Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

[Hypoxia]

Just out of curiosity, do you actually READ your grabber buddy's posts? Because My I's comments are certainly no more inflammatory than yours and theirs. *I* probably wouldn't have called you "fucking stupid", but the rest of the adjectives were pretty much spot on.

I've been cooking the "call me stupid and I'm yours" line lately and maybe applied it too soon. Regrets. Meanwhile, I try (but don't always succeed) to attack posts, not posters. Except for a certain traitor. But rather than calling an idea 'stupid', I try to show its errors. Like I said, not always...

Out of curiosity: Ever been to a country recovering from a recent civil war? What do former, now jobless, rebel or militia guys do after peace is signed? Do you let them 'forage' or do you hire them as guards for every wee little thing? A state flowing with guns needs many guards. I saw a shotgun guy in lush Antigua Guatemala guarding a pickup load of empty soda bottles.

That's a future I see for a fully-armed America. Shoot or be shot.

 

[phrodeau]

Comically loose? Never even TRIED to purchase a gun have have you?

You are clueless.

https://youtu.be/0FBwhUoSd-Y

 

[gunthernehmen]

https://youtu.be/0FBwhUoSd-Y

That vid was hilarious! I'm forwarding it to some friends.

The shooting range, I couldn't help but notice they shut him down when he started acting in a dangerous way. I question whether he could have actually left the facility with a gun...

The two dealers showcased looked like real pillars of the community. It shouldn't come as any surprise that there are some real turds in every business. I'd bet, had they picked any two shops that weren't pawn shops they'd have had a harder time. BTW, blondie most likely committed a felony. At least based on one quick viewing.

If they wanted to have some REAL fun, they should have just bought some full autos using the gun show loophole. Or at least claimed to on tape.

 

[My I]

I've been cooking the "call me stupid and I'm yours" line lately and maybe applied it too soon. Regrets. Meanwhile, I try (but don't always succeed) to attack posts, not posters. Except for a certain traitor. But rather than calling an idea 'stupid', I try to show its errors. Like I said, not always...

Out of curiosity: Ever been to a country recovering from a recent civil war? What do former, now jobless, rebel or militia guys do after peace is signed? Do you let them 'forage' or do you hire them as guards for every wee little thing? A state flowing with guns needs many guards. I saw a shotgun guy in lush Antigua Guatemala guarding a pickup load of empty soda bottles.

That's a future I see for a fully-armed America. Shoot or be shot.

You're a peripheral visionary, aren't you. You can see into the future? Just way off to the side?

 

[My I]

That vid was hilarious! I'm forwarding it to some friends.

The shooting range, I couldn't help but notice they shut him down when he started acting in a dangerous way. I question whether he could have actually left the facility with a gun...

The two dealers showcased looked like real pillars of the community. It shouldn't come as any surprise that there are some real turds in every business. I'd bet, had they picked any two shops that weren't pawn shops they'd have had a harder time. BTW, blondie most likely committed a felony. At least based on one quick viewing.

If they wanted to have some REAL fun, they should have just bought some full autos using the gun show loophole. Or at least claimed to on tape.

I actually wonder how many gun shops they really went to to get enough footage for their vid. Most of the pawn shops I've been in would have asked them to leave with one finger on the speed dial for local law enforcement.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I actually wonder how many gun shops they really went to to get enough footage for their vid. Most of the pawn shops I've been in would have asked them to leave with one finger on the speed dial for local law enforcement.

I've been in hundreds of shops. None of them would have sold to those clowns if they went in as portrayed in the video.

 

[KimGordon67]

You're the one from UK, right?

Did you know that the US banned the importation of slaves 20 years before England?

The only people who had slaves here were the indigenous people. The document ratifying the position of the colonists also outlawed slavery.

 

[todski28]

........................

 

[My I]

I've been in hundreds of shops. None of them would have sold to those clowns if they went in as portrayed in the video.

Even Nikolas Cruz got turned away from two of them. I never heard but I bet he bought his AR used, at a pawn shop.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The only people who had slaves here were the indigenous people. The document ratifying the position of the colonists also outlawed slavery.

Ah, I thought you were located in the UK, which banned slavery in 1833. Perhaps they, as the gun grabbers are trying to do, were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist?

Here in the US we banned the import of fresh slaves in I think 1807 or 8. And then fought a war a few years later to (among other things) end it once and for all. Well, in the US anyway. It continued and continues today elsewhere.

 

[KimGordon67]

Ah, I thought you were located in the UK, which banned slavery in 1833. Perhaps they, as the gun grabbers are trying to do, were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist?

Here in the US we banned the import of fresh slaves in I think 1807 or 8. And then fought a war a few years later to (among other things) end it once and for all. Well, in the US anyway. It continued and continues today elsewhere.

