Las Vegas

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

Re: Las Vegas

Postby mike » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:42 am

wallyuwl wrote:A lot of murders happen in Chicago. Homicides, I should say. Official stats to back up your list of "lies," mike?


there not my list of lies, there NRA lies, and others that support poor gun regulations, 13 or 14 states support zero gun regulation, look it up, it's no big secret where Chicago gang bangers go to buy guns.

it's a win, win for gun co's, they don't care who buys there product, as long as someone does, and the NRA which use to be a gun sport mag has turned into a advertising forum for the Gun Co's, and became very rich in the process, along with helping flood America with guns.

I shouldn't need to bring any stats, it's been in the news for a week, 20% of the country own 80% of the guns, and the majority of that 80% live in states with lax gun regs. there also the ones that scream the loudest over the 2nd amendment so they can militia back up against the state like the Jim Crow era, or backing that Guy from Nevada ( Bundy) it's beyond insane as this article alludes to.
Image
mike
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby wallyuwl » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:46 am

So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby mike » Fri Oct 13, 2017 4:36 am

wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one
Image
mike
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby dirty sanchez » Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:44 am

mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one
As if anyone on the left has an open mind :roll: You only buy in to what Huffpo tells you.
User avatar
dirty sanchez
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby texas » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:00 am

dirty sanchez wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one
As if anyone on the left has an open mind :roll: You only buy in to what Huffpo tells you.


+1
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby mike » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:30 am

dirty sanchez wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one
As if anyone on the left has an open mind :roll: You only buy in to what Huffpo tells you.


the right are the ones that want status quo on this topic, while the left want common sense regulation, and this isn't a huff pro article, read his bio, he's a recovering republican from Chicago
Image
mike
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby wallyuwl » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:01 pm

mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one


My lies? You previously said they were the lies of the NRA. Which is it?

<snip>
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby mike » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:50 pm

wallyuwl wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one


My lies? You previously said they were the lies of the NRA. Which is it?

<snip>


well state again which side are you on Wally? I already said which side I'am on, and that article supports my point of view, those 10 points (lies) are the most used by the NRA and gun wacks to support lesser gun regulations.
Image
mike
 
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby wallyuwl » Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:32 pm

I'm on the side of the Constitution.

But please provide valid citations that refute the "lies" with actual data. I'm still waiting...
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Mendeleev » Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:49 am

wallyuwl wrote:I'm on the side of the Constitution.

But please provide valid citations that refute the "lies" with actual data. I'm still waiting...


https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/state-total.html

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-4

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5

Louisiana does have more, a lot more.

All these states have more per capita according to the FBI. [Just looking at it quickly, please correct me with any stats if you find it]

Louisiana
Mississippi
Maryland
Missouri
South Carolina
Alaska
Alabama
Delaware
Nevada
Tennessee
Arkansas
Georgia
Oklahoma
Mendeleev
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:35 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby dirty sanchez » Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:46 am

mike wrote:
dirty sanchez wrote:
mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one
As if anyone on the left has an open mind :roll: You only buy in to what Huffpo tells you.


the right are the ones that want status quo on this topic, while the left want common sense regulation, and this isn't a huff pro article, read his bio, he's a recovering republican from Chicago
Bull $#!!. He's just a RINO trying to salvage a political career in a communist state.
User avatar
dirty sanchez
 
Posts: 1616
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: Las Vegas

Postby raptorman » Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:03 am

mike wrote:
wallyuwl wrote:So no valid source you can cite to back up your disagreement with the "lies"?


don't twist this around, I don't disagree with the article, he lays out your lies very well, I saw you and others bloviating how this shooting couldn't have been prevented, and brought a article with 10 reasons how it could have, just try to refute those 10 lies, the problem with you repubs is you buy into the trash the NRA sells, you can't or wont think this out rationally, so why have a conversation with someone who wont change there mind, why bring stuff when it seems obvious that you didn't even read the MF article I already brought Wally.

I'll just keep bringing the common sense articles though, possibly someone with a open mind will happen into this forum and actually read one

I did. I tore the lie about cars to shreds. Only you choose to ignore it and go off on gun violence in Chicago. Like I said, the most of everything else he said is opinion disguised as fact.
The government has never had a power it did not abuse.
User avatar
raptorman
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:33 pm
Location: Sunny east coast of FL.

Re: Las Vegas

Postby Charon21 » Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:49 am

raptorman wrote:Another mass shooting, another gun debate. So, let’s look at this debate. Those on the left want stricter gun laws.


No, no. Left, Right, and Center want universal background-checks. It polls at 92% approval.

But what good would they do? The man in Las Vegas broke laws. Which law stopped him? The law against murder? The law against owning fully automatic weapons? The law about discharging a firearm in city limits? With all those laws you would think one of them would have stopped him. But they didn’t. Why? Because he was a criminal. And criminals don’t abide by laws. But here we go again in the merry go round about guns.


