Why is Using Guns to Kill Black People in Chicago Okay with Liberals.

Whether or not a point is conceded is not necessarily the measure of a good debate. It's whether each side is able to articulate, sharpen and advance arguments and counter-arguments. Originally Posted by lustylad

With all due respect, you are missing "the point"!

He wants you to respond so he can claim you're wrong!

Since he can't do it with substance, he does it with dismissive and marginalizing comments. He's easy to read.

With all due respect, you are missing "the point"!

He wants you to respond so he can claim you're wrong!

Since he can't do it with substance, he does it with dismissive and marginalizing comments. He's easy to read. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Agree he has no substance. That's why I keep searching for an intelligent lib. Like looking for a unicorn.

Houston coed has turned into a big gay bar. WTF? Originally Posted by R.M.

Is snitchy the homo stirring up shit there again?

I have to admit I've not been glued to the TV for updates (even if the reports were factual), but I did hear a special agent discussing what the FBI "knew" and didn't know before the shooting.

So when you say "LE" was "given the bald evidence" upon which they could "act" I am not quite sure to what you are referencing.

Generally speaking the same folks complaining about LE "not acting" based upon information revealed POST-EVENT are the same crowd complaining about LE acting in the absence of current, real time information that would legally support LE taking any action!

Current event example: How many pundits over the past year have repeatedly claimed Trump was "mentally ill" (as well as other defective mental conditions) based on his tweets, speeches, and press conference responses ... or in some cases THE LACK OF SAYING ANYTHING!!! ...

.. then a military physician (who has examined at least one other President) examines him and determines he is mentally competent?

IMO anyone who slaughters innocent people in the manner that has been happening has "mental issues" but that doesn't automatically retrospectively support LE action or a criticism of no LE action. Mental and emotional problems are not "science" like DNA. It's OPINION! Originally Posted by LexusLover

The FBI admitted that it failed to follow procedures and investigate a January call warning them about the shooter, and the sheriff's office admitted it received 20 something calls in the last two years and failed add "1+1+1" to create a case.

I'm not gathering much in the way of coherency in your response, but I'll take a crack at a response anyway.

What are you trying to prove with this line of thinking? If you take it to its logical conclusion, are you advocating for stricter gun control or just trying to point at the liberals and say, "Gotcha!" It certainly seems like the latter. The gotcha moment doesn't mean anything in this context. You are just outraged to redirect attention from how little moral ground you stand on. Originally Posted by blueandgreen

First BandG, I want to say "thank you" for being a Liberal with a bit of a dialogue. Once upon a time, we were able to accomplish situations in a timely manner due to the fact that each side put their "keynote positions" on the table and then they had a "starting point" instead of name calling one another because they are unable to put clarity to their words, which I believe to be the foundation of getting anything accomplished, whether it be between two/or more people or 2 or more groups, herein being 2 political parties.

What occurred in my state of Florida (actually less than 25 miles from where I live) 2 days ago is heartwrenching by even those of us who lost no one and yes, that does include Republicans/Conservatives. The sorrow being experienced by the families of the fifteen innocent children killed along with the two adult heros is incomprehensible.

This tragedy , carried out by a crazed, lone 19 year old gunman, (I say crazed because once again we have someone on psychotic drugs, which in all mass murders they have been taking) has vaulted the debate over gun control to perhaps an unprecedented level especially now that Trump is in office (it appears to me that the Left wants to blame the Right). Once again Liberals are calling for the further disarmament of the American people, which should come as no surprise, as they are on the wrong side of this issue (again JMHO) and if they get their way, it will make America a more dangerous place and further reduce the independence of the American people. JMHO, ( That being said, I do see possibly making MR 15's illegal, I do however have limited knowledge of what else these magazine guns are used for). If we are as we say we are, "an intelligent society", then should we not sit down and look at all of the extenuating circumstances including automatic rifles, psycotic drugs that are being handed out to children and adults like they are M&M's along with the controversial movies (yes Hollywood loves controversy as controversy breeds interest and interest makes for a higher bottom line for those that want to ban guns) as they they show graphic heinous murders.

We are no longer a civilized society when we cannot sit down and discuss any given situation, as long as one is calling other names, you are part of the problem not part of the solution. We need to all stand up and say "Senators, we are locking your behinds in a room until you are able to speak in a desirable and ethical tone to one another and get something accomplished". BTW, they should not be getting a paycheck either.

The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society.
Mark Skousen

Sure I can. Here are a couple.

There are more posts like these than there are useful or grammatically error-free posts by you!

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=105...0&postcount=49

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=105...9&postcount=29

Whether or not a point is conceded is not necessarily the measure of a good debate. It's whether each side is able to articulate, sharpen and advance arguments and counter-arguments. Originally Posted by lustylad

Thank you Lusty. Apologies. I was wrong. Pretty rare, but youre right

Do you know how to ask questions that can be answered without your sneaky insertion of your personal beliefs and biases inserted in them?

Since we have no "referee" calling the "balls and strikes" I just ignore that shit or I will call you out on it.

Now your buddy, Speedo, like a lot of other lamesters on here, simply calls his own "balls and strikes" ... whether he's pitching or batting ... That's a Liberal thing I've noticed.

After you finish that ESL course, apply to a school where you can learn to ask proper questions in proper form. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Why don't you ask IB to clean up his spelling and grammar? Since it bothers you so bad, why don't you give him the same speech you give everyone else?

As an NRA member, CHL holder and gun owner I'd like to dispel the myth that the NRA wants crazy people and criminals to own guns.

We don't.

We want the current gun laws enforced before more are tacked on. Also, we want the current background check database accurately and timely updated.

It is pathetic that the NRA and lawful gun owners are being portrayed as wanting tragic school shootings. But it