Shooting in Southern California Bar

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

Not nearly enough... The screening process of obtaining a firearm needs to be more stringent...

 

This is what happens when you come at a discussion from a place of emotion, rather than logic. You say stupid stuff like this. 

 

Where this tragedy happened, Thousand Oaks, has some of the most stringent firearm laws in the country and it did nothing to prevent this slaughter. 

 

Because laws do not prevent crime or deter evil. 

 

What you're proposing is not a solution designed to stop the problem, it's designed to make YOU feel better about it. 

 

[#34fan]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

If we're just going to eliminate Constitutional rights, why not remove the right for peaceful assembly? Can't have a mass shooting if people aren't allowed to congregate.

 

 

You used the "E" word, I didn't.... -Nor would I.... We need modern-day legislation, and stringent policies to keep guns out of deranged people's hands.

 

Anyone who isn't for that, at this point, might be deranged as well.

[Rob's House]

3 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

Not nearly enough... The screening process of obtaining a firearm needs to be more stringent...

 

 

Yah, some hero-shmuck that'll wind up shooting a pregnant woman and a kid.

Do you have any common sense gun control measures you can think of that would have prevented this?

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

 

You used the "E" word, I didn't.... -Nor would I.... We need modern-day legislation, and stringent policies to keep guns out of deranged people's hands.

 

Anyone who isn't for that, at this point, might be deranged as well.

 

Oh, ok then.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Rob's House said:

Do you have any common sense gun control measures you can think of that would have prevented this?

 

Of course he doesn't. 

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 What you're proposing is not a solution designed to stop the problem, it's designed to make YOU feel better about it. 

 

 

Bingo.

[#34fan]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

This is what happens when you come at a discussion from a place of emotion, rather than logic. You say stupid stuff like this. 

 

Where this tragedy happened, Thousand Oaks, has some of the most stringent firearm laws in the country and it did nothing to prevent this slaughter. 

 

Because laws do not prevent crime or deter evil. 

 

What you're proposing is not a solution designed to stop the problem, it's designed to make YOU feel better about it. 

 

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by #34fan

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that people who use guns to murder others give a flying ***** about federal regulations? Does it not occur to you that they don't even care about laws like murder that carry life in prison, if not execution?

 

This overly-emotional dipschiffery is what everyone is ragging on you about. All your proposals do is inconvenience the people who actually follow the law. They do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the determined.

[Rob's House]

5 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

 

Do you have any federal guidelines in mind that would have prevented this?

[Koko78]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Do you have any federal guidelines in mind that would have prevented this?

 

Maybe all applicants should be screened by Pre-Crime.

[DC Tom]

32 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

 

 

Outline your policy.  Go ahead.

[boyst]

36 minutes ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

 

 

Your attempt at trying to explain this will be amazing.

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

Not nearly enough... The screening process of obtaining a firearm needs to be more stringent...

 

 

Yah, some hero-shmuck that'll wind up shooting a pregnant woman and a kid.

 

Do you own a firearm?  

 

So you’d rather some crazy ***** just go from one innocent person to another putting bullets in their heads unchallenged?  Not me. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm not talking about state and Local... I'm talking about Federal guidelines that must be met before someone can legally own a firearm.... As well as more

 

stringent guidelines for sellers to follow. Enough carnage!  Retardation, is chalking up these dead kids to the price of freedom.

 

 

"I'm not talking about gun laws! I'm talking about gun laws!"

 

That's the kind of stupid arguments you make when you're letting your emotions override your reason and logic.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

Thanks Mr Spock, but college kids being blown away on the whim of a lunatic is plenty reason to be emotional.

 

But go on justifying senseless carnage with ancient legislation.

 

Over the long arch of human history, freedom is in it's infancy, and it was the use of force-multipliers by the general population against their oppressors which made it possible.

 

The world is not free of tyrants, and even in recent history the first acts of oppressors includes removing the population's ability to resist.

 

Human freedom is far too precious, and far to fragile, to sacrifice simply because a handful, or hundreds, or even thousands of innocents die in order that it stay alive.

 

We cannot prevent tragedy, but we can try to prevent tyranny.

 

And that begins with refusing to budge an inch on private gun ownership; regardless of how many emotional appeals you make that men should be slaves.

Edited November 12, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Kevbeau]

2 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

The principle of gun ownership on-demand is outdated... Common-sense legislation to protect the public from homicidal maniacs is WAY overdue.

 

The government closely regulates who can obtain, use, or possess any number of drugs, chemicals, and naturally-occurring compounds. -Why not the same with

 

firearms?  

How’s that drug thing working out?

[Chef Jim]

8 minutes ago, Kevbeau said:

How’s that drug thing working out?

 

Or any of the other things he mentioned. 

[#34fan]

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Over the long arch of human history, freedom is in it's infancy, and it was the use of force-multipliers by the general population against their oppressors which made it possible.

 

The world is not free of tyrants, and even in recent history the first acts of oppressors includes removing the population's ability to resist.

