Another week, another mass murder

[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 Buffalo]

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