Racially motivated murder at Tops

[Tenhigh]

9 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

The founding fathers didn't want a professional/national army. They believed a professional army could be used as a tool of domestic tyranny (this is why they followed it with the rarely talked about 3rd amendment making it unconstitutional for solders to quarter themselves in random citizens' homes). The founders wanted citizens to be armed and ready to fight in case the country needed to defend itself instead of relying on a professional army. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with citizens fighting back against a tyrannical government, nor does it read that way. It talks about a "militia" defending the "security of the free state." Not an armed group of citizen rebels defending against a tyrannical American government. That is a total myth created by survivalist types that think their AR-15s will stand against military grade aircraft and weapons.

 

I'm pretty moderate on gun control. I don’t support total bans of any specific rifle type but I would like the existing laws around background checks, etc. to be fortified. But starting the discussion with the often misinterpreted writings of people that lived 250 years ago doesn't do it for me. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against stringent gun control that don't involve ascribing an anti-government survivalist fantasy to the founders.

This isnt an unreasonable take on the purpose of the second ammendment,  but where it falls down for me is the fact that it assumes the founders never accounted for what would happen if the country did create a professional army.  Do you really believe that these men,  who had just overthrown the shackles of tyrannical government, didn't consider that their government could become the same?  If they really didn't want a national army I think that would have been included in the bill of rights. 

But think your gun control stance is pretty pragmatic. 

[Tiberius]

43 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

Horrific day in the 716. I hope this goes federal and he is sent to hell with a very short time on death row. There is no place in society for the evil that this pos engaged in. 
 

i don’t know if him being black/brown would have resulted in him being shot/killed by the police. I think it would be interesting to see what the data shows i.e. white/black/brown et cetera that, what percentage, when surrendering after a horrific crime, are killed by law enforcement. Perception vs reality. 

Just know that a lot of blacks get shot when they don't even have a weapon on them 

59 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You're now talking about a different thing all together. 

Nope, let victims have their day in court. You would deny that freedom to victims? 

[HappyDays]

35 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

This isnt an unreasonable take on the purpose of the second ammendment,  but where it falls down for me is the fact that it assumes the founders never accounted for what would happen if the country did create a professional army.  Do you really believe that these men,  who had just overthrown the shackles of tyrannical government, didn't consider that their government could become the same?  If they really didn't want a national army I think that would have been included in the bill of rights. 

But think your gun control stance is pretty pragmatic. 

 

They were definitely worried about a national army being too strong and possibly a threat to the new government. Funny enough the first time a militia was used was to stop an uprising from farmers in Pennsylvania that were disgruntled with high whiskey taxes. The founders didn't want those farmers using guns to fight against what they believed to be an unfair policy. They wanted a militia that could step in to stop things like that from happening instead of having a national army. The idea of people using violence to fight back against a democratic government would have been appalling to them; they believed that the people should fight for change through the peaceful democratic process. That was the whole point.

[Wacka]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

What is your opinion of replacement theory? 

Never heard of the term until commie lefties like you started using it this morning.

[billsfan_34]

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just know that a lot of blacks get shot when they don't even have a weapon on them 

Nope, let victims have their day in court. You would deny that freedom to victims? 

 

28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just know that a lot of blacks get shot when they don't even have a weapon on them 

Nope, let victims have their day in court. You would deny that freedom to victims? 

Like I said, would love to see what the data suggests. I would much rather see a big fat zero for all race and ethnicities.

[ArdmoreRyno]

31 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just know that a lot of blacks get shot when they don't even have a weapon on them 

Nope, let victims have their day in court. You would deny that freedom to victims? 

 

Not what I said and because a Ford SUV was used to kill people in Wisconsin... it doesn't mean they should be held responsible for the drivers actions. 

 

Your logic is flawed. It's moronic.

 

 

[Tiberius]

13 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Never heard of the term until commie lefties like you started using it this morning.

LIAR! 

4 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Not what I said and because a Ford SUV was used to kill people in Wisconsin... it doesn't mean they should be held responsible for the drivers actions. 

 

Your logic is flawed. It's moronic.

 

 

Nope, makes perfect sense. You make a product that massacres people you should be able to get sued. 

 

Moronic? No, you are just blinded by your bias. 

