LA Grant Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Most violent crime is intraracial. Nobody disputes this. Your non sequiturs are getting more and more desperate though. It's kind of adorable. What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Cugalabanza said: I don't have to tell you anything. I'm not supporting anything here or taking a stand one way or another. I was making fun of the kids. You realize of course that in the movie Village of the Damned, the kids are evil and have a supernatural power to make people do things against their will and eventually have to be destroyed to prevent them from taking over the world. It's a joke, you !@#$ing dolt. Pick a side weak minded twit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 15 minutes ago, LA Grant said: What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence? If I were to stretch a bit, I'd say it's because certain inner cities are absolute warzones despite very tight gun restrictions and most victims of inner city violence are black. Really it's a political ploy to attempt to paint leftists/Democrats as uncaring about black people. And if I'm honest, I don't hear that "black-on-black violence" line so much (read: at all) in the conversations about gun restrictions as I do in the conversations about police shootings, so I think you're off base with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 22 minutes ago, LA Grant said: What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence? Why is suicide never discussed? You could reduce gun violence by two-thirds by improving suicide prevention programs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) rarely has someone walked into an inner city school and opened fire as a random act of violence that person might not make it 10 seconds into the attack. Edited March 30, 2018 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Why is suicide never discussed? You could reduce gun violence by two-thirds by improving suicide prevention programs. Sounds good. How do you want to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 An Asshat tax. You will keep the program afloat for decades. ****** whaaa? Media Matters (David Brock - if you don't know him, look him up) and Hogg are partners? Who would have thought? http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/03/30/david-hogg-laura-ingraham-media-matters-boycott/ oh, right, EVERYBODY. ****** whaaa? Media Matters (David Brock - if you don't know him, look him up) and Hogg are partners? Who would have thought? http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/03/30/david-hogg-laura-ingraham-media-matters-boycott/ oh, right, EVERYBODY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 hour ago, LA Grant said: What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence? Because percentage wise it is much higher in the black communities. You knew that though, and think that you can stir the pot and get people here to go down the rabbit hole of your choosing. Dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 hour ago, LA Grant said: Sounds good. How do you want to pay for it? With the same magic fairy dust you want to fund mass gun confiscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Cliven Bundy and friends held off the federal government from confiscating his cattle until he won his case in court. Without the 2nd Amendment he would not have been able to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 26 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Cliven Bundy and friends held off the federal government from confiscating his cattle until he won his case in court. Without the 2nd Amendment he would not have been able to do that. Of course, Bundy is an idiot, !@#$, and criminal who's been violating federal law for a couple decades. And has lost every case on the subject that's been heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence? I'll just go ahead and wait for you to tell me whatever you're going to insist my position is, so we can just jump straight to the "Grant's strawman" portion of the discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: Of course, Bundy is an idiot, !@#$, and criminal who's been violating federal law for a couple decades. And has lost every case on the subject that's been heard. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundy-case-judge-dismisses-standoff-las-vegas/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundy-case-judge-dismisses-standoff-las-vegas/ Those aren't the cases Tom was talking about. Bundy is butthurt because he has been illegslly grazing in fed land. Lost every court case about it. When feds trying to seize his herd ordered to be removed... He and his posse threatened agrression. All of this manifested to what happened in the standoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Those aren't the cases Tom was talking about. Bundy is butthurt because he has been illegslly grazing in fed land. Lost every court case about it. When feds trying to seize his herd ordered to be removed... He and his posse threatened agrression. All of this manifested to what happened in the standoff I can't read his mind, but this case Bundy won contrary to what Tom claimed. Regardless, my point had to do with the armed standoff and 2nd Amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 24 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cliven-bundy-case-judge-dismisses-standoff-las-vegas/ 1) Different case, 2) he didn't win that in court, it was tossed out on technical grounds (and justifiedly so) with leave to retry. The original case has been going on for some 30 years, concerning grazing rights. He hasn't won jack **** in that case - his claims have been shot down in every single court they've been heard. The only case he "won" (in fact, simply didn't lose because the prosecutors were criminally malfeasant) had nothing to do with his cattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Obviously, more guns! Don't you know... California is at war. We need a well regulated militia so the gov't can't come into our Sacramento backyards and shoot us in the back. Maybe if the people were armed, they'd have a fighting chance against the gov't... ...At least shoot back at the invading gov't enforcement officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 If having no clue what you're whining about doesn't get you what you want, you can always change the definition: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle-parkland-shooting/ This is coming close to the NY definition of an 'assault weapon': anything that looks scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Koko78 said: If having no clue what you're whining about doesn't get you what you want, you can always change the definition: http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle-parkland-shooting/ This is coming close to the NY definition of an 'assault weapon': anything that looks scary. This is a very important post. Thank you, Koko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts