AsburySkinsFan Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, twa said: Yes if it is reserved for primarily at work. Once again you wholly miss the point, and I can ONLY assume it’s on purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: All you’re doing is INCREASING the risks. BTW, I’ll just take a moment to point out that you didn’t say you didn’t know about the cop shooting the kid. Did the kid disarming the guy increase the risk ?....yes Should he have disarmed the guy?...your turn I do not recall the story and certainly did not conceal it from your challenged fingers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Once again twa asking all the wrong questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Once again twa asking all the wrong questions. Avoiding again Should the kid not have disarmed the guy? It is your story, why do you no longer want to discuss it? add Is it safe to run and avoid if someone keeps pursuing? How long and far will you go? Edited February 19, 2018 by twa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, twa said: Avoiding again Should the kid not have disarmed the guy? It is your story, why do you no longer want to discuss it? Not my story it’s APD’s story, and one that I predicted way back a week ago when you first started suggesting that we turn our teachers into SWAT. More guns makes us LESS safe. This is the undisputed, undeniable fact. But you, want to ignore that fact and present a reality that ignores EVERY practical solution because of your ideological commitments. I’ll have this conversation with you again after the next shooting. Don’t worry, it shouldn’t take too long. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Still avoiding...maybe a 2.0 version will loosen your fingers Did the kid disarming the guy make others safer despite increasing his risk? how about 3.0 version Is doing nothing best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, Cooked Crack said: Please tell me what he's done lately. Kasich has the easiest job in the world. Sit around and speak grandly about our political issues for 2 years while being responsible for absolutely nothing, and see if he can stir up enough like to run another campaign. Anyone can look good doing that. Edit: in terms of the national level of things By the way, I'll take dude who stopped the attacker shot by police over room full of dead people every day of the week. And if you won't then you're an idiot. Edited February 19, 2018 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, tshile said: By the way, I'll take dude who stopped the attacker shot by police over room full of dead people every day of the week. And if you won't then you're an idiot. Hopefully, those are not our only choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, bearrock said: Hopefully, those are not our only choices. Response time will always be an issue. If people don't try to stop him then he'll just walk around shooting people until the police show up. You can't make people intervene, but 7 minutes is a long time to shoot a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 And the crux of the latest argument is once again, a gun. Purely coincidental that these things seem to be at the center of so many problems. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 10 minutes ago, bearrock said: Hopefully, those are not our only choices. reducing the threat is certainly another, but it quickly runs into the rights firewalls be it screening and disarming or restricting/eliminating weapons having armed security, securing access points and such tramples no rights to implement. it does cost money though 3 minutes ago, Bang said: And the crux of the latest argument is once again, a gun. Purely coincidental that these things seem to be at the center of so many problems. ~Bang and if they choose bombs or moltovs ect?.....the center is people that want to kill/harm/control people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, twa said: reducing the threat is certainly another, but it quickly runs into the rights firewalls be it screening and disarming or restricting/eliminating weapons having armed security, securing access points and such tramples no rights to implement. it does cost money though If the right to bear arms is so broad that it prevents the government from taking away guns from demonstrably crazy people, I think the right is too broad. I doubt any judge would interpret it that broadly though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 11 minutes ago, Bang said: And the crux of the latest argument is once again, a gun. Purely coincidental that these things seem to be at the center of so many problems. ~Bang It's a good thing we got you here to point these things out 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, bearrock said: If the right to bear arms is so broad that it prevents the government from taking away guns from demonstrably crazy people, I think the right is too broad. I doubt any judge would interpret it that broadly though. demonstrably crazy are already forbidden, the other is a interim step with a lower level of proof and reduced time to implement. I'm sure you know how court cases can drag out and how limited mental facilities are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 1 minute ago, twa said: demonstrably crazy are already forbidden, the other is a interim step with a lower level of proof and reduced time to implement. I'm sure you know how court cases can drag out and how limited mental facilities are. If we can restrict a person's freedom before a guilty conviction, I'm sure we can find a reasonable way to restrict a person's right to firearms before a full adjudication. Subject to speedy trial rights of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, twa said: and if they choose bombs or moltovs ect?.....the center is people that want to kill/harm/control people Sorry, i know it's all chic for you guys to pretend all the what ifs, the reality is they don't choose bombs or molotovs. They choose the gun. Easy to obtain, easy to use, max effect. It is the tool for the job. ~Bang Edited February 19, 2018 by Bang 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 Stop being that guy... Hmm...who is that directed at ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Bang said: Sorry, i know it's all chic for you guys to pretend all the what ifs, the reality is they didn't choose bombs or molotovs. They choose the gun. Easy to obtain, easy to use, max effect. It is the tool for the job. ~Bang It certainly is in hollywood If you think you can reduce gun use feel free, I've suggested a few ways 7 minutes ago, bearrock said: If we can restrict a person's freedom before a guilty conviction, I'm sure we can find a reasonable way to restrict a person's right to firearms before a full adjudication. Subject to speedy trial rights of course. It is harder than you might think w/o specific law or filing charges/having them committed. After all it is not a crime to want to kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 7 minutes ago, twa said: It is harder than you might think w/o specific law or filing charges/having them committed. After all it is not a crime to want to kill people. No question that we would need to pass new laws. Restricting access to firearms could be considered as one of the intermediate response to mental illness (between the spectrum of no court action and full commitment). No one's saying that it's a crime. But depending on the situation and the factual circumstances, it could be a sign of mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 28 minutes ago, twa said: I'm sure you know how court cases can drag out and how limited mental facilities are. Your side made it so. Own it, or stfu. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, twa said: If you think you can reduce gun use feel free, I've suggested a few ways Was, “stop voting for ****heads” one of them? 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Jedi Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) Here's the thing to all the right-leaning ES posters. We've been doing it your way on the "gun issue" for quite some time now. ****'s not working out. Somethings got to give. Edited February 19, 2018 by Rogue Jedi 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, Rogue Jedi said: Here's the thing to all the right-leaning ES posters. We've been doing it your way on the "gun issue" for quite some time now. ****'s not working out. Somethings got to give. No you haven't, nor have you done well where you did it your way......but ya do blame others for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted February 19, 2018 Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) The New Yorker: Calling B.S. in Parkland, Florida Quote Last Thursday evening, I arrived at Pine Trails Park, in Parkland, Florida, just as the candlelight vigil to honor the dead was ending. The cars were still arriving, in long lines that gleamed under halogen streetlights, waved through intersections by officers of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department. Flashlights and phone lights bobbed along the sidewalks that bordered the road as families passed on foot or on bikes. It was just past eight o’clock, darkness had fallen over the palm glades and cul de sacs and strip malls of this city at the edge of the Everglades, and, if you hadn’t known the circumstances, you might have expected a Fourth of July celebration. Instead, the people here had gathered for a different kind of national ritual. After the fatal shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, on Valentine’s Day, the aftermath at first had a familiar pattern: the initial news alerts; then the psychological profiles of the killer; the repetition of “thoughts and prayers”; the news scrum; this vigil. The funerals would begin the next day, but the long-term prospect was of another lull in the debate until the next act of spectacular violence—a routine so predictable that a couple of days later I saw that someone in Fort Lauderdale had drawn it in imitation of the Krebs Cycle and printed it on a T-shirt. The first hint that something might be different this time came the morning after the shootings, from a Douglas High School sophomore named Sarah Chadwick, who informed the President of the United