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

15 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

How so? Because you saw it on the news and decided it was bad because some nerds put a scope and a flashlight and a heat shield on theirs to make it look tactical? The bullets are small and high powered and will pass right through you leaving a very small hole. Meanwhile a shotgun blast will leave a hole the size of a bowling ball in your chest and due to the spread is much more forgiving if you are off target. AR-15 is limited to 10 rounds in NY but a shotgun like the KSG holds 14+1 shotgun shells

Your grasp of ballistics is lacking.  The 5.56 round tumbles when it enters a body and does extreme damage.  It does not "pass right through".  A shotgun shell does not leave a bowling ball size hole.  Would people hunt with a shotgun if everything they shot ended up with that size hole in it?  I am very pro 2nd amendment, but your arguments are just way off base.  With that said, a shotgun is an extremely effective defensive (or offensive) weapon as is the AR-15.

[ArdmoreRyno]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

LIAR! 

Nope, makes perfect sense. You make a product that massacres people you should be able to get sued. 

 

Moronic? No, you are just blinded by your bias. 

 

So yes or no... Renault should be sued for the 80+ people killed and 450+ people injured in Nice, France?

 

Yes or no. 

[TSOL]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

LIAR! 

Nope, makes perfect sense. You make a product that massacres people you should be able to get sued. 

 

Moronic? No, you are just blinded by your bias. 

 

 

And you are a gardener. Always trying to plant seeds 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

5 minutes ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

Your grasp of ballistics is lacking.  The 5.56 round tumbles when it enters a body and does extreme damage.  It does not "pass right through".  A shotgun shell does not leave a bowling ball size hole.  Would people hunt with a shotgun if everything they shot ended up with that size hole in it?  I am very pro 2nd amendment, but your arguments are just way off base.  With that said, a shotgun is an extremely effective defensive (or offensive) weapon as is the AR-15.

 

Completely depends on the distance. At close range, 00 buck or a slug could easily put a huge hole in someone.

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, billsfan_34 said:

Horrific day in the 716. I hope this goes federal and he is sent to hell with a very short time on death row. There is no place in society for the evil that this pos engaged in. 
 

i don’t know if him being black/brown would have resulted in him being shot/killed by the police. I think it would be interesting to see what the data shows i.e. white/black/brown et cetera that, what percentage, when surrendering after a horrific crime, are killed by law enforcement. Perception vs reality. 

A few years back when this myth was all the rage in the media, the total number all year was less than 20 (people of color shot by Police). That’s in a country of 330 million people. If you’re a criminal and point your gun at your own head / neck whatever, now the Police have to try to talk you out of it. Even suspected murderers get that treatment. This loser may have planned on going out in a blaze of bullets but he turned the gun on himself instead. Suspects get shot when they make sudden movements, reach in a jacket or toward their waistline etc . ie they don’t follow instructions. Tibs is a blathering racist who doesn’t pay attention to the facts and data. All about the narrative with him. 

30 minutes ago, billsfan_34 said:

 

Like I said, would love to see what the data suggests. I would much rather see a big fat zero for all race and ethnicities.

There are about 1,000 Police involved shootings per year fairly consistently. More Caucasians shot than others. Truly unarmed is a very small number of individuals. 

[Wacka]

27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

LIAR! 

Nope, makes perfect sense. You make a product that massacres people you should be able to get sued. 

 

Moronic? No, you are just blinded by your bias. 

Why isn't Louisville Slugger sued?

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

So yes or no... Renault should be sued for the 80+ people killed and 450+ people injured in Nice, France?

 

Yes or no. 

Yes, people should have the RIGHT to sue, whether case goes anywhere is up to the courts 

Just now, Wacka said:

Why isn't Louisville Slugger sued?

Boo boo, oh boo oh boo? 

13 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

And you are a gardener. Always trying to plant seeds 

 

 

I

Half a league, half a league,

Half a league onward,

All in the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!

Charge for the guns!” he said.

Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

 

II

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

   Someone had blundered.

   Theirs not to make reply,

   Theirs not to reason why,

   Theirs but to do and die.

   Into the valley of Death

   Rode the six hundred.

 

III

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon in front of them

   Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

Boldly they rode and well,

Into the jaws of Death,

Into the mouth of hell

   Rode the six hundred.

 

IV

Flashed all their sabres bare,

Flashed as they turned in air

Sabring the gunners there,

Charging an army, while

   All the world wondered.

Plunged in the battery-smoke

Right through the line they broke;

Cossack and Russian

Reeled from the sabre stroke

   Shattered and sundered.

Then they rode back, but not

   Not the six hundred.

 

V

Cannon to right of them,

Cannon to left of them,

Cannon behind them

   Volleyed and thundered;

Stormed at with shot and shell,

While horse and hero fell.

They that had fought so well

Came through the jaws of Death,

Back from the mouth of hell,

All that was left of them,

   Left of six hundred.

 

VI

When can their glory fade?

O the wild charge they made!

   All the world wondered.

Honour the charge they made!

Honour the Light Brigade,

   Noble six hundred!

[Boatdrinks]

3 hours ago, TSOL said:

 

 

That not every half baked dumb ass idea needs a catch phrase? 

Sticks and stones Tibs, sticks and stones. He lives in a half baked dream world. 

[Orlando Tim]

43 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Nope, makes perfect sense. You make a product that massacres people you should be able to get sued. 

 

Moronic? No, you are just blinded by your bias. 

So you do think Ford should have to pay out for what happened in Wisconsin?

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So you do think Ford should have to pay out for what happened in Wisconsin?

Would you not allow the people the right to sue? 

[aristocrat]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number

 

We ended 2021 with 693 mass shootings, per the Gun Violence Archive. The year before saw 611. And 2019 had 417

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

44 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Completely depends on the distance. At close range, 00 buck or a slug could easily put a huge hole in someone.

I've shot deer with the most powerful magnum hollow point slugs available.  At ranges from 10 yards to 50.  None of them ever had anything close to a "bowling ball" sized hole in them.  I'm not trying to discount the extreme lethality of a shotgun round, just the idea that it is some mythical crater making projectile while the 5.56 is a tiny little round that passes right through.

Edited May 17, 2022 by HereComesTheReignAgain

[KDIGGZ]

56 minutes ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

Your grasp of ballistics is lacking.  The 5.56 round tumbles when it enters a body and does extreme damage.  It does not "pass right through".  A shotgun shell does not leave a bowling ball size hole.  Would people hunt with a shotgun if everything they shot ended up with that size hole in it?  I am very pro 2nd amendment, but your arguments are just way off base.  With that said, a shotgun is an extremely effective defensive (or offensive) weapon as is the AR-15.

Sounds like you are picking and choosing from a back and forth conversation to try and show someone up. If you read every single back and forth you would know we were talking about .223 and 00 buck shot from close range. All you have to do is Google or watch YouTube to see what damage both do from close quarters. A small calibre high powered rifle is going to do less damage than a shotgun blast to the chest is what the point was. People trying to ban AR-15 because they are "weapons of war" (false btw) should be just as worried if not more so than if the attacker used a shotgun which most people feel are much safer or less powerful somehow

[L Ron Burgundy]

3 hours ago, TSOL said:

 

 

No, they are not. You are perceiving this because you are just seeing what you want to see. 

Nope Tibs is correct.   The fox talking heads peddle this crap.  Of course they don't use the phrase/term but they like to scare their ignorant audience.   

1 hour ago, Wacka said:

Never heard of the term until commie lefties like you started using it this morning.

That's because your heroes on fox don't use it.  Instead they cry that white people will be the minority in the country and other ideas that scare old white people. 

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

3 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

Sounds like you are picking and choosing from a back and forth conversation to try and show someone up. If you read every single back and forth you would know we were talking about .223 and 00 buck shot from close range. All you have to do is Google or watch YouTube to see what damage both do from close quarters. A small calibre high powered rifle is going to do less damage than a shotgun blast to the chest is what the point was. People trying to ban AR-15 because they are "weapons of war" (false btw) should be just as worried if not more so than if the attacker used a shotgun which most people feel are much safer or less powerful somehow

I'm simply pointing out that what you said is not correct.  A 5.56 or .223 round will not pass right through you without doing much damage, and a shotgun round (slug or buck shot) will not put a bowling ball size hole in you.  Both firearms are very effective.  (I own both and have shot thousands of rounds through them. My shotgun is my go to home defense option)  There is nothing to be gained on either side of the issue by exaggerating or minimizing claims.  The AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" nor is it a small caliber rifle that would just put a little hole in you.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle.  The reason so many issues are never resolved is that both sides are intent on making extreme statements and demands and unwilling to look at things from a common sense approach.

[Boatdrinks]

20 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Nope Tibs is correct.   The fox talking heads peddle this crap.  Of course they don't use the phrase/term but they like to scare their ignorant audience.   

That's because your heroes on fox don't use it.  Instead they cry that white people will be the minority in the country and other ideas that scare old white people. 

You don’t believe that Caucasians will not be the majority in the US? Demographers have been saying this since the ‘70s, way before Fox News was around. Anyway, you’re confused. The MSM peddles fear .. “ racism, Covid, Anti- gay LBG “blah blah blah. Their goal is to have everyone afraid of some existential crisis that requires more government intrusion to “ fix”. 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Would you not allow the people the right to sue? 

Under what premise would you sue the automaker? Your statement means that you would allow dishonest lawyers to sue for anything

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

4 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

You don’t believe that Caucasians will not be the majority in the US? Demographers have been saying this since the ‘70s, way before Fox News was around. Anyway, you’re confused. The MSM peddles fear .. “ racism, Covid, Anti- gay LBG “blah blah blah. Their goal is to have everyone afraid of some existential crisis that requires more government intrusion to “ fix”. 

Both sides of the media and politicians peddle fear and divisiveness.  It ensures that they remain relevant and in power.  It also makes it so they do not have to be correct or actually accomplish anything.  Their rabid fan bases are so intent on proving the other side wrong and blaming any failures on the other party, that they do not hold their own side responsible for anything.  It is a sick cycle of ignorance that guarantees that a moderate, common sense, third party will not gain traction.  Enough people are so afraid of what the other extreme will do, they blindly head to the polls and accept whatever piece of trash their party throws out there.  The more divided, angry, and ignorant the general population is, the richer and more entrenched the major media players and politicians become.

[KDIGGZ]

30 minutes ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

I'm simply pointing out that what you said is not correct.  A 5.56 or .223 round will not pass right through you without doing much damage, and a shotgun round (slug or buck shot) will not put a bowling ball size hole in you.  Both firearms are very effective.  (I own both and have shot thousands of rounds through them. My shotgun is my go to home defense option)  There is nothing to be gained on either side of the issue by exaggerating or minimizing claims.  The AR-15 is not a "weapon of war" nor is it a small caliber rifle that would just put a little hole in you.  The truth lies somewhere in the middle.  The reason so many issues are never resolved is that both sides are intent on making extreme statements and demands and unwilling to look at things from a common sense approach.

What makes a bigger hole from 5 ft away? 00 buck shot or .223? That was the whole point. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The point is the 12 gauge is a formidable weapon and will do even more damage than a AR-15 at close range but that's the one everyone is scared of and wants to ban for some reason

[Tiberius]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Under what premise would you sue the automaker? Your statement means that you would allow dishonest lawyers to sue for anything

Lawyers sue for anything now, and some win because they are right. Why are guns exempt from liabilty in crimes? Makes no sense 

4 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:

What makes a bigger hole from 5 ft away? 00 buck shot or .223? That was the whole point. You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. The point is the 12 gauge is a formidable weapon and will do even more damage than a AR-15 at close range but that's the one everyone is scared of and wants to ban for some reason

You can't get off nearly as many shots with a shot gun. I saw the video and he was just unloading that gun, firing again and again 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number

 

We ended 2021 with 693 mass shootings, per the Gun Violence Archive. The year before saw 611. And 2019 had 417

 

Nearly every one of them are gang shootings. Not a school shooting or what took place in Buffalo. 

 

And of those 600+ both years you listed? The VAST majority are carried out by minorities. That goes against the media narrative if we are counting "mass shootings". 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by ArdmoreRyno

[ExiledInIllinois]

A quote from the other side:

 

"Law enforcement had the opportunity [remove weapons out of his life] to do so when they ordered an evaluation on him following threat of school shooting." 

 

The answer to this is clear.   They didn't,  just like they didn't put barricades up on January 6th.

 

ANY other person or group... They wouldn't have been so lax.

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

A quote from the other side:

 

"Law enforcement had the opportunity [remove weapons out of his life] to do so when they ordered an evaluation on him following threat of school shooting." 

 

The answer to this is clear.   They didn't,  just like they didn't put barricades up on January 6th.

 

ANY other person or group... They wouldn't have been so lax.

 

Huh? So they were laxed with this kid in Buffalo because........ ?? They screwed up. Unfortunately, it happens. With the 'red flag laws' many people instantly lose their firearms. Sometimes they don't and mistakes are made. 

 

Look at what happened in the church shooting a few years ago in Texas. The dude was dishonorably discharged from the military and the Navy and FBI both dropped the ball when he was allowed to pass a NICS check (form 4473, background check).  

[ExiledInIllinois]

7 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Huh? So they were laxed with this kid in Buffalo because........ ?? They screwed up. Unfortunately, it happens. With the 'red flag laws' many people instantly lose their firearms. Sometimes they don't and mistakes are made. 

 

Look at what happened in the church shooting a few years ago in Texas. The dude was dishonorably discharged from the military and the Navy and FBI both dropped the ball when he was allowed to pass a NICS check (form 4473, background check).  

Just a little mistake... No worries.

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

Just a little mistake... No worries.

 

I didn't say it's not a problem. I wanted to know, what do you mean by "ANY other person or group"?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I didn't say it's not a problem. I wanted to know, what do you mean by "ANY other person or group"?