 

Human freedom is far too precious, and far to fragile, to sacrifice simply because a handful, or hundreds, or even thousands of innocents die in order that it stay alive.

 

We cannot prevent tragedy, but we can try to prevent tyranny.

 

And that begins with refusing to budge an inch on private gun ownership; regardless of how many emotional appeals you make that men should be slaves.

 

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about????

 

Are you one of these wacky guys that think your puny small firearms can do anything whatsoever against the US military machine, should it decide to back

 

a tyrannical, totalitarian government?...  Dude... They've got sh_t that can thin-slice your entire family from 5 miles away!... You and the other hicks gathered to defend

 

your freedoms would never, -NEVER even know what hit you.... To quote the Rhino:

 

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

What you're proposing is not a solution designed to stop the problem, it's designed to make YOU feel better about it. 

 

That's exactly what this misguided fervor for the 2nd amendment is.... Because you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing in the unlikely event of military Tyranny.

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about????

 

Are you one of these wacky guys that think your puny small firearms can do anything whatsoever against the US military machine, should it decide to back

 

a tyrannical, totalitarian government?...  Dude... They've got sh_t that can thin-slice your entire family from 5 miles away!... You and the other hicks gathered to defend

 

your freedoms would never, -NEVER even know what hit you.... To quote the Rhino:

 

 

That's exactly what this misguided fervor for the 2nd amendment is.... Because you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing in the unlikely event of military Tyranny.

 

And I would ask you WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe that if a tyrannical dictator ever took control that our entire military would back them and take up arms against their families and communities? Private gun ownership isn't meant to turn back the might of Washington, it's meant to allow private citizens to protect their families and property.

 

You're not characterizing TYTT's argument correctly. Rethink it and try again, this time with less emotion and more thought.

Edited November 12, 2018 by Azalin

[sabrecrazed]

6 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

And I would ask you WTF are you talking about? Do you really believe that if a tyrannical dictator ever took control that our entire military would back them and take up arms against their families and communities? Private gun ownership isn't meant to turn back the might of Washington, it's meant to allow private citizens to protect their families and property.

 

You're not characterizing TYTT's argument correctly. Rethink it and try again, this time with less emotion and more thought.

Yes it is...that's exactly what it is.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about????

 

Are you one of these wacky guys that think your puny small firearms can do anything whatsoever against the US military machine, should it decide to back

 

a tyrannical, totalitarian government?...  Dude... They've got sh_t that can thin-slice your entire family from 5 miles away!... You and the other hicks gathered to defend

 

your freedoms would never, -NEVER even know what hit you.... To quote the Rhino:

 

 

That's exactly what this misguided fervor for the 2nd amendment is.... Because you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing in the unlikely event of military Tyranny.

 

Tyranny does not only come at the hands of the federal government and its army. 

 

Again, things you'd understand if you realized the history in discussion here. The second amendment guarantees the rest of them for the individual. 

[Azalin]

9 hours ago, sabrecrazed said:

Yes it is...that's exactly what it is.

 

Fair enough. My response was badly stated. It should have said private gun ownership isn't meant for one man to turn back the might of Washington.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

Fair enough. My response was badly stated. It should have said private gun ownership isn't meant for one man to turn back the might of Washington.

 

This is exactly correct.

 

11 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about????

 

Are you one of these wacky guys that think your puny small firearms can do anything whatsoever against the US military machine, should it decide to back

 

a tyrannical, totalitarian government?...  Dude... They've got sh_t that can thin-slice your entire family from 5 miles away!... You and the other hicks gathered to defend

 

your freedoms would never, -NEVER even know what hit you.... To quote the Rhino:

 

Are you familiar with Iraq and Afghanistan?  How about Vietnam and Korea?

 

The truth is that currently, in the modern military age, such resistances can, do, and are holding off the might of the United States military.

 

In this argument I have every aspect of both history and the present working for me, and against you.

[3rdnlng]

Even Emperor Hirohito was afraid to invade the U.S. because there was a "gun behind every blade of grass".

 

We're not worried about tanks & F-35's but City Councils & Boards of Supervisors.

[Kevbeau]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

We're not worried about tanks & F-35's but City Councils & Boards of Supervisors.

Don’t forget HOAs. 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, Kevbeau said:

Don’t forget HOAs. 

 

And Antifa.

[Alaska Darin]

18 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

The principle of gun ownership on-demand is outdated... Common-sense legislation to protect the public from homicidal maniacs is WAY overdue.

 

The government closely regulates who can obtain, use, or possess any number of drugs, chemicals, and naturally-occurring compounds. -Why not the same with

 

firearms?  

Good thing no one can get those things and there's no violence/black market issues.

[Kevbeau]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

And Antifa.

Might be the same thing based on my past experience 

[Alaska Darin]

14 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about????

 

Are you one of these wacky guys that think your puny small firearms can do anything whatsoever against the US military machine, should it decide to back

 

a tyrannical, totalitarian government?...  Dude... They've got sh_t that can thin-slice your entire family from 5 miles away!... You and the other hicks gathered to defend

 

your freedoms would never, -NEVER even know what hit you.... To quote the Rhino:

 

 

That's exactly what this misguided fervor for the 2nd amendment is.... Because you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing in the unlikely event of military Tyranny.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

[Teddy KGB]

46 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

 

He’s not crying about Nazi’s anymore.     It’s a start.  

[sabrecrazed]

13 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Fair enough. My response was badly stated. It should have said private gun ownership isn't meant for one man to turn back the might of Washington.

Agree

[#34fan]

14 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

He’s not crying about Nazi’s anymore.     It’s a start.  

 

STHU, you Nazi Pr__k!

 

15 hours ago, Alaska Darin said:

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Say the 'tards who want to hold off the four Branches of the U.S. military with handguns.

 

18 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Are you familiar with Iraq and Afghanistan?  How about Vietnam and Korea?

 

The truth is that currently, in the modern military age, such resistances can, do, and are holding off the might of the United States military.

 

In this argument I have every aspect of both history and the present working for me, and against you.

 

So, civilians with handguns held off the U.S. military in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan?! -Oh, Ok ...

 

You have literally lost your f___ing mind this time, Tasky.... 

 

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:53 PM, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Tyranny does not only come at the hands of the federal government and its army. 

 

True.. It also comes from jagoffs who value their right to play soldier over everyone's right to live without fear of random carnage.

 

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:19 PM, Azalin said:

 

Do you really believe that if a tyrannical dictator ever took control that our entire military would back them and take up arms against their families and communities?

 

Yup.

 

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 8:19 PM, Azalin said:

 

 Private gun ownership isn't meant to turn back the might of Washington, it's meant to allow private citizens to protect their families and property.

 

You're not characterizing TYTT's argument correctly.

 

it's right there in his post! -TYTT sees private gun ownership as a potential means of resisting Tyranny:

 

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 4:26 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

The world is not free of tyrants, and even in recent history the first acts of oppressors includes removing the population's ability to resist.

 

 

 

[BeginnersMind]

On 11/11/2018 at 11:19 PM, Azalin said:

 

Private gun ownership isn't meant to turn back the might of Washington, it's meant to allow private citizens to protect their families and property.

 

 

 

That is a clear and cogent argument in support of a living and evolving Constitution if I ever heard one. Here I had you pegged as a conservative originalist. 

 

This issue doesnt move me much. If we allow guns, sad and lonely people will kill innocents. Good guys with guns won’t stop it except in 2 headline stories a year. And that’s the price of the freedom to own. 

Edited November 13, 2018 by BeginnersMind

[Azalin]

2 hours ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

That is a clear and cogent argument in support of a living and evolving Constitution if I ever heard one. Here I had you pegged as a conservative originalist. 

 

This issue doesnt move me much. If we allow guns, sad and lonely people will kill innocents. Good guys with guns won’t stop it except in 2 headline stories a year. And that’s the price of the freedom to own. 

 

You appear to have missed where I corrected myself:

 

22 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Fair enough. My response was badly stated. It should have said private gun ownership isn't meant for one man to turn back the might of Washington.

 

Or are you just being obtuse?

[boyst]

3 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

STHU, you Nazi Pr__k!

 

 

Say the 'tards who want to hold off the four Branches of the U.S. military with handguns.

 

 

So, civilians with handguns held off the U.S. military in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan?! -Oh, Ok ...

 

You have literally lost your f___ing mind this time, Tasky.... 

 

 

True.. It also comes from jagoffs who value their right to play soldier over everyone's right to live without fear of random carnage.

 

 

Yup.

 

 

it's right there in his post! -TYTT sees private gun ownership as a potential means of resisting Tyranny:

 

 

 

 

 

[BeginnersMind]

15 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You appear to have missed where I corrected myself:

 

 

Or are you just being obtuse?

 

I don't hang on your every word and no, I did not see your correction. Simply pointing it that you made an error is all you had to do. 

 

Moving on from that, "protect my family" is a much more frequent and supportable justification for people having a handgun than anything to do with tyranny and a well-regulated militia.

[KRC]

If only we had laws that made murder illegal, this never would have happened. Common sense, people!!

[Azalin]

48 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

I don't hang on your every word and no, I did not see your correction. Simply pointing it that you made an error is all you had to do. 

 

Moving on from that, "protect my family" is a much more frequent and supportable justification for people having a handgun than anything to do with tyranny and a well-regulated militia.

 

Hang on my every word?! My correction was literally only three posts below what you quoted, very easy to spot if you're actually participating in the conversation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said:

Moving on from that, "protect my family" is a much more frequent and supportable justification for people having a handgun than anything to do with tyranny and a well-regulated militia.

 

It's certainly not more supportable, unless you don't support the Constitution.

[Rob's House]