I understand the history of slavery in the US. Neither I nor the e article I posted disputed that. I have no idea why you felt the need to provide that little lessons - thanks and all, but it wasn't actually a response to my post.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I understand the history of slavery in the US. Neither I nor the e article I posted disputed that. I have no idea why you felt the need to provide that little lessons - thanks and all, but it wasn't actually a response to my post.

Your free associative blat about slavery was not even remotely responsive to anything in the thread, including the original post's question.

It's blatantly obvious that you and your crew of fools feel no compulsion to stay on topic. Why should I?

 

[KimGordon67]

Your free associative blat about slavery was not even remotely responsive to anything in the thread, including the original post's question.

It's blatantly obvious that you and your crew of fools feel no compulsion to stay on topic. Why should I?

It was actually - it both placed the US assumptions around the 'right' to have a gun into some sort of context, and related to the on again/off again discussion about the nature of 'rights', which people like Coach like to posit as some sort of 'natural' thing that comes from ... I don't know, nature, or god, or whatever. My reference to the notion of slaves as 'property rights' was querying this concept, and observing that the things we consider 'rights' are actually culturally and historically specific. Therefore, defending gun ownership on the basis of it being an inalienable right that the government doesn't confer, but rather protects, and that (apparently) comes from some higher force is a bit problematic.
You didn't respond to any of that, but instead gave me a wee lesson in US history, and tried to explain to me how 'my' history had worked in relation to slavery, based on assumptions you'd made about me.

I don't have a 'crew'. I don't think 'crews' have been a thing since the early days of hip hop.

 

[KimGordon67]

wut?

1, my chances of dying in a mass shooting are less than being hit by lightning. So I'm not all that worried.

2, we can only pray that President Trump gets a couple more Constitutional judges placed. Also, you might be surprised to find that churches are not gun free zones.

3, Your Guatemalan friend is free to feel any way she cares to. This has no bearing on me.




Loving your unapologetic hypocrisy.

Actually, no - as the chart found here demonstrates, if you live in the US mass shootings are more likely to kill you than lightning - if my maths is right, 14x more likely - and guns in generally are considerably more likely to kill you than lightning. Always pays to fact check those random statements.

 

[Hypoxia]

Actually, no - as the chart found here demonstrates, if you live in the US mass shootings are more likely to kill you than lightning - if my maths is right, 14x more likely - and guns in generally are considerably more likely to kill you than lightning. Always pays to fact check those random statements.

Causes of Death contains old data but it's indicative. Firearms deaths make the chart. Lightning deaths don't.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png

 

[KimGordon67]

Causes of Death contains old data but it's indicative. Firearms deaths make the chart. Lightning deaths don't.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Causes_of_death_by_age_group.png

Yeah ... but y'know, don't let silly facts get in the way of a good hyperbolic statement.

 

[My I]

Yeah ... but y'know, don't let silly facts get in the way of a good hyperbolic statement.

And there it is. The Liberal Battle Cry.

 

[KimGordon67]

And there it is. The Liberal Battle Cry.

Yeah ... because god forbid we should resort to facts. Pure communism.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It was actually - it both placed the US assumptions around the 'right' to have a gun into some sort of context, and related to the on again/off again discussion about the nature of 'rights', which people like Coach like to posit as some sort of 'natural' thing that comes from ... I don't know, nature, or god, or whatever. My reference to the notion of slaves as 'property rights' was querying this concept, and observing that the things we consider 'rights' are actually culturally and historically specific. Therefore, defending gun ownership on the basis of it being an inalienable right that the government doesn't confer, but rather protects, and that (apparently) comes from some higher force is a bit problematic.
You didn't respond to any of that, but instead gave me a wee lesson in US history, and tried to explain to me how 'my' history had worked in relation to slavery, based on assumptions you'd made about me.

I don't have a 'crew'. I don't think 'crews' have been a thing since the early days of hip hop.

Are you claiming that the slaves that existed in the US and UK as well as everywhere else in the world had no natural rights?

But you're claiming that I am the one trampling other people?

Let me explain.

A natural right (or inalienable or God given, take your choice) is a right that exists. It simply IS. You, Kim, have the right to life. You have the right to fend for yourself, sell good, at. at least to the extent that you aren't infringing on someone else's rights. You have the right to defend yourself and those that depend on you. You don't have the right to take away something that another person has a right to, for instance, their life.

If you try that, then they, in exercising their right to defend themselves, have the right to stop you by whatever means is necessary, of they so choose.

These natural rights are not given to us by government. Nor the Constitution. Not by any law it social contract. They just exist. Our Constitution PROTECTS certain rights. It doesn't Grant them and it certainly does not limit us to those enumerated.

Does that help you?

 

[gunthernehmen]

Yeah ... because god forbid we should resort to facts. Pure communism.

I don't golf. 98% of all human lightning strikes occur on a golf course. 0.02 times whatever the lightning rate is, is FAR below any chance of being involved in a Mass shooting.

