Good for the Sandy Hook families!

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I stayed up much later than normal Saturday night.. by about 10:30, I had consumed an interesting combination of beverages: a shot of Jack, a Two Hearted, half a bottle of wine at dinner, a few Old Styles.. came home and decided that what the neighborhood really needed was a drum solo..

so... I went downstairs and rocked out on my 5 piece Pearl kit for about 20 minutes. It was sweet.

How does your neighborhood put up with a card like you?

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Probably. For some reason I just started to value facts and statistics more than shrieking and emotional arguments. It's pretty stupid, I admit....

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Well so far you haven't contradicted the assessment I've portrayed, so....

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I stayed up much later than normal Saturday night.. by about 10:30, I had consumed an interesting combination of beverages: a shot of Jack, a Two Hearted, half a bottle of wine at dinner, a few Old Styles.. came home and decided that what the neighborhood really needed was a drum solo..

so... I went downstairs and rocked out on my 5 piece Pearl kit for about 20 minutes. It was sweet.

How does your neighborhood put up with a card like you?

They know Bob has a stash of firearms...they don't fuck with him.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

Well so far you haven't contradicted the assessment I've portrayed, so....

Nor would I want to. Other peoples' "assessment portrayals" are why I come to message boards.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Well so far you haven't contradicted the assessment I've portrayed, so....

Nor would I want to. Other peoples' "assessment portrayals" are why I come to message boards.

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Nor would I want to. Other peoples' "assessment portrayals" are why I come to message boards.

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

No need to keep going with him. He's already been owned in this thread, and is as ignorant as ever.

Death Roe wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

No need to keep going with him. He's already been owned in this thread, and is as ignorant as ever.

Fair enough. I never know when to quit.

If I were an All-American kick returner from the University of Alabama I would need assistance from the marching band and student section to indicate when to stop running, for example.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Nor would I want to. Other peoples' "assessment portrayals" are why I come to message boards.

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

There's not argument really.  I'm just proud of the Sandy Hook families for taking this action, symbolic as it may be. Their politicians certainly don't have the spine to give them justice, so might as well try this.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Freedom and liberty are also intertwined with the history, too. If we're making comparisons based on that... For some reason you chose slavery to compare, which is strange if all we're talking about is what is "intertwined with history". So I hope you're not making some equivalence between involuntary and violent enslavement of human beings and not being the target of violence based on what you choose to possess. Because that would be a logical fallacy of some sorts.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Fantastic! As long as you understand why your argument is flawed then we're good to go.

There's not argument really.  I'm just proud of the Sandy Hook families for taking this action, symbolic as it may be. Their politicians certainly don't have the spine to give them justice, so might as well try this.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Freedom and liberty are also intertwined with the history, too. If we're making comparisons based on that... For some reason you chose slavery to compare, which is strange if all we're talking about is what is "intertwined with history". So I hope you're not making some equivalence between involuntary and violent enslavement of human beings and not being the target of violence based on what you choose to possess. Because that would be a logical fallacy of some sorts.

Welcome to the world of liberalism.

The_Dude wrote:

Vlad wrote:

There's not argument really.  I'm just proud of the Sandy Hook families for taking this action, symbolic as it may be. Their politicians certainly don't have the spine to give them justice, so might as well try this.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

Dude, I am completely serious when I say this...

I cannot believe you and I are agreeing on something. This is a major step forward.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Freedom and liberty are also intertwined with the history, too. If we're making comparisons based on that... For some reason you chose slavery to compare, which is strange if all we're talking about is what is "intertwined with history". So I hope you're not making some equivalence between involuntary and violent enslavement of human beings and not being the target of violence based on what you choose to possess. Because that would be a logical fallacy of some sorts.

Yes, at gun point. It's the best kind of freedom and liberty.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Freedom and liberty are also intertwined with the history, too. If we're making comparisons based on that... For some reason you chose slavery to compare, which is strange if all we're talking about is what is "intertwined with history". So I hope you're not making some equivalence between involuntary and violent enslavement of human beings and not being the target of violence based on what you choose to possess. Because that would be a logical fallacy of some sorts.

Yes, at gun point. It's the best kind of freedom and liberty.

Who is forcing you to possess a firearm?

The_Dude wrote:

Vlad wrote:

There's not argument really.  I'm just proud of the Sandy Hook families for taking this action, symbolic as it may be. Their politicians certainly don't have the spine to give them justice, so might as well try this.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

There's no direct comparison. Slavery is the shame of our nation, and guns are only a developing shame of our nation. I'm just including both under the heading of social change, inclusive of civil rights, LGBT rights...and just the basic right to send our kids to school without fear.

The_Dude wrote:

Vlad wrote:

There's not argument really.  I'm just proud of the Sandy Hook families for taking this action, symbolic as it may be. Their politicians certainly don't have the spine to give them justice, so might as well try this.

They'll just have to wait this out. Social change has never come easy in this country (or anywhere else for that matter). But it will come, as it always does. And guns are a tough one because guns are so intertwined with the history of this country.  But then so was slavery. (was)

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

I don't think he was really comparing gun ownership to slavery. Not in the sense you mean it at least. He was saying they are both social issues. Not saying they are the same thing by any means.

Regardless, you kids have fun running in the circle you're running in. I'm sure you'll have fun.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Yes, at gun point. It's the best kind of freedom and liberty.

Who is forcing you to possess a firearm?

Nobody. I'm talking about history man.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

I don't think he was really comparing gun ownership to slavery. Not in the sense you mean it at least. He was saying they are both social issues. Not saying they are the same thing by any means.

Regardless, you kids have fun running in the circle you're running in. I'm sure you'll have fun.

Thank you. Glad someone can read.

Vlad wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

Comparing gun ownership to slavery...you are kinda fucked up.

And what kind of 'justice' should the Sandy Hooks victims families receive? And from who? The perp is dead.

Should we sue Ford anytime someone drinks and drives using a Ford car and kills or hurts someone?

There's no direct comparison. Slavery is the shame of our nation, and guns are only a developing shame of our nation. I'm just including both under the heading of social change, inclusive of civil rights, LGBT rights...and just the basic right to send our kids to school without fear.

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Who is forcing you to possess a firearm?

Nobody. I'm talking about history man.

So you are suggesting more violence at gun point is what we need to implement in order to keep people from possession of things deemed too dangerous?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

There's no direct comparison. Slavery is the shame of our nation, and guns are only a developing shame of our nation. I'm just including both under the heading of social change, inclusive of civil rights, LGBT rights...and just the basic right to send our kids to school without fear.

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

You're viewing this issue as having something taken away from you, and I'm viewing it as having something more basic taken away from the rest of us.

Like narcotics, for example?

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

There's no direct comparison. Slavery is the shame of our nation, and guns are only a developing shame of our nation. I'm just including both under the heading of social change, inclusive of civil rights, LGBT rights...and just the basic right to send our kids to school without fear.

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

Its an addition of a freedom if you consider going out to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to fear being randomly shot, a freedom.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

You're viewing this issue as having something taken away from you, and I'm viewing it as having something more basic taken away from the rest of us.

What has been forcibly taken away from you by allowing people to possess firearms, Vlad?

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

Its an addition of a freedom if you consider going out to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to fear being randomly shot, a freedom.

I do. So how does prohibiting someone else from owning a firearm enhance that freedom?

Does this also include knives, vehicles, etc? Because if we're going down that road... I want the freedom to not be killed by another person... We should start with things that kill more people than guns do.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

All of those things you mentioned are regarding giving people the right to do the same things as every one else instead of having government laws meant to impede their progress.

Gun control is the opposite... It is prohibition through violence. It is the removal of freedoms, not the addition. "Social change" can mean anything....."Social change" can mean going back to enslaving individuals if that's the way society goes.

You're still comparing apples and oranges, Vlad.

Its an addition of a freedom if you consider going out to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to fear being randomly shot, a freedom.

They have a different solution for that - "If everyone at Cracker Barrel had a gun, this wouldn't have happened."

So basically they'd like to take us back to the Wild West, because there was so little violence back then.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Its an addition of a freedom if you consider going out to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to fear being randomly shot, a freedom.  

I do. So how does prohibiting someone else from owning a firearm enhance that freedom?

Does this also include knives, vehicles, etc? Because if we're going down that road... I want the freedom to not be killed by another person... We should start with things that kill more people than guns do.

Who has suggested prohibition on owning a firearm? I myself am open to owning a firearm at some point. Not likely, but am open to it.

You're really mixed up here, reading things that haven't been written.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I do. So how does prohibiting someone else from owning a firearm enhance that freedom?

Does this also include knives, vehicles, etc? Because if we're going down that road... I want the freedom to not be killed by another person... We should start with things that kill more people than guns do.

Who has suggested prohibition on owning a firearm?

You did. Unless you're referring to something else not having to do with limiting access to firearms?

Vlad wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Its an addition of a freedom if you consider going out to eat at Cracker Barrel without having to fear being randomly shot, a freedom.

They have a different solution for that - "If everyone at Cracker Barrel had a gun, this wouldn't have happened."

So basically they'd like to take us back to the Wild West, because there was so little violence back then.

Ugh..... Vlad, you really do need to read up on your history.

The "Wild West" didn't exist. That's a Hollywood thing.

Vlad wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

I do. So how does prohibiting someone else from owning a firearm enhance that freedom?

Does this also include knives, vehicles, etc? Because if we're going down that road... I want the freedom to not be killed by another person... We should start with things that kill more people than guns do.

Who has suggested prohibition on owning a firearm?

I certainly have. For certain segments of the population. Namely, people identified by mental health professionals to have the potential to be a danger to themselves or others.

xsanguine wrote:

Vlad wrote:

You're viewing this issue as having something taken away from you, and I'm viewing it as having something more basic taken away from the rest of us.

What has been forcibly taken away from you by allowing people to possess firearms, Vlad?

The freedom of sending my kids to school without worrying about some crazy gun fuck grabbing his daddy's AR-15 and blowing away my kids. Nothing major, just that basic freedom.

(My kids' HS was on lock-down a couple of year ago because a kid brought a gun to school. Don't need that shit.)

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I often wonder if the patriotic gun enthusiasts would be so flippant about murder if it happened to their family....

They don't have to worry about it, because they have guns.

Ugh.

Rocinante wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Who has suggested prohibition on owning a firearm?

I certainly have. For certain segments of the population. Namely, people identified by mental health professionals to have the potential to be a danger to themselves or others.

I'm down for that. I don't think it will make much of a difference but it's certainly something that would be done which would make a lot of people feel better.

The problem is, after the next killing and the next... It'll be something else.

There isn't any magic law that is going to work. This road will continue and continue until it comes to blanket prohibition like Europe.

But sure, prohibit "mentally ill" from legally purchasing a firearm. Why not.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Vlad wrote:

They don't have to worry about it, because they have guns.

oh, that's right.

it's only people like me.. who are rational, calm and content that have to worry about getting murdered.

sorry - not sure what I was thinking.

That's right Bob. Arm yourself if you want to live in peace.

Rocinante wrote:

Vlad wrote:

Who has suggested prohibition on owning a firearm?

I certainly have. For certain segments of the population. Namely, people identified by mental health professionals to have the potential to be a danger to themselves or others.

Agree. I was addressing the base case, not the exceptions.