Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Disagree with what? Your slippery slope hot take? Or your belief that things are done by the left just to piss off the right (and vice versa)? Sorry you're having trouble grasping the point. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Sorry you're having trouble grasping the point. WSS So let me ask this question to any of the members who support stricter gun laws. No name calling no bullshit.If it were in fact within the power of the Governor (or president) to exact a law. Yes its a hypothetical but bear with me. You are given the opportunity to have strict background checks everywhere firearms or ammunition are sold and strict registration for those items. However if you accept that deal, that many are clamoring for as we speak, you forfeit the possibility of even stricter measures for the next 50 years. Would you take that deal or not? And why? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Sorry you're having trouble grasping the point. WSS Oh god... Fuck off... The "Well I guess you just didn't understand" response is old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 So let me ask this question to any of the members who support stricter gun laws. No name calling no bullshit. If it were in fact within the power of the Governor (or president) to exact a law. Yes its a hypothetical but bear with me. You are given the opportunity to have strict background checks everywhere firearms or ammunition are sold and strict registration for those items. However if you accept that deal, that many are clamoring for as we speak, you forfeit the possibility of even stricter measures for the next 50 years. Would you take that deal or not? And why? WSS We'd need a lot more detail on the strict reform being put in place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 So let me ask this question to any of the members who support stricter gun laws. No name calling no bullshit. If it were in fact within the power of the Governor (or president) to exact a law. Yes its a hypothetical but bear with me. You are given the opportunity to have strict background checks everywhere firearms or ammunition are sold and strict registration for those items. However if you accept that deal, that many are clamoring for as we speak, you forfeit the possibility of even stricter measures for the next 50 years. Would you take that deal or not? And why? WSS Of course not. No law is perfect and even if it were, the world it's perfect for is completely different 10 years later. I wouldn't take that deal on a single topic, be it guns, immigration, war, financial reform, healthcare, or shit all. Oh no! Now I've fallen in to your oh-so-subtle trap! Obviously any law I want to pass is only the start of my Machiavellian plan to entirely disarm the country and turn it over to the russians/chinese/muslims/mexicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Well, back on topic: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html Wife in San Bernadino shooting pledged allegiance to Isis before the attack - on facebook, but the couple deleted their posts and such to cover their tracks in the few days up to the shooting (meaning it was obviously premeditated) That basically makes it the first Isis attack on US-soil, because all that's required for membership into Isis or Al Qaeda is a "Bayat" swearing allegiance to their leader - though it is also suspected the couple was in contact with Isis members overseas as well. Also poses an interesting question - how did the brother-in-law and other family members act so clueless if they made their beliefs public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 So it seems then that these people are terrorists. Not a big shock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Of course not. No law is perfect and even if it were, the world it's perfect for is completely different 10 years later. I wouldn't take that deal on a single topic, be it guns, immigration, war, financial reform, healthcare, or shit all. Oh no! Now I've fallen in to your oh-so-subtle trap! Obviously any law I want to pass is only the start of my Machiavellian plan to entirely disarm the country and turn it over to the russians/chinese/muslims/mexicans. Not really. Let's not all get huffy like your sidekick Woody. I think a gun free America is a valid position. That doesn't mean it's my position or that I think it's feasible but I think that some people could support that in good conscience. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Lies put out by USA media. Allau akbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Also if none of the recent attacks would have been prevented by these measures what possible use are they except for a first step? And please don't give me the old "Well we can't just do nothing!" bit. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Were they or were they not on the terrorist watch list? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Also if none of the recent attacks would have been prevented by these measures what possible use are they except for a first step? And please don't give me the old "Well we can't just do nothing!" bit. WSS I support some moderate gun control measures, since the whole thing is just too easy now. But mostly these mass shootings and such just fit the narrative, the more moderate/first step measures would probably have a bigger impact on "crimes of opportunity" or passion and such. Like a couple day waiting period, etc. So it seems then that these people are terrorists. Not a big shock. The terrorist part wasn't news, but in contact and pledged allegiance to isis - means first isis-affiliated attack. Were they or were they not on the terrorist watch list? Don't know at the moment, but it seems pretty likely since the FBI knew that Farook was in contact with a wanted terrorist overseas before this whole thing, and some of their social media posts could have had them flagged. All of the guns were purchased legally - the rifles were purchased by somebody else but then transferred to Farook. (also I think legally) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 https://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/12/03/statement-secretary-jeh-c-johnson-san-bernardino-shootings We remain at a heightened state of vigilance against all threats, and I will not hesitate to take further measures, as necessary. Jeh Johnson uuhm what have you been doing? this isnt like FEMA and hurricane Katrina now is it? Snerdly, Rush Limbaughs show prep right here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 BB I don't know what the numbers would be on shootings in which someone was enraged in a fit of passion jumped in his car drove to the gun store filled out the paperwork, purchased a pistol and drove immediately back to shoot somebody. But if there were a five day waiting period would probably... Well you know. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 As a matter of fact it wouldn't hurt to have every registered gun in America have a ballistics profile in a database. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 sorry to interrupt again....https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/672549313298481152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw just some inconvenient truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I like how the "news" calls the woman Malik as having post partum .... Its just incredulous that a woman is a part of this - says Nora O Donnell CBS news .... now, Please... back to your gun discussion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 sorry to interrupt again....https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/672549313298481152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw just some inconvenient truth But but but background checks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 So let me ask this question to any of the members who support stricter gun laws. No name calling no bullshit. If it were in fact within the power of the Governor (or president) to exact a law. Yes its a hypothetical but bear with me. You are given the opportunity to have strict background checks everywhere firearms or ammunition are sold and strict registration for those items. However if you accept that deal, that many are clamoring for as we speak, you forfeit the possibility of even stricter measures for the next 50 years. Would you take that deal or not? And why? WSS no because you have no clue where we'll be in 50 years. What if this is a post apocalyptic wasteland filled with Zombies in 50 years? Than you've got roll some laws back wouldn't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Not really. Let's not all get huffy like your sidekick Woody. didn't you say no namecalling? or do you exempt your passive aggressive bullshit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 What? I think Woody's first response after that post was ok God fuck off. But I don't think sidekick qualifies as name-calling, do you? If I was in that kind of mood I'd have used butt buddy or something equally nasty. I said sidekick because Chris and Woody are often on the same side of at least some of these issues, sir. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 And sorry the hypothetical didn't take into consideration the fact that we might well be a zombie apocalypse in 50 years. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 And sorry the hypothetical didn't take into consideration the fact that we might well be a zombie apocalypse in 50 years. WSS Don't worry about that. They will all be a mix of gay and transgendered zombies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 didn't you say no namecalling? or do you exempt your passive aggressive bullshit? Passive aggressive bullshit is his whole gig though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 What? I think Woody's first response after that post was ok God fuck off. But I don't think sidekick qualifies as name-calling, do you? If I was in that kind of mood I'd have used butt buddy or something equally nasty. I said sidekick because Chris and Woody are often on the same side of at least some of these issues, sir. WSS And a giant block of conservative candidates here are lock step in everything they do. ... Yet they still try to through insults around when people on the other side agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 And a giant block of conservative candidates here are lock step in everything they do. ... Yet they still try to through insults around when people on the other side agree Giant block? We don't really have a giant block of posters of any kind. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Who's this giant block of posters in complete lockstep? I'm interested to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I guess they're just the loudest group. Artificially inflating their size. You're right though. There really isn't any giant block Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 I guess they're just the loudest group. Artificially inflating their size. You're right though. There really isn't any giant block Take a nappy woody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted December 4, 2015 Report Share Posted December 4, 2015 Don't worry about that. They will all be a mix of gay and transgendered zombies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.