Jump to content

Racially motivated murder at Tops


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by HereComesTheReignAgain
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...