Another week, another mass murder

[Niagara Bill]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Leave it to a Canadian to not understand the 2A of our Constitution.  

 

2A is just as relevant (even more so) today than it was nearly 250 years ago.  Educate yourself. 

 

Get oot eh....your logic is frozen.  

Ah Jim you have such logic🤣. The only thing that is irrelevant today is you. 

Squirrel rifles vs AK47??? Unless the hidden message you give is to encourage violence and class warfare based a 250 year old document which never foresaw or could forsee mini nuclear weapons.

Now, go find some road kill.

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

Wrap you mind around the US being worse in gun death rate than Mexico. 

Wow! Chef Jim is right. The founding fathers wanted citizens to kill each other not the British.

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

I don't see the process as the issue. The process has become unusable because of extremists on both sides. The logic that the right to bear arms includes military weapons is extreme. Why not flame throwers, small bombs, the next mini nuclear weapon, etc.

By the way...37 years I spent working and living in both sides of the border. I chose not to remain and live because of the extremes we discuss here.

What?  You clearly don't understand our 'process' at all.  Please go back and fix the problems in your own country. But since you have your nose under our tent, I will give you a hint: In general, we are not supposed to be electing extremists but in the event that we do, and the status quo cannot be bent or altered, then by rule the Constitution remains unchanged.  That's how it is by design. It keeps things from blowing back and forth as the trends of society shift through the years.  It was an ingeniously devised system really.

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

Ah Jim you have such logic🤣. The only thing that is irrelevant today is you. 

Squirrel rifles vs AK47??? Unless the hidden message you give is to encourage violence and class warfare based a 250 year old document which never foresaw

 

Again read 2A and interpret what you think it meant and means.  It's really really short.  

 

So what do you suggest?  I love all the complaints but no solutions. B word, whine, complain and moan.  Let's here your ideas.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by Chef Jim

[aristocrat]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-police-report-2018-gun-incident

 

sitting president's son abusing gun laws is part of the problem. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, aristocrat said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-police-report-2018-gun-incident

 

sitting president's son abusing gun laws is part of the problem. 

What ever happened to the laptop?

[Chef Jim]

48 minutes ago, BillStime said:

What ever happened to the laptop?

 

It's in the closet with Trump's tax return and Russian connection notes.  

[Unforgiven]

[T master]

As in most shootings the person doing the killing must have some type of mental problems . The news is saying as much about the killer and it came from his family when asked if the defense was going to try to make a case that he was mentally incompetent .

 

They said they don't know the details of the case yet to make that determination and they have to wait for the evaluation to come back on th shooter .

 

Any one that kills some one in cold blood has some wires loose some where i would think that any mentally stable person would know that right up front before any evaluation . 

[Niagara Bill]

13 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Again read 2A and interpret what you think it meant and means.  It's really really short.  

 

So what do you suggest?  I love all the complaints but no solutions. B word, whine, complain and moan.  Let's here your ideas.  

Idea #1.

Ban all military style guns for sale. Personal protection does not need assault weapons.

Ban all long guns that are not obvious hunting guns (definition to be determined). And have more than 2 bullets capacity. Rabbits, deer, bear, wolves, Elk, rodents, birds, do not need more than 2 shots.

Increase fines for possession or ownership as said guns.

Place federal sales tax of 500% on purchase of a gun.

Offer retraining for all employees who work in this industry. 

 

Your turn Chef J. (It can include a peppercorn sauce if you wish)

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Idea #1.

Ban all military style guns for sale. Personal protection does not need assault weapons.

Ban all long guns that are not obvious hunting guns (definition to be determined). And have more than 2 bullets capacity. Rabbits, deer, bear, wolves, Elk, rodents, birds, do not need more than 2 shots.

Increase fines for possession or ownership as said guns.

Place federal sales tax of 500% on purchase of a gun.

Offer retraining for all employees who work in this industry. 

 

Your turn Chef J. (It can include a peppercorn sauce if you wish)

Define a military style gun.

 

Define a long hun not used for hunting. I take it you’ve never hunted before. Sounds like you’re also good with animal cruelty. 
 

Increase fines?  What are the fines now for ownership of this guns?

 

500% sales tax?  So you’re for banning all guns?  Is that how you plan to start your ban?  
 

I have no idea what training in what industry and what you plan to achieve by this?

 

I’ve already offered my ideas.  See I’m an idea guy.  Reasonable, achievable ideas.  

[Niagara Bill]

29 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Define a military style gun.

 

Define a long hun not used for hunting. I take it you’ve never hunted before. Sounds like you’re also good with animal cruelty. 
 

Increase fines?  What are the fines now for ownership of this guns?

 

500% sales tax?  So you’re for banning all guns?  Is that how you plan to start your ban?  
 

I have no idea what training in what industry and what you plan to achieve by this?

 

I’ve already offered my ideas.  See I’m an idea guy.  Reasonable, achievable ideas.  

You have no ideas except constitution. That us a true joke.

 

Military guns are obvious. Whether I can define that is not necessary in concept. But easy to say a gun with a primary use to kill multiple people in a short time.

I am not into animal cruelty. You are obviously just an as?! It only takes a short period of time for a skilled hunter to reload. But I am into stopping human cruelty with the killing of people and multiple people with the use of non essential guns.

Ok 400% tax. Slow down the purchase of guns. There are enough guns on the market now.

Training for people who work in the gun industry to assist us them transferring to new employment. There are 1000s who would be put out of work producing and selling people killing weapons.

Do something useful Chef and add the peppercorn sauce. At this point it appears you Chef skills are only producing Big Macs.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You have no ideas except constitution. That us a true joke.

 

Military guns are obvious. Whether I can define that is not necessary in concept. But easy to say a gun with a primary use to kill multiple people in a short time.

I am not into animal cruelty. You are obviously just an as?! It only takes a short period of time for a skilled hunter to reload. But I am into stopping human cruelty with the killing of people and multiple people with the use of non essential guns.

Ok 400% tax. Slow down the purchase of guns. There are enough guns on the market now.

Training for people who work in the gun industry to assist us them transferring to new employment. There are 1000s who would be put out of work producing and selling people killing weapons.

Do something useful Chef and add the peppercorn sauce. At this point it appears you Chef skills are only producing Big Macs.

 

 

I've got a question to both sides which is slightly off topic but still relevant to the gun control debate.  If ownership of these weapons is made illegal should police, public and private security forces that protect rich people, officials, and politicians also be banned from owning and using them?  After all, why would police and private security need to be militarized like SWAT teams similar to a Navy Seal team on a covert mission if nobody has these weapons on the streets?  Why should they receive an exemption?  Why should I as a private citizen be subject to living in an environment where domestic law enforcement and security are armed like the military?  Like some occupation force.  After all, they are people and they may be more than capable of shooting a lot of people for one reason or another.  If expectations in the politicial sphere is the ban works then there is no reason for these organizations to be armed for urban warfare.

 

If the answer is "no" because criminals being criminals don't follow the law and they will still have access to these weapons to do harm then there's not much benefit in passing any new law other than to pursue an objective of systematically disarming private citizens.  

Edited March 26, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Niagara Bill]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I've got a question to both sides which is slightly off topic but still relevant to the gun control debate.  If ownership of these weapons is made illegal should police, public and private security forces that protect rich people, officials, and politicians also be banned from owning and using them?  After all, why would police and private security need to be militarized like SWAT teams similar to a Navy Seal team on a covert mission if nobody has these weapons on the streets?  Why should they receive an exemption?  Why should I as a private citizen be subject to living in an environment where domestic law enforcement and security are armed like the military?  Like some occupation force.  After all, they are people and they may be more than capable of shooting a lot of people for one reason or another.  If expectations in the politicial sphere is the ban works then there is no reason for these organizations to be armed for urban warfare.

 

If the answer is "no" because criminals being criminals don't follow the law and they will still have access to these weapons to do harm then there's not much benefit in passing any new law other than to pursue an objective of systematically disarming private citizens.  

You have valid thoughts. The demilitarizing of police must occur. Today police forces have become military forces both in defending and assault. They do not protect citizens. They often do not de-escalated. Imagine we now have police forces with tanks. Ridiculous. 

Control of high powered weapons can only be a step in reducing violence in society, allow pleasure for hunting, targets etc, and control of gangs and criminal access. 

A ban is impossible and illogical. The constitution allows it, honor that, protect citizens.

[B-Man]

 

 

Father of Murdered Boulder Police Officer Lashes Out at Liberal Media for Using his Son’s Death to Promote Gun Control

 

https://www.tmz.com/2021/03/25/boulder-colorado-officer-eric-talley-killed-gunman-ar-15-owner/

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

You have no ideas except constitution. That us a true joke.

 

 

 

Only having the constitution is like arguing who was the best player in college when LJ won the Heisman and "only" having his insane stats. Your entire argument is predicated on the constitution being wrong and intentionally being naive of the reasons for the 2nd amendment. The guns are meant as a last line of defense against invaders, as well as self defense, as well as hunting

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

You have no ideas except constitution. That us a true joke.

 

Military guns are obvious. Whether I can define that is not necessary in concept. But easy to say a gun with a primary use to kill multiple people in a short time.

I am not into animal cruelty. You are obviously just an as?! It only takes a short period of time for a skilled hunter to reload. But I am into stopping human cruelty with the killing of people and multiple people with the use of non essential guns.

Ok 400% tax. Slow down the purchase of guns. There are enough guns on the market now.

Training for people who work in the gun industry to assist us them transferring to new employment. There are 1000s who would be put out of work producing and selling people killing weapons.

Do something useful Chef and add the peppercorn sauce. At this point it appears you Chef skills are only producing Big Macs.

 

 

 

Obviously you've not read my posts with my ideas.  Do your homework before you throw out accusations.  

 

Military guns are NOT obvious.  Your primary use to kills multiple people in a short period of time is someone else's ability to kill game or have a fun day on the range.  So military weapons are those designed only to kill multiple people. What does this mean?  Wouldn't any firearm in the hands of a skilled person allow them to kill multiple people?  Absolutely. 

 

Even if a "skilled hunter" can reload fast a wounded animal can get way and suffer.  How cruel you are. So you're cool with the killing of people and multiple people with "essential" guns.  Do you even think about what you're saying. 

 

So if someone such as my wife and I fear for our safety and we would like a handgun to protect ourselves but your asinine 400% tax makes it prohibitive financially what do we do?  You do realize you're plan of asinine taxation opens up the black market?  Again do you even think before you type. 

 

Ahhhh forcing thousands out of work in a career they may absolutely LOVE because of scary guns?  

 

You focus almost all of your attention on the weapons and very little on the issue at hand.   The minds attached to the fingers that pull the triggers on these mass shooting.  

 

And when you've have nothing left you make fun of someone's name.  Weak. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

You have valid thoughts. The demilitarizing of police must occur. Today police forces have become military forces both in defending and assault. They do not protect citizens. They often do not de-escalated. Imagine we now have police forces with tanks. Ridiculous. 

Control of high powered weapons can only be a step in reducing violence in society, allow pleasure for hunting, targets etc, and control of gangs and criminal access. 

A ban is impossible and illogical. The constitution allows it, honor that, protect citizens.

 

How do you plan to control gangs and criminal access?

[Niagara Bill]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How do you plan to control gangs and criminal access?

Don't produce them in the first place.

Destroy what you can.

Obviously there are huge issues, but producing more and more powerful weapons does nothing except increase slaughter of innocent citizens. 

[Chef Jim]

2 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Don't produce them in the first place.

Destroy what you can.

Obviously there are huge issues, but producing more and more powerful weapons does nothing except increase slaughter of innocent citizens. 

 

Don't produce them?  What on earth does this mean?  I assume your response was not a reply to my gangs question.  

 

Getting rid of scary weapons will NOT solve this problem.  But for poops and laughs let say you stop producing and destroy all the scary weapons out there and mass murders still happen.  Then what?  Because I'm here to tell ya getting rid of the scary weapons will not solve this.  

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Obviously you've not read my posts with my ideas.  Do your homework before you throw out accusations.  

 

Military guns are NOT obvious.  Your primary use to kills multiple people in a short period of time is someone else's ability to kill game or have a fun day on the range.  So military weapons are those designed only to kill multiple people. What does this mean?  Wouldn't any firearm in the hands of a skilled person allow them to kill multiple people?  Absolutely. 

 

Even if a "skilled hunter" can reload fast a wounded animal can get way and suffer.  How cruel you are. So you're cool with the killing of people and multiple people with "essential" guns.  Do you even think about what you're saying. 

 

So if someone such as my wife and I fear for our safety and we would like a handgun to protect ourselves but your asinine 400% tax makes it prohibitive financially what do we do?  You do realize you're plan of asinine taxation opens up the black market?  Again do you even think before you type. 

 

Ahhhh forcing thousands out of work in a career they may absolutely LOVE because of scary guns?  

 

You focus almost all of your attention on the weapons and very little on the issue at hand.   The minds attached to the fingers that pull the triggers on these mass shooting.  

 

And when you've have nothing left you make fun of someone's name.  Weak. 

You can afford the handgun with tax if necessary. 

Yes, job change us necessary. Many people liked training horses, building buggy whips, building gas engines for cars, steam engines fir trains etc etc. 

 

Finding and controlling every person with the desire to kill is impossible. History is proof. What should we do with them, institutionalize? You already have the most people in the world imprisoned. 

So to hunt you need a magazine with 15/50/100/200 shots?.

I am not making fun of your name. If you think I am I apologize.

5 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Don't produce them?  What on earth does this mean?  I assume your response was not a reply to my gangs question.  

 

Getting rid of scary weapons will NOT solve this problem.  But for poops and laughs let say you stop producing and destroy all the scary weapons out there and mass murders still happen.  Then what?  Because I'm here to tell ya getting rid of the scary weapons will not solve this.  

 

 

Guns my good man. Guns. Don't produce them....