Just another day in paradise - Ban Guns!

tGreenWay wrote:Wonder if the Howell parent(s) will face any charges in mega/MAGA conservative Livingston County.

Motown Spartan wrote:A toddler is dead in Howell after access to unsecured firearm.

BAN GUNS!!!!

DENVER (AP) — Ten people were wounded in a mass shooting early Tuesday in Denver in an area where basketball fans had been celebrating the Nuggets first NBA title win, police said, and a suspect was taken into custody.

The shooting happened about 12:30 a.m. — about 3 1/2 hours after the game — and three of the injured were in critical condition, the Denver Police Department said in a statement. The suspect, a man, was one of the seven people who suffered injuries believed to be non-life-threatening.

The shooting happened about a mile from Ball Arena, where the Nuggets defeated the Miami Heat on Monday night.

“As far as what led up to this altercation that resulted in the shots being fired, that’s still under investigation at this time,” police spokesperson Doug Schepman said. “It did occur in the area where we had largest gathering of folks celebrating during the night.”

The area was taped off and evidence markers were at the scene.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:pretty cool how the most outspoken "pro-life" patriots are perfectly happy with people dying due to gun violence.

TravelinMan wrote:Given the original intent of the Second Amendment and the possibility of a Trump 2024 administration, I’m surprised ya’ll still want to ban guns.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:Given the original intent of the Second Amendment and the possibility of a Trump 2024 administration, I’m surprised ya’ll still want to ban guns.

I bet what this statement that you present as fact means to you is just absolutely wild

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I bet what this statement that you present as fact means to you is just absolutely wild

It is commonly believed that the founders allowed an armed populace so that the government wouldn't become tyrannical.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:pretty cool how the most outspoken "pro-life" patriots are perfectly happy with people dying due to gun violence.

Is there anyone on this board who is outspokenly pro life?

Motown Spartan wrote:It’s freaking hilarious to me that 2A fanboys think the intent was to prevent a tyrannical government when there are at least 6 other mentions in the Constitution giving power to the government to subdue insurrection.

But keep stroking your muzzle.

TravelinMan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
I bet what this statement that you present as fact means to you is just absolutely wild

It is commonly believed that the founders allowed an armed populace so that the government wouldn't become tyrannical.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

It is commonly believed that the founders allowed an armed populace so that the government wouldn't become tyrannical.

Today it is a common belief, yes, however that wasn't exactly what they were trying to do.

Their intent was to not have a standing Army, like we have had ever since the Louisiana Purchase, at least, although it wasn't until WW2 that it became such a big thing.

Their intent was that the Army would be made up of the militas and the "bear arms" part was in that context.

They would not recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd and would be agast.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Today it is a common belief, yes, however that wasn't exactly what they were trying to do.

Their intent was to not have a standing Army, like we have had ever since the Louisiana Purchase, at least, although it wasn't until WW2 that it became such a big thing.

Their intent was that the Army would be made up of the militas and the "bear arms" part was in that context.

They would not recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd and would be agast.

you mean the Founders would have a problem with children being mutilated by assault rifles while sitting in their first grade classroom?

I don't think the republican/libertarian folks would take too kindly to that, since it is genuinely one of the primary cornerstones of their political platform, to be celebrated and utilized in major fundraising initiatives.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you mean the Founders would have a problem with children being mutilated by assault rifles while sitting in their first grade classroom?

I don't think the republican/libertarian folks would take too kindly to that, since it is genuinely one of the primary cornerstones of their political platform, to be celebrated and utilized in major fundraising initiatives.

Something created by the NRA after it was taken over by a white racist from Texas.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Is there anyone on this board who is outspokenly pro life?

I am.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

It is commonly believed that the founders allowed an armed populace so that the government wouldn't become tyrannical.

Today it is a common belief, yes, however that wasn't exactly what they were trying to do.

Their intent was to not have a standing Army, like we have had ever since the Louisiana Purchase, at least, although it wasn't until WW2 that it became such a big thing.

Their intent was that the Army would be made up of the militas and the "bear arms" part was in that context.

They would not recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd and would be agast.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I am.

You're anti abortion?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

You're anti abortion?

I'm pro-life.

and, yes, I'll never have an abortion.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I'm pro-life.

and, yes, I'll never have an abortion.

You're dodging the question, my friend.

Do you support a women's right to choose?  Do you believe abortion should be a legal option for women in all 50 states - possibly conceding to certain conditions and age of fetus?  (Or not)

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

You're dodging the question, my friend.

Do you support a women's right to choose?  Do you believe abortion should be a legal option for women in all 50 states - possibly conceding to certain conditions and age of fetus?  (Or not)

not dodging the question. You just don't like the answer.

I believe in personal freedom.People can make their own choices. I know that's inconvenient republican/libertarian folks like you.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
not dodging the question. You just don't like the answer.

I believe in personal freedom.People can make their own choices. I know that's inconvenient republican/libertarian folks like you.

That's not society's definition of "pro life." Sorry.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

That's not society's definition of "pro life." Sorry.

I don't know if you've noticed, but society is very stupid.

TravelinMan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I don't know if you've noticed, but society is very stupid.

Oh trust me. I've noticed. I think I'm looking at part of it in this thread.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Today it is a common belief, yes, however that wasn't exactly what they were trying to do.

Their intent was to not have a standing Army, like we have had ever since the Louisiana Purchase, at least, although it wasn't until WW2 that it became such a big thing.

Their intent was that the Army would be made up of the militas and the "bear arms" part was in that context.

They would not recognize the current interpretation of the 2nd and would be agast.

Thank you for acknowledging my point.

So given the chances of a Trump 2024 administration... you really wanna give up all the guns?

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Thank you for acknowledging my point.

So given the chances of a Trump 2024 administration... you really wanna give up all the guns?

You are kidding, right?

Absolutely.

Anyone who thinks a gun is going to protect them from the power of the government is an idiot.

The only protection we have is one I have never seen you fighting for, universal voting rights and fair districting.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Thank you for acknowledging my point.

So given the chances of a Trump 2024 administration... you really wanna give up all the guns?

You are kidding, right?

Absolutely.

Anyone who thinks a gun is going to protect them from the power of the government is an idiot.

The only protection we have is one I have never seen you fighting for, universal voting rights and fair districting.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You are kidding, right?

Absolutely.

Anyone who thinks a gun is going to protect them from the power of the government is an idiot.

The only protection we have is one I have never seen you fighting for, universal voting rights and fair districting.

so you don't think that someone with a gun can overpower a government that owns tanks, surface-to-air missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, etc.?

you disappoint the 'pro-life' NRA.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
so you don't think that someone with a gun can overpower a government that owns tanks, surface-to-air missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, etc.?

you disappoint the 'pro-life' NRA.

But but but, I've seen it happen in the movies. Two or three guys taking down an entire infantry, we can do that too, can't we Bubba? After all what use are these AR15s if we can't use them against the gubmint.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
so you don't think that someone with a gun can overpower a government that owns tanks, surface-to-air missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, etc.?

you disappoint the 'pro-life' NRA.

But but but, I've seen it happen in the movies. Two or three guys taking down an entire infantry, we can do that too, can't we Bubba? After all what use are these AR15s if we can't use them against the gubmint.

TravelinMan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You are kidding, right?

Absolutely.

Anyone who thinks a gun is going to protect them from the power of the government is an idiot.

The only protection we have is one I have never seen you fighting for, universal voting rights and fair districting.

Anyone who is registered and can pony up a valid ID should be allowed to vote.

I don't really know much or understand districting. I'll leave that to others to champion.

Trapper Gus wrote:

TravelinMan wrote:

Anyone who is registered and can pony up a valid ID should be allowed to vote.

I don't really know much or understand districting. I'll leave that to others to champion.

There you go, giving the government the power to limit who votes.

Everyone, from the 1 month old, to the dying 110 year old should be able to vote without restrictions like registration or identification. Also the government should be required that all voters can complete their voting within 15 minutes or less the start of the process.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

There you go, giving the government the power to limit who votes.

Everyone, from the 1 month old, to the dying 110 year old should be able to vote without restrictions like registration or identification.  Also the government should be required that all voters can complete their voting within 15 minutes or less the start of the process.

he's a big fan of 'personal freedom', so I'm sure he loves this idea.