Unslaved
Well-Known Member
Ok so it was for and not to. I admit my mistake
We had a list of 500,000 criminals that can not buy a gun and Obamas gang deleted those people from that list.
Can anyone else chime in and say, well that cant be good.
Lets look at two other things that dont add up. In florida and sandy hook.
Why did Lanza destroy the hard drive on his computer if he was just going to kill himself anyway? Seems like a lot of trouble to go through for something that wouldnt matter at the outcome
It was reported that Cruz admitted that he heard a voice in his head telling him to do what he did. Why is there no one talking about that? These huge tidbits of information seem to get overlooked by just about everybody.
After the florida shooting on The Talk (talk show) it was" its a gun problem, why...gun this? Why....gun that? Ban....guns.
Today on The Talk involving the Maryland shooting, everything was mental health this, mental health that....little to no mention of gun problem/control. So what gives?
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail.../doj-fbi-fugitives-background-check-database/Can you get one damn thing right?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-force-fbi-delete-500000-fugitives/
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
I did. Thanks.
And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.
So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep
I mean, I guess anything is offensive when you're looking for something to be outraged about that's simply not there. White privilege is an inadequate (imo) term that describes a real thing, the kid is aware that white people are more often taken seriously when these uncomfortable topics come up. There's a reason why MLK had to work with LBJ to get support from the majority of the white moderate, he wouldn't have been successful at all if he hadn't.And actually that Hogg comment is still offensive to whites because hes saying we all have privelage which is far from true, and hes basically saying that blacks cant speak up for themselves. I work with a black guy whos pissed as hell for him saying that.
The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said soI mean, I guess anything is offensive when you're looking for something to be outraged about that's simply not there. White privilege is an inadequate (imo) term that describes a real thing, the kid is aware that white people are more often taken seriously when these uncomfortable topics come up. There's a reason why MLK had to work with LBJ to get support from the majority of the white moderate, he wouldn't have been successful at all if he hadn't.
As for your friend, I think he should listen to the kid's words more carefully because that's not at all that he said.
So your source is more right than mine? Is snopes said there was a god would you believe it? Yep
The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so
Not sure how any of this works as a valid response to anything I wrote, but I'll bite. There's no proof that he actually said that, if you think snopes is untrustworthy then go ahead and find a legit source. Ironically, snopes does list some verifiable disparaging quotes from LBJ in the article about your quote above. Then again, I never said the guy was a perfect paragon of civil rights.....The same LBJ that said he'll have blacks voting Democrat for 200 years? Oh wait, its not true, Snopes said so
Maybe you've never taken any high school or college level classes, but when you do, you'll have to write papers. Now, you can't just say whatever you want, you have to source your material.
That means you provide footers and list your sources for the reader (grader) to verify your claims.
Journalists, at least any worth taking seriously, do similar. They cite where they got thier information.
Snopes is famous for sourcing thier articles. Not just by name dropping another poorly sourced article but actually giving a list of multiple places where the reader can confirm they're not just making stuff up on the spot.
Yeah, it's a little bit more reading, but it's worth it. Don't want to look like a fucking idiot in front of everybody.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.If you believe that then I have some of Saddams nuclear weapons to sell you. Lol
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Common sense says you can't shoot someone without a gun.
Imageine I wake up one day and decide that I'd like to murder a large group of people, and I have no immediate means to do so (because of reasonable gun laws or whatever have you), then it's more likely I'd come to my senses by the time I found and acted on the longer and less effective way around. Therefore lives are saved. As opposed to the other scenario, where I wake up, decide a bunch of people need to be dead because I'm angry right now and OH LOOK A LOADED GUN. Is it that difficult a concept to understand?
I mean, that's the whole point of things like waiting periods - to take immediate opportunity from people who would otherwise act on spontaneous urges to misuse a weapon.
It absolutely applies to that case. Proper gun laws would have made it illegal for the weapon to be in a place that the kid could get to it. Anything less is irresponsible. Like what Max described earlier on -> responsible gun ownership means cases and locks and ammo being separated, and not letting people know where these things are, and not leaving the keys within reach of children, etc. Anyone who doesn't do these things but calls themselves a responsible gun owner is wrong. They are not responsible at all. Unfortunately not every sees it that way -> Therefor the law needs to be in place to MAKE people be responsible with what they have.Obviously that logic didnt apply in the case that happened yesterday where the kid shot his sister over a video game. Im sure he didn't have the gun sitting next to him in the bedroom, im sure it was in his parents bedroom and he knew how to get to it.
I disagree with this as well. If tight enough controls are in place, and availability to weapons is reduced, it may not prevent the attacks from happening at all, but could reduce the number of people who have to die when it happens, which is equally worth doing. If the only thing available for mass shootings were weapons that don't have features that make mass killings easy, then less people die. That means smaller magazines, that means no auto- or semi- auto guns (I honestly see no need for those even in cases where people claim they need guns for whatever reason), it means limitations of the types of ammo that are better suited to killing people, things like that.it doesn't apply to any mass or murder at all
It's the inner torment of every gun enthusiast. When you know that gun control will work but you really really don't want to give up your hobby and you really really really don't want to give any ground to the bleeding heart gay liberal agenda pansy snowflake tree hugging eco feminazis.I don't understand this line of thinking that goes "well, we can't prevent 100% of it, so we shouldn't bother trying to prevent any of it". I mean, you've even had some posts yourself where it sounded like you agreed with this idea of gun control making a positive difference, but then immediately dive back into trying to poke holes in it.