If he wasn't like the pro 2nd establishment... They would have been on him like a hawk. 

 

Just like the barricades would have went up on January 6th if that was a planned BLM event. 

[aristocrat]

27 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Nearly every one of them are gang shootings. Not a school shooting or what took place in Buffalo. 

 

And of those 600+ both years you listed? The VAST majority are carried out by minorities. That goes against the media narrative if we are counting "mass shootings". 

 

 

 

But the media and politicans will tell you that this one incident is far and away worse than the 500 other mass shootings that occur this year that do no involved white supremacy.  They will completely ignore those other shootings and mark them irrelevant in their narrative. 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

If he wasn't like the pro 2nd establishment... They would have been on him like a hawk. 

 

Just like the barricades would have went up on January 6th if that was a planned BLM event. 

 

So you're saying it's based on race? I'm interested in having this conversation with you... so her we go. 

 

Let me ask you about a planned "BLM event" you mention... what "event(s)" were there barricades put up? 

 

• Pre-Jan 6th; can you let me know where pro-Trump rallies turned "violent" or had an property damage? 
• What events/protests for BLM, where there "barricades" put into place?
• Has BLM "events" had a history of property damage? 

 

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

But the media and politicans will tell you that this one incident is far and away worse than the 500 other mass shootings that occur this year that do no involved white supremacy.  They will completely ignore those other shootings and mark them irrelevant in their narrative. 

 

Yep. 

 

They're all horrible... but I would love to see CNN talk about the 600+ people killed in 2020 in "mass shootings" and who carried them out. They *ONLY* care about one certain race and how it was carried out (weapon type). 

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

So you're saying it's based on race? I'm interested in having this conversation with you... so her we go. 

 

Let me ask you about a planned "BLM event" you mention... what "event(s)" were there barricades put up? 

 

• Pre-Jan 6th; can you let me know where pro-Trump rallies turned "violent" or had an property damage? 
• What events/protests for BLM, where there "barricades" put into place?
• Has BLM "events" had a history of property damage? 

 

And now... So do Trump rallies have various history of overthrowing the government w/violence.

 

What's your point about the shooting?  We have a right wing nut that got overlooked?  Why is that happening after January 6th, 2021.  That's +one year ago...

Edited May 17, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois

[billsfan_34]

2 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

A few years back when this myth was all the rage in the media, the total number all year was less than 20 (people of color shot by Police). That’s in a country of 330 million people. If you’re a criminal and point your gun at your own head / neck whatever, now the Police have to try to talk you out of it. Even suspected murderers get that treatment. This loser may have planned on going out in a blaze of bullets but he turned the gun on himself instead. Suspects get shot when they make sudden movements, reach in a jacket or toward their waistline etc . ie they don’t follow instructions. Tibs is a blathering racist who doesn’t pay attention to the facts and data. All about the narrative with him. 

There are about 1,000 Police involved shootings per year fairly consistently. More Caucasians shot than others. Truly unarmed is a very small number of individuals. 

I would have to agree- do not do anything stupid, and you live to fight another day. Ive always listened to what police have told me along with being respectful and kind, and it always worked out well for me. 
 

I really wish we can all come together and just be Americans. I served for 21 years so others wouldn’t have to suffer here on the home front, but here we are fighting and killing each other, for what? 

[TSOL]

1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Nope Tibs is correct.   The fox talking heads peddle this crap.  Of course they don't use the phrase/term but they like to scare their ignorant audience.   

 

 

 

Oh, well if Fox news says so it must be true 

[ArdmoreRyno]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

And now... So do Trump rallies have various history of overthrowing the government.

 

What's your point about the shooting?  We have a right wing nut that got overlooked?  Why is that happening after January 6th, 2020.  That's +two years ago...

 

I guess no matter what this evil-racist says he is and isn't.... liberals and the media are going to 100% stamp "right wing" on the dude? Right? Even though he says he's NOT conservative and is an authoritarian left winger. 🙄

 

(I had asked you a few questions, you ignored them)

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I guess no matter what this evil-racist says he is and isn't.... liberals and the media are going to 100% stamp "right wing" on the dude? Right? Even though he says he's NOT conservative and is an authoritarian left winger. 🙄

 

(I had asked you a few questions, you ignored them)

Ecofascist.

 

Fascism is right-wing. Communism to the left. Of course both of us are somewhere in middle off the axis.

 

Can't have it both ways.  Both ideologies are concerned with the environment.  

Edited May 17, 2022 by ExiledInIllinois