Trump Is Just A Terrible President, Totally Unfit For The Job

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, westside2 said:

Now it all makes sense. They can't think for themselves, so they follow the leader

 

 

I doubt that you'll catch the irony in that statement.  But it's there. 

[Warren Zevon]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Clown.

 

Are you upset your favorite radio personality is insane?

[SectionC3]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Clown.

 

So is Tommy B a clown, too, for promoting this invisibility cloak device?  

[Gene Frenkle]

6 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

So you are saying because it's a rare occurrence it's irrational to prepare for it?

 

Epidemics are rare, I guess that's why Obama didn't replenish the ventilators and masks!! 

 

No, it's just more rational and reasonable to protect against literally almost any other cause of death.  If you truly care about your loved ones.  That's the point.  With limited time and resources and a particular goal in mind, one should focus on the most likely things to worry about.  It's not an argument about guns.  It's an argument about the irrationality of the the stated reason for owning a gun.

 

Own a gun cause it's shiny.  Own a gun cause it looks good strapped in that sweet leather holster.  Own a gun cause you're compensating.  I don't care.  Just don't justify your gun fetish with the "protecting my family from intruders" BS that always get spouted.  It's statistically ridiculous and shows a complete lack of critical thought.

 

 

Ok, boys, time to write some code.  It's been real.  No hard feelings I hope and it's been a lot of fun for you as well.  Thanks for the debate.

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Gene Frenkle

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No, it's just more rational and reasonable to protect against literally almost any other cause of death.  If you truly care about your loved ones.  That's the point.  With limited time and resources and a particular goal in mind, one should focus on the most likely things to worry about.  It's not an argument about guns.  It's an argument about the irrationality of the the stated reason for owning a gun.

 

Own a gun cause it's shiny.  Own a gun cause it looks good strapped in that sweet leather holster.  Own a gun cause you're compensating.  I don't care.  Just don't justify your gun fetish with the "protecting my family from intruders" BS that always get spouted.  It's statistically ridiculous and shows a complete lack of critical thought.

 

 

Ok, boys, time to write some code.  It's been real.  No hard feelings I hope and it's been a lot of fun for you as well.  Thanks for the debate.

 

 

Same here.  Lots of fun.  See you tomorrow. 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

 

Epidemics are rare, I guess that's why Obama didn't replenish the ventilators and masks!! 

Seeing as how nobody has died from lack of a government supplied ventilator or mask then I guess you answered your own hypothesis. (And I’m not an Obama fan.)

[Warren Zevon]

I miss McGee Return TD - hope he's safe. I wonder what he would have to say in this climate?

Edited April 20, 2020 by Warren Zevon

[Gene Frenkle]

Now back to our regularly-scheduled echo chamber.

 

I kid, I kid...

[Westside]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I doubt that you'll catch the irony in that statement.  But it's there. 

Oh csection, every post you make is ironic.

[Deranged Rhino]

18 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There you go again, Deranged Rhino.  It's lucky that we have a "stable genius" here to learn from. 

 

 

Keep hiding from those scary, scary tools, and that scary, scary, virus. The only thing that can save you is more government. 

15 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

That's not what we're talking about, Gary.  We're talking about the single most oft-cited reason people use for having their guns - to protect their family from home intruders.

 

I'm not even against people owning guns.  I could give a schitt.  I'm against irrationality.  Read the thread and do try to keep up.

 

BTW, were the 1972 statistics not available?

 

Per the bolded:  I'm the same. 

 

Per the irrationality part -- considering we've just lived through an illegal coup attempt launched by our federal government to overturn the results of a legal election, and are right now living through a period of time where innocent Americans are being put on house arrest in the name of public safety (despite the data being suspect), isn't it possible there are other reasons for the second amendment that don't include home invasions? 

 

So all the talk about hypotheticals seems odd when there are two, current and concrete, reasons why the second amendment was enshrined into our civil liberties by the Constitution. 

 

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

Autos are illegal, right?  Semis can make autos with a bump stock, correct?

 

I'll spare everyone the aggravation of the stats.  The odds are low.  Undoubtedly.  

 

I'll note that you've chosen a wide berth w/r/t to "assault weapons" that embraces far more firearms than were affected by the Federal Assault Weapons ban of the 90s.  So your plan probably is to get me to say that it's a good idea for gun control to embrace semi-autos, and then you'll come back and try to characterize me as a having an all or nothing view on gun control.  

 

I'll cut right to the chase and say that I suppose reinstitution of the federal assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire, that I acknowledge that the ban will not defeat all mass shootings (particularly given the broad definition of the phrase that you have chosen), and that I maintain that the specifics of the ban will, however, limit carnage in instances of multiple casualties.  That is, I think it's a good idea. 

 

See?  I just saved us a whole lot of back and forth today. 

 

Nope.  Just wondering why we're worrying about guns and the rare chance any of us will be gunned-down in a mass shooting when the odds are smaller than dying from an auto accident or dietary choices?  We could place major restrictions on those things as well and save even more lives.  Where does it end?

Edited April 20, 2020 by Doc

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Semis can make autos with a bump stock, correct?

 

Incorrect

Bump stocks allow an increased rate of fire but do not fire more than one round per trigger pull

Edited April 20, 2020 by /dev/null

[B-Man]

ROGER KIMBALL: The culture of corona: On smoke, mirrors & glimpses of truth. 

 

“In January, some of our most reputable experts were urging caution about excessive caution: the coronavirus represents a ‘very, very low’ threat to the American people, they said. Get on with your life. Yes, pay attention, wash your hands, but don’t worry.

 

As late as March 9, we were told on the highest authority that ‘If you are a healthy young person, there is no reason if you want to go on a cruise ship, [not to] go on a cruise ship.’ . . .

 

At the end of January, the President of the United States banned foreign nationals from coming into the United States from China. At first, this was greeted by his opponents as a ‘xenophobic,’ even ‘racist’ overreaction.

 

Several weeks on, his decision was declared to have been too little too late. He somehow ought to have intuited by New Year’s, or even by late December, that the coronavirus would utterly monopolize our attention even though there were no known cases, zero, in the United States at that time.”

 

 

 

 

.

[SectionC3]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Nope.  Just wondering why we're worrying about guns and the rare chance any of us will be gunned-down in a mass shooting when the odds are smaller than dying from an auto accident or dietary choices?  We could place major restrictions on those things as well and save even more lives.  Where does it end?

 

It's the efficacy with which guns kill and the speed and ease which the slaughter may be accomplished. 

27 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Incorrect

Bump stocks allow an increased rate of fire but do not fire more than one round per trigger pull

 

Good clarification.  You're right.  Bumps simply allow for a more rapid rate of fire, but don't convert to auto.  Well put. 

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

Saving the day with your gun, from the sound of things.

Yeah having to use a weapon is a gun owner’s wet dream.  Any responsible gun owner who has a gun for protection hopes they NEVER have to use it. 
 

But you keep thinking you have any clue as to what we think.  You’ve been wrong through all of this so why I expect that to change now is silly. 

[Gary M]

1 hour ago, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No, it's just more rational and reasonable to protect against literally almost any other cause of death. 

 

 

It rational and reasonable to protect against any other kind of death. So I have smoke alarms, a fire extinguisher, I see a doctor, take medication, try and eat healthy and exercise, plus I own a dog and a gun. Having or doing any one of those things does not preclude me from doing/having the others, it's not an either or.

 

It's the BSA motto "Be prepared"

 

 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Gary M

[Doc]

46 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

It's the efficacy with which guns kill and the speed and ease which the slaughter may be accomplished.

 

If people want to kill mass numbers of other people, there are ways to go about it without guns.

 

And I don't know if I think anyone really needs even a semi-automatic gun and I think that background checks should be done, but won't root-out everyone.  I'm just wondering how far we should go to keep society safe?

[Taraka]

18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He was a traitor to his country. If the POTUS had done anything other than call him out for the POS he was, then it would have been horribly disrespectful to the men and women who gave their lives for this country to stop people like No Name. 

 

Quote

But I understand you value appearances and decorum over truth and reality. You've made that clear. It's just not my style.

 

what a cute pithy comment. Why not ask service people what THEY think about their commander and chief saying something like that about an ex service member POW. They are who matter in this discussion not a keyboard warrior judgmental know it all like yourself.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, ~Kostabi~ said:

what a cute pithy comment. Why not ask service people what THEY think about their commander and chief saying something like that about an ex service member POW. 

 

I have. Many times. 

 

They agree with him because, unlike you, they know exactly who No Name was and what he stood for. 

 

You don't. Because you'd rather keep to proper decorum than learn the truth.

[Taraka]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I have. Many times. 

 

They agree with him because, unlike you, they know exactly who No Name was and what he stood for. 

 

You don't. Because you'd rather keep to proper decorum than learn the truth.

Says the stable genius of PPP gotcha. lol