You caught the mass shooting part, right? Whatever the homicide rates is, by gun, hammer, whatever, the number of people killed in mass shootings is almost unimaginably small.

Even with the way the everyclown people have redefined what a mass shooting is, this holds true.

 

[KimGordon67]

Are you claiming that the slaves that existed in the US and UK as well as everywhere else in the world had no natural rights?

But you're claiming that I am the one trampling other people?

Let me explain.

A natural right (or inalienable or God given, take your choice) is a right that exists. It simply IS. You, Kim, have the right to life. You have the right to fend for yourself, sell good, at. at least to the extent that you aren't infringing on someone else's rights. You have the right to defend yourself and those that depend on you. You don't have the right to take away something that another person has a right to, for instance, their life.

If you try that, then they, in exercising their right to defend themselves, have the right to stop you by whatever means is necessary, of they so choose.

These natural rights are not given to us by government. Nor the Constitution. Not by any law it social contract. They just exist. Our Constitution PROTECTS certain rights. It doesn't Grant them and it certainly does not limit us to those enumerated.

Does that help you?

You're just repeating stuff ... but, y'know, thanks for (again) explaining the utterly obvious to me.

Rights don't pre-exist human discourse. They're things we agree that, as humans, everyone should have. 'Everyone' is not always straightforward - rights often only inhere in certain groups of people - for example, in the case of slavery, in white people, who truly believed that they had 'property rights' over other ethnic groups. (I have seen some convincing arguments that self-defence is a 'natural' right, on the basis that all animals will defend themselves, but I'm not really sure that even then they're covered by a notion of 'rights', or more just a sense of self-preservation that everyone tends to have, and will usually act on regardless of circumstances.)

I understand what rights ARE - I just don't agree that they fall fully formed from the sky. They're a consequence of human society.

 

[KimGordon67]

I don't golf. 98% of all human lightning strikes occur on a golf course. 0.02 times whatever the lightning rate is, is FAR below any chance of being involved in a Mass shooting.

You caught the mass shooting part, right? Whatever the homicide rates is, by gun, hammer, whatever, the number of people killed in mass shootings is almost unimaginably small.

Even with the way the everyclown people have redefined what a mass shooting is, this holds true.

Where is your citation for the bolded statement?

If you look at the chart (the one I linked to, not the graph Hyp posted ... which is a graph, not a chart ... and here is the link again), you'll see mass shooting still outrank lightning strikes. 14x. Which is where I got my actual facts, supported by evidence, from.

 

[oggbashan]

Ah, I thought you were located in the UK, which banned slavery in 1833. Perhaps they, as the gun grabbers are trying to do, were trying to solve a problem that didn't exist?

Here in the US we banned the import of fresh slaves in I think 1807 or 8. And then fought a war a few years later to (among other things) end it once and for all. Well, in the US anyway. It continued and continues today elsewhere.

The 1833 Law on Slavery banned it throughout the UK and its colonies. That was far more than a ban on importing fresh slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

The law on slavery IN the UK was complex before the 19th Century. In Scotland slavery did not exist at all. Any slave entering Scotland was free.

There were slaves in England, usually brought from the West Indies. They were generally treated as well (or as badly) as English servants. A series of late 18th century court cases in England established the principle, like Scotland, that slavery was alien to English law. Any slave brought into England was free.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You're just repeating stuff ... but, y'know, thanks for (again) explaining the utterly obvious to me.

Rights don't pre-exist human discourse. They're things we agree that, as humans, everyone should have. 'Everyone' is not always straightforward - rights often only inhere in certain groups of people - for example, in the case of slavery, in white people, who truly believed that they had 'property rights' over other ethnic groups. (I have seen some convincing arguments that self-defence is a 'natural' right, on the basis that all animals will defend themselves, but I'm not really sure that even then they're covered by a notion of 'rights', or more just a sense of self-preservation that everyone tends to have, and will usually act on regardless of circumstances.)

I understand what rights ARE - I just don't agree that they fall fully formed from the sky. They're a consequence of human society.

You're confusing natural rights with "social contract". It's ok, mistakes happen.

As for the statistics thing, you're repeating yourself and worse, getting boring about it. Everyclown redefined mass shootings to make it seem the bogeyman. For instance, they include the shooter as a victim.

What this place needs is a good orgasm.

 

[KimGordon67]

You're confusing natural rights with "social contract". It's ok, mistakes happen.

As for the statistics thing, you're repeating yourself and worse, getting boring about it. Everyclown redefined mass shootings to make it seem the bogeyman. For instance, they include the shooter as a victim.

What this place needs is a good orgasm.

No I'm not - natural rights don't exist, so aren't there to be confused with other things. Basically, they fall into the same category as god. You can't prove their existence, so they're just based on faith.

Social contracts are a somewhat different beast that, like all contracts, involve an exchange of consideration. Rights don't - they exist independently of the provision of consideration but only because that's one of the things humans have agreed to in relation to the definition of a 'right'.