of whoopin' ya'lls ***."

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The poll numbers are a lot worse than that Stewey:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

Come on Del and Stewey, don't stop Steel Vanguard now, he was on another mistaken roll.

"There are almost 3 million Muslims in America and only a tiny fraction are radicalized."

He's been listening to Jon Stewart or something. Liberals all stop when they hear - "Folks, it's just a tiny %, no need to worry, everyone can go home now." They don't bother to calculate the #s. They don't bother to realize we are talking about hundreds of thousands of radicalized Muslims here in the US, or many tens of millions worldwide.

It's just a "small %" and anyone that does worry about these things is fear mongering.

 

[deljzc]

Ask any health professional what an addict has to do first: admit there's a problem.

There's a problem in the Muslim religion. You have to admit that first. I personally think there's a problem in every religion, but there is a BIG problem in Islam.

I'm not into fear mongering. I'm into reality. I'm not into religious prosecution but I am into being reasonable about safety and due diligence within the law. There is nothing in the constitution about immigration. Immigrants don't have constitutional "rights". The president and congress have strong leeway in border control and immigration policy as proven time and time again by our Supreme Court.

If there is proof of Mosques funding terrorists, radical thinking or providing illegal weapons, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Period.

Be critical of ANY religious that has ideologies that are against the Constitution, our laws and the rulings of court system (including Christianity and crazies that support Kim Davis - she should be fired). It just happens Islam has the most.

Be critical of any religion that preaches hate. It just happens Islam does it the most.

Be critical of any religion that creates radicals. It just happens Islam does it the most.

Be critical of any foreign government that uses religion as the basis for it's laws. It just happens Islam does it the most.

This is about the strong belief in separation of church and state. This is about whether we want to commit to that as a country or not. Will Christians have to quit talking like they are persecuted (they aren't) or can't be religious enough? Yes. It's all bogus anyhow. No one is stopping you from believing in whatever silly stuff you want to believe in.

But if you bring that into politics or laws or beliefs on behavior or how people should act, I'm against you. Plain and simple. If anyone starts a sentence with "God says..." or "God wants...." or "God guides....", I'm not paying attention and I want no part of it.

 

[Rod Farva]

I never said anything about "guaranteeing" anything. I asked you to describe some countermeasures. You've so far failed to identify even a single means by which you would minimize civilian casualties resulting from the mass proliferation of high explosive ordnance through lifting the existing regulations against them. You haven't even suggested ONE THING. You support the hunting down and killing of terrorists to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. But you can't come up with a single plan of action to prevent legalized high explosive ordnance from being routinely used by mass shooters? Or to at least minimize the damage? Because that's all I've asked for, and neither your nor Tim seems to be up to the task.
.

Jeeze.... first, it is not my job to "come up" with any plan for anything. I did not write the Constitution. Secondly, your "logic" is completely circular. I am submitting that the 2nd amendment is so clearly written that there can be no "if, buts, whys" or other qualifiers applied. In other words, NO further regulation. Your repeated to the point of nausea and boredom question to me is how would I regulate it? Do you see that you're chasing your own tail?

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

The military absolutely could drone strike me from 3 miles out.
I can't throw a grenade 3 miles.
Military wins that 10 times out of 10.

So why not let me have my precious grenades if they give me security?

You'll shot your eye out.