So wait until a preventable atrocity happens before attempting common-sense laws like, again, universal background-checks (and, in all likelihood, still not get them even then)?

No, says I. Any life saved is worth it.

First, they will bring ups Sandy Hook. And as horrible as it was, that’s the standard they will use. We just can’t let this happen again. Really? How about Chicago? Since Sandy Hook, 158 children have been killed on and in the streets of Chicago. Why don’t we hear about them?


I agree with that, actually -- more attention should be brought to the violence that less privileged groups are suffering routinely. And you wonder why guys like Kaep feel compelled to make statements about it.

But let’s look at that 30,000 number. Amazingly it’s about the same number of car deaths in the US each year. Now, many of those car deaths are caused by drunk drivers. We have the ability to pretty much eliminate drunk driving. It’s simple. Put a breathalyzer in each car that one has to blow into before you can start the car. This would eliminate about 15,000 deaths a year. But, do you see anyone jumping on that bandwagon? I wonder why? Could it be that it would be an inconvenience to the masses? After all, why should law abiding citizens be made to blow into a tube because of a couple hundred thousand drunks?


Law-abiding citizens have to comply with laws that regulate the sale of alcohol and driving cars. You can lose your license to drive if you do it under the influence.

It's not a stretch to similarly prevent people with mental-issues and a documented history of breaking the law from getting firearms. It's actually quite consistent.

Third. It will be about the fact that the founding father couldn’t have imagined the rapid fire firearms we have today, so they must be banned. The founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the internet, TV, photography, cell phones and many other of the myriad forms in which we exercise our freedom of speech. Should we limit that to what was around in 1780’s? The printing press and the spoken word? Fact is, back when the first 10 amendments were written there were several multi fire weapons available, so they already knew the technology was there. This is a false narrative pushed by people with little knowledge of the history of guns.


It was long understood that 2A is not absolute and court rulings historically reflected this understanding by permitting gun-control regulation within reason.

It was not until the NRA reversed their stance on gun-control and its lobby rose in political prominence that this became a contentious political issue. And they are not in it for principle. In fact, most of its members support gun-control. They (the brass) are in it for money, plain and simple.

"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

-- former Chief Justice Earl Warren.

Fourth. It will be about the second amendment and the term “well regulated militia”. Which according to many means the “National Guard”. The founding fathers were very much in tune with the fact of England’s common law allowed the right to bear arms to people well before the Bill of Rights. They knew that the people needed to be able to not only defend themselves from criminals but also as a defense against an overzealous government.


It actually was more of a compromise to get states on-board with ratifying the Constitution by allowing them to maintain state-militias than anything else.

Also, government is plenty capable of tyrannizing its citizens without taking away their guns.

Your pea-shooters do not scare them. They have guns, too.

And lastly, it will be about the fact that we have police forces to protect us. This is the biggest lie of all.


... No argument here. :wink:

The police have no constitutional duty to protect anyone. Period. The Supreme Court has so ruled at least 10 times on this issue since 1984. The job of the police is to investigate crimes and arrest criminals, not protect everyday citizens.


Yeah, it's almost like they are just glorified bloodhounds or something..

Uh oh, raptr'rrorrn! You just contradicted yourself on the poh-leese,

from yoop's police thread, raptorman wrote:So, if the cops are manhunters, who do you call when the your home is being invaded?


raptorman wrote:First. There are unlicensed drivers driving every day on every road. That is a fact. Second. 20% of all vehicles on the road are uninsured. And 30% of those insured are under insured. Cars kill more people than guns. And, we could make them safer even still. All we need to do is put a breathalyzer in each car. So each time you want to start it you have to blow into a tube. It would cut drunk driving by 95%.


The goal behind legislation like licenses for driving and owning firearms is not to totally prevent their illicit use and abuse but to mitigate them.
User avatar
Charon21
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:43 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby texas » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:14 am

I have an idea for a compromise. The left wants common sense gun control. Well, what's more common sense than looking at most gun crimes and realizing that democrats and democrat voters commit like 90% of them? Therefore, I propose we ban Democrats from having guns. Everybody wins.
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: Las Vegas

Postby texas » Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:23 am

Also no, the reason we don't want to budge on anything, however small, is because once we do, the left will immediately start pissing and moaning for more.

They whine and whine and whine until they get one concession and then instead of being thankful they just shift their frame of reference: "forget what we said earlier, what we have now is actually the worst case scenario, so we need to just go a little bit further and everything will be fine". We've seen this charade a million times.

How about instead of constantly debating whether we should take away guns, we start debating on whether we should require more guns? Criminals have nothing to fear in gun-free zones. Well, if we made them gun-mandatory zones instead, criminals would surely think twice.
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron