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 Tim]

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....

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

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

Ok, let me ask you. Did Franklin produce nuclear weapons or fly a kite to find electricity.

Did Franklin conceive anything like weapons of today? And the USA is being invaded by us Canadians again. The day of protecting property against invasion is over. Called nuclear bombs. No more danger from Indian uprising when out skinning their buffaloes. Seriously. 2021. AK Not needed for covid 19.

 

[Chef Jim]

22 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

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.

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

 

Who can afford a gun with a proposed 400% tax?  All of a sudden a $400 Glock costs $2,000.  Do you seriously think that's reasonable??

 

So are you eliminating the firearm production industry?  Are you suggesting we no longer produce weapons?  You do understand one of the most popular handguns in the us (Glock) is produced in Austria??  Again are you thinking about your suggestions?  

No we don't institutionalize them.  We make it more difficult for them to obtain weapons and ammo.  I've already outlined this in previous posts. 

 

What's a good magazine limit and why? 

 

And you're not making fun of my name you're making fun of my previous profession that I'm very proud of.  I don't give a ***** it just shows your lack of debating skills.  Can't win the argument you go with personal attack. 

[Chef Jim]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

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

 

Actually 2A was not designed to protect us from invaders.  It's to protect the people from the government.  Keep in mind what the Founders were creating and why they were creating it.  It was from tyrannical British rule. 

37 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Ok, let me ask you. Did Franklin produce nuclear weapons or fly a kite to find electricity.

Did Franklin conceive anything like weapons of today? And the USA is being invaded by us Canadians again. The day of protecting property against invasion is over. Called nuclear bombs. No more danger from Indian uprising when out skinning their buffaloes. Seriously. 2021. AK Not needed for covid 19.

 

 

Learn the purpose of 2A.  THEN read your post above again and see if it really makes sense.  

 

Here...maybe this will help.  

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Actually 2A was not designed to protect us from invaders.  It's to protect the people from the government.  Keep in mind what the Founders were creating and why they were creating it.  It was from tyrannical British rule. 

 

Learn the purpose of 2A.  THEN read your post above again and see if it really makes sense.  

 

Here...maybe this will help.  

 

 

If you think mass killing of citizens is a joke...thats on you.

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Who can afford a gun with a proposed 400% tax?  All of a sudden a $400 Glock costs $2,000.  Do you seriously think that's reasonable??

 

So are you eliminating the firearm production industry?  Are you suggesting we no longer produce weapons?  You do understand one of the most popular handguns in the us (Glock) is produced in Austria??  Again are you thinking about your suggestions?  

No we don't institutionalize them.  We make it more difficult for them to obtain weapons and ammo.  I've already outlined this in previous posts. 

 

What's a good magazine limit and why? 

 

And you're not making fun of my name you're making fun of my previous profession that I'm very proud of.  I don't give a ***** it just shows your lack of debating skills.  Can't win the argument you go with personal attack. 

🙃

Not arguing with you...just saying producers must be controlled and you can stop imports when you want. That is a dumb statement.

Ps I would not insult a chef, but your skin is very thin.

Congress has tried to make it more difficult and failed....outright.

[Chef Jim]

14 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

If you think mass killing of citizens is a joke...thats on you.

🙃

Not arguing with you...just saying producers must be controlled and you can stop imports when you want. That is a dumb statement.

Ps I would not insult a chef, but your skin is very thin.

Congress has tried to make it more difficult and failed....outright.

 

You're conflating 2A with mass murder when they have zero to do with each other.  Not sure where you come up with the idea that I think mass killing is a joke.  

 

So you're all for creating a HUGE black market for weapons??  Do you really think that's a good idea??

 

What ideas do you have (other than ceasing production and import of weapons) for reducing the number of available weapons available here in the US?

[Niagara Bill]

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

You're conflating 2A with mass murder when they have zero to do with each other.  Not sure where you come up with the idea that I think mass killing is a joke.  

 

So you're all for creating a HUGE black market for weapons??  Do you really think that's a good idea??

 

What ideas do you have (other than ceasing production and import of weapons) for reducing the number of available weapons available here in the US?

Ok then Chef...let's continue on this path. More death, rich gun producers, let's make gun ownership mandatory and cheap, put one or two in every house, apartment, condo, small business, let school teachers wear sidearms, let all university student carry guns into class, let every factory worker bring one to the job, how about mailman. You cannot restrict me from carrying gun to school or work if they are so available. That to me is the alternative. I am not being flippant, but if stopping production and availability of weapons of war us not possible then the alternative must be acceptable. Being partially into accepting a culture of guns is impossible.IMHO. Gang members need the right to be killed on their street vifnrr as much as anyone.

So tonight it is steak and peppercorn sauce (not kidding). Bbq is hot gotta go for now.

[Orlando Tim]

6 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Ok, let me ask you. Did Franklin produce nuclear weapons or fly a kite to find electricity.

Did Franklin conceive anything like weapons of today? And the USA is being invaded by us Canadians again. The day of protecting property against invasion is over. Called nuclear bombs. No more danger from Indian uprising when out skinning their buffaloes. Seriously. 2021. AK Not needed for covid 19.

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin quote from 1759. Please stop mentioning men who think you are stupid.

[Niagara Bill]

9 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Franklin quote from 1759. Please stop mentioning men who think you are stupid.

Stupidity is thinking that a man 250 years ago could think that an AK 47 would be necessary for personal safety and be used against fellow peaceful citizens.

Stupidity is thinking assault rifles and 100 rounds is required to hunt a 160 lb. deer when a bow was used in Franklin's day. Davey Crocket would be appalled.

Stupidity is defending the indefensible.  The safety and death of 10 citizens in Boulder this week is not temporary, nor do they have liberty. But the people who made the gun got rich, the guy who sold the gun is having his long neck tonight before dancing to Boot Scootin boogie.  So 2 have liberty. 10 have death, the funeral guys are happy. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

How do you plan to control gangs and criminal access?

@Niagara Bill suggests a tax of a 1000% on gang dues, plus restricting access to criminality.  

 

Chef Jim, you’re on the clock. 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@Niagara Bill suggests a tax of a 1000% on gang dues, plus restricting access to criminality.  

 

Chef Jim, you’re on the clock. 

 

For gangs I suggest sensitivity training and assigning a social justice "coach" to each gang.  Holding anger management sessions where they can discuss their feelings and maybe even hug each other and cry together.   

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

Stupidity is thinking that a man 250 years ago could think that an AK 47 would be necessary for personal safety and be used against fellow peaceful citizens.

Stupidity is thinking assault rifles and 100 rounds is required to hunt a 160 lb. deer when a bow was used in Franklin's day. Davey Crocket would be appalled.

Stupidity is defending the indefensible.  The safety and death of 10 citizens in Boulder this week is not temporary, nor do they have liberty. But the people who made the gun got rich, the guy who sold the gun is having his long neck tonight before dancing to Boot Scootin boogie.  So 2 have liberty. 10 have death, the funeral guys are happy. 

So, I’m not a gun owner but I know many individuals that are.  I know of one owner of an AR 15, he uses it for sport shooting out on land designed for that sort of thing.  Just to be clear, I think he and his friends go out to privately owned land, set up &$*# and shoot the heck out of it.  Anyway...

 

Personally, I have no desire to own something like that for a variety of reasons, foremost in my thoughts is the high likelihood that I would inadvertently discharge the weapon and lose a foot or leg.  That said, when it comes to protecting those around me, I often wonder if I’m on the wrong side of gun ownership.  This is a scene from Rochester  this summer:

 

During the same time frame, there were videos of people climbing on the roof of a house, and just recently, there were citizens being targeted and confined to a Wegman’s store in Rochester as well:

 

https://13wham.com/news/local/after-protest-at-east-ave-store-wegmans-leaders-acknowledge-pain-in-community

and...

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/black-lives-matter-protesters-ny-trapped-estimated-100-customers-inside-grocery-store

 

The two linked articles show divergent views on the issue.  One includes a statement from Wegmen’s acknowledging pain and throws a little commercial in there about their diversity and inclusion (but nothing about the shoppers confined to the store), the other the actual event. 
 

My question, rhetorical at this point, is where does the line cross with the very uneasy reliance on diners, homeowners and shoppers at a frigging grocery store that the assembled masses are ‘simply protesting’ v when one needs to realize that their life is in danger and personal protective measures must be taken?  
 

See, common sense and more than a passing acknowledgement of the rules of civilized society tells us that when 400 people surround you, scream in your face, knock plates, shatter windows and throw chairs all around that you are in jeopardy.  The r*tarded white kid in the first video beseeching his fellow protestors not to riot and throw chairs at people  notwithstanding, that’s a dangerous situation.    When people assemble in the roof of your home while others rage outside in the driveway, you’re asked to take a gigantic leap of faith that no one is going to breech the home and not do you harm.  Finally, when an assembled mass of folks herds you back into a building and blocks all the exits, one might reasonably assume they have nefarious intent. 

 

My point as a non-gun-owning-reasonable-regulation-supporting-tax-paying-citizen-who-understands-the-police-likely-respond-after-the-carnage-begins is that you’re asking an awful lot of people to sacrifice their right to defend themselves in light of these types of events.  Put another way, when people are outside my house screaming about transgressions and climbing up to access my bedroom windows, I’m thinking firearms and some ammo makes the most sense—and it has nothing to do with the television they might walk off with. 
 

 

 

 

 

[Chef Jim]

15 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Ok then Chef...let's continue on this path. More death, rich gun producers, let's make gun ownership mandatory and cheap, put one or two in every house, apartment, condo, small business, let school teachers wear sidearms, let all university student carry guns into class, let every factory worker bring one to the job, how about mailman. You cannot restrict me from carrying gun to school or work if they are so available. That to me is the alternative. I am not being flippant, but if stopping production and availability of weapons of war us not possible then the alternative must be acceptable. Being partially into accepting a culture of guns is impossible.IMHO. Gang members need the right to be killed on their street vifnrr as much as anyone.

So tonight it is steak and peppercorn sauce (not kidding). Bbq is hot gotta go for now.

 

Of course you're not being flippant.  You're being an ass.  We're done here.  

[B-Man]

 

 

Two more episodes.........doesn't seem to be national news as such.....................I wonder why ? 🤔

 

 

 

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Of course you're not being flippant.  You're being an ass.  We're done here.  

Thank Goodness. Get your defence built around your house and family. Make sure you can defend against the invasion.

 

Ps the peppercorn sauce was great.

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

So, I’m not a gun owner but I know many individuals that are.  I know of one owner of an AR 15, he uses it for sport shooting out on land designed for that sort of thing.  Just to be clear, I think he and his friends go out to privately owned land, set up &$*# and shoot the heck out of it.  Anyway...

 

Personally, I have no desire to own something like that for a variety of reasons, foremost in my thoughts is the high likelihood that I would inadvertently discharge the weapon and lose a foot or leg.  That said, when it comes to protecting those around me, I often wonder if I’m on the wrong side of gun ownership.  This is a scene from Rochester  this summer:

 

During the same time frame, there were videos of people climbing on the roof of a house, and just recently, there were citizens being targeted and confined to a Wegman’s store in Rochester as well:

 

https://13wham.com/news/local/after-protest-at-east-ave-store-wegmans-leaders-acknowledge-pain-in-community

and...

 

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/black-lives-matter-protesters-ny-trapped-estimated-100-customers-inside-grocery-store

 

The two linked articles show divergent views on the issue.  One includes a statement from Wegmen’s acknowledging pain and throws a little commercial in there about their diversity and inclusion (but nothing about the shoppers confined to the store), the other the actual event. 
 

My question, rhetorical at this point, is where does the line cross with the very uneasy reliance on diners, homeowners and shoppers at a frigging grocery store that the assembled masses are ‘simply protesting’ v when one needs to realize that their life is in danger and personal protective measures must be taken?  
 

See, common sense and more than a passing acknowledgement of the rules of civilized society tells us that when 400 people surround you, scream in your face, knock plates, shatter windows and throw chairs all around that you are in jeopardy.  The r*tarded white kid in the first video beseeching his fellow protestors not to riot and throw chairs at people  notwithstanding, that’s a dangerous situation.    When people assemble in the roof of your home while others rage outside in the driveway, you’re asked to take a gigantic leap of faith that no one is going to breech the home and not do you harm.  Finally, when an assembled mass of folks herds you back into a building and blocks all the exits, one might reasonably assume they have nefarious intent. 

 

My point as a non-gun-owning-reasonable-regulation-supporting-tax-paying-citizen-who-understands-the-police-likely-respond-after-the-carnage-begins is that you’re asking an awful lot of people to sacrifice their right to defend themselves in light of these types of events.  Put another way, when people are outside my house screaming about transgressions and climbing up to access my bedroom windows, I’m thinking firearms and some ammo makes the most sense—and it has nothing to do with the television they might walk off with. 
 

 

 

 

 

I think there certainly is a threat to your family...I get it, but if it doesn't get rolled back, then everyone must be armed at all times. This is the choice.

Hope you and the family never have to face the decision. Stay safe.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Niagara Bill said:

I think there certainly is a threat to your family...I get it, but if it doesn't get rolled back, then everyone must be armed at all times. This is the choice.

Hope you and the family never have to face the decision. Stay safe.

No, everyone can make their own decision on whether or not to be armed.  I can tell from your position you would take the chance and remain unarmed, as I have to this day.   That would be your right, of course, but you’re looking to force your standards to everyone. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners only pose a threat to those intent on doing them harm.  
 

 
 

 

[Rocket94]

On 3/23/2021 at 6:24 AM, SoTier said:

Another week, another mass murder in the US.  This time it's ten dead in a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado.  Last week, it was eight dead in Atlanta, Georgia.

Mass Murder in Boulder, Colorado

 

 

 

 

I cannot keep up. Years ago, it happened every ten years...now I can't remember the killers name without a program. It is a damn shame.

[Niagara Bill]

31 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No, everyone can make their own decision on whether or not to be armed.  I can tell from your position you would take the chance and remain unarmed, as I have to this day.   That would be your right, of course, but you’re looking to force your standards to everyone. The reality is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners only pose a threat to those intent on doing them harm.  
 

 
 

 

You are right, not a gun owner but my thoughts are based on the present situation as being unacceptable and getting worse.

I understand hunting, targets shooting, property and family defense. What I believe must happen in end the possibility of military powerful weapons in the assault range, overpowering the population. Hand gun to hand gun these mass shooting end...even a nut hasn't got the guts to face mobs when he doesn't gave a decided advantage in weapons.

IMHO

I am not trying yk force anything, just trying to have a debate that doesn't start and end with either full gun ban, or It is my right by the constitution.

[Chef Jim]

2 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Thank Goodness. Get your defence built around your house and family. Make sure you can defend against the invasion.

 

I’m not so concerned about having to defend myself against our government (original purpose of 2A) as I am about defending myself and family against bad guys.  Why I got my fist firearms. 

[Doc Brown]

9 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

Stupidity is thinking that a man 250 years ago could think that an AK 47 would be necessary for personal safety and be used against fellow peaceful citizens.

Stupidity is thinking assault rifles and 100 rounds is required to hunt a 160 lb. deer when a bow was used in Franklin's day. Davey Crocket would be appalled.

Stupidity is defending the indefensible.  The safety and death of 10 citizens in Boulder this week is not temporary, nor do they have liberty. But the people who made the gun got rich, the guy who sold the gun is having his long neck tonight before dancing to Boot Scootin boogie.  So 2 have liberty. 10 have death, the funeral guys are happy. 

Clearly you've never seen me hunt.

 

One quick thing to ponder is that muskets were considered military grade weapons at the time the constitution was written.  The founding fathers could've outlawed them when writing the constitution or passed an amendment soon after.  That tells me they wanted citizens to match whatever arms a rogue government possessed.   It's foolish to think they weren't aware that there wouldn't be rapid advancements in weapon technology. 

[Buffarukus]

50 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

What I believe must happen in end the possibility of military powerful weapons in the assault range, overpowering the population. Hand gun to hand gun these mass shooting end...even a nut hasn't got the guts to face mobs when he doesn't gave a decided advantage in weapons.

IMHO

I am not trying yk force anything, just trying to have a debate that doesn't start and end with either full gun ban, or It is my right by the constitution.

 

to have a debate you should be knowledgeable of what it is your debating to a degree. 

 

what is?

 

military powerful weapons in the assault range?

 

it would be a good start to define a broad statement like that since it is meaningless to people that have knowledge.

 

im not a expert at all but a basic knowledge is a good start and the definition you gave above kinda shows you should look into what it is your even asking for.

 

id start with the difference between what is auto and semi auto and which weapons can have these options. that may be what you want banned, if not what is it you even want? evil people to stop doing evil things or a ban on most every gun you can select including hand guns that you seem to think are a better option.

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Buffarukus