States, via his favorite medium, in words that quickly went viral, “I don’t want your condolences you ****ing piece of ****, my friends and teachers were shot.” In the hours that followed, others joined Chadwick in rejecting the platitudes. On social media, and on live television, the victims were not playing their parts. They were not asking for privacy in their time of grief. They did not think it was “too soon” to bring up the issue of gun control—in fact, several students would start shouting “gun control” within the very sanctum of the candlelight vigil. What was already becoming clear that night, less than thirty-six hours after the shootings, was that the students were going to shame us, all of us, with so much articulacy and moral righteousness that you willed the news anchors to hang their heads in national solidarity. It was a bad week for a lot of reasons, but at least we had evidence of one incorruptible value: the American teen-ager’s disdain for hypocrisy. Most of the grownups had departed after the vigil. In the hours until the county sheriff’s officers made their rounds in golf carts asking people to leave, the students sat in clusters on the floodlit crabgrass talking, crying, and praying. Many of the students were seeing their friends for the first time since the shooting, and were now telling the stories of what they had seen over and over, still mapping out the chronology of the event. They gathered around crosses placed in the ground or stood in twos and threes in front of the amphitheatre stage, which had been turned into a vast altar decorated with seventeen angels. I introduced myself to three students who were standing in a circle and talking. Rebecca Bogart, a senior with curly brown hair, wore a tie-dyed school T-shirt and running shorts. As she recalled the previous day’s events she leaned against her friend Josef Bagiv, a junior, in moments of agitation. Bogart and the third student, Ashton Boukzam, had been together in a class on the history of the Holocaust when the shooter had begun his attack down the hall. The students had run together with their teacher and several others to hide behind the teacher’s desk, where they hid holding hands. As Nikolas Cruz passed by, spraying bullets through the door, two students, Nicholas Dworet and Helena Ramsay, were killed. “We were all doing our homework, just doing work in the classroom, everything was fine, it was a fun day so far, just Valentine’s Day,” Boukzam, a tall seventeen-year-old who wore several stud earrings, said. “Then we heard shots behind us and everyone didn’t even think it was real.” “Right now I just keep replaying the scenes in my head and just, like . . . ,” Rebecca said. “Seeing Nick and . . . ,” Ashton said, leaving the thought unfinished. Rebecca started to cry. “We could just keep hearing his footsteps walking,” Ashton continued. “You could just hear screaming, us holding hands, on the phone with 911,” Rebecca said. “After he shot up our classroom he just kept going down the line,” Ashton said. “Thank God he didn’t go in many classrooms.” “Thank God.” Edited February 19, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted February 19, 2018 Author Share Posted February 19, 2018 (edited) To me, it should no longer be a party issue.....it's an innocent kids and people getting killed issue and both parties need to sack up and work together to figure this out and at least try to do something to limit this **** from happening. I'm a gun owner, but I'm also a liberal. I have no issues with any of the following happening, and no responsible gun owner should, imo: 1. Full out ban on bump stocks - obvious reasons why 2. Raise the age limit on purchasing all firearms to 21 (or at a minimum for all semi-automatic firearms including rifles). 3. Require all firearms (or at least all semi-automatic firearms in the beginning) to require applying for a license/permit (like they do for hand guns now) 4. Unless in a profession that requires the use of a handgun (law enforcement, private security, etc.) raise the age to purchase handguns and all semi-automatic firearms to say 25 or 26 years old. 5. Make a requirement that all firearms be registered - would have to be going forward. 6. Require all purchases of firearms at gun shows, go through background checks and require permits/licenses (as listed above). 7. Outright ban on all assault rifles - this probably won't happen, but honestly, as a gun owner myself, there is no logical need to own one, except "it's cool" or "they are fun to shoot". None of the above impact second amendment rights, just restrict access and provide some additional barricades to overcome. It is our right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say that right can't have some checks/balances in place to drag out the process. None of the above impact your right to defend your home, but I'm sure some will argue that not being able to purchase a shotgun before 21 years of age, delays protecting one's home if that person decides to live on their own after they graduate high school. But, its only three years longer. Edited February 19, 2018 by Dont Taze Me Bro 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts