Re: Dallas...

by **xsanguine** Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:14 pm

xsanguine wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You're stuck in micro X. The answers you seek lie in macro.

If Turtleneck doesn't get on you for getting into specifics with regards to your ideas since he was extremely interesting in pinning down exactly how mine would work.... I'm going to be left with no other implication except that there's favoritism afoot.

I'd had explain very specific facets of the free market, which if you're familiar with the concept it;s very hard to pin down beyond it's overarching theme.

However. I'm asking you to just give me an answer to something very specific you said was necessary to fixing this entire police brutality thing and so far you seem really, really, extremely reluctant to venture anywhere near answering what seems like such an easy answer for such a confident lad.

by **xsanguine** Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:15 pm

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:K

Oh shit, the chick treatment.

Millenials who's parents never taught them how to communicate with each other properly.

by **xsanguine** Thu Jul 14, 2016 9:21 pm

So why make a statement that on the surface seems so construction.... oh sweet, someone has a plan for this...

Okay so... how do you determine an officer is unfit? 'Okay, XSANG you fucking piece of shit, you need to concentrate on the macro (meaning... don't pay attention the details... someone else will take care of those... I'm just here to fill a cubicle space).
Alright, thanks for that very informative plan I guess...

Okay next question... who do you replace the supervisors of these officers with?

"We've already had this conversation... why don't you go search the hundreds and hundreds of pages of possible text for something despite the burden of proof falls on me."

Umm, alright..... geez....

So, what changes do you plan on making to the police academy? If these officers are making it through and then end up not being fit... how do we change this so that it doesn't happen going forward?"

You know, we've already talked about this and if you'd stop profiling with your cloaked racism maybe you'd understand. Fucking cracker ass white piece of shit. (I can say it because I'm white and grew up being referred that way by my black neighbors (and 5th grade teacher, strangely enough).

by Guest Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:39 pm

GRR Spartan wrote:Got any slick charts regarding the use of Teflon coated ammunition that was reportedly used by the shooter in Dallas and responsible for defeating the protective clothing of at least some of the dead and wounded officers?

The gun lobby, specifically the NRA and the pols who support their issues are even more quiet about this than they are about the CCP carrying victim in the Minnesota shooting.
As a gun owner I would have no issue with registering my weapons with the state the same way I do my boat or personal motor vehicles. If I sell one or give it to a relative the new owner and I would be responsible to report the change of ownership.
I also have no problem with limiting the sale of ammunition specifically designed to defeat body armour and pierce metal for the military market unavailable for civilian/hunting use. I also have no issue limiting all magazine sizes to 12 rounds.
We will never eliminate gun violence in this country because we have so many guns in circulation but we can reduce the chances of individuals doing harm to with guns if we do a better job of tracking who owns what, limit magazine size and make ammunition designed to defeat body armour unavailable to civilians.
I don't "need" a gun equipped with 20 shot magazine loaded with Teflon coated bullets to protect my home.

CBS Issues Correction, Jumped the Gun on AP Bullets Used in Dallas Ambush

But what Pelley failed to report is that so-called armor piercing bullets have been banned in the US since 1986. In that year. President Ronald Reagan signed bill HR 3132 into law which banned the bullets known, at the time, as “cop-killers.” In early 2015 the ATF made a move to ban a type of ammunition called M855, claiming it was also armor piercing. M855 was exempt from the 1986 bill because it saw wide use in sporting contexts.

Pelley’s original report was filled with loaded questions at best and filled with information designed to mislead at worse.

by **xsanguine** Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:34 pm

Just like with my questions, LG...

You won't get any retorts.

We'll just get another thread where we have to bring up the same stuff and the"if we just ban guns people won't have the means murder each other, and like, stuff, duh"

Plus it helps their case the, like anything, some minor circumstance will change that all they have to do is go "See! I told you!" and then we get to argue that until it comes out it wasn't true....

And then we post the news story or follow the road down their "logic" and... well... we'll be right here once again.

by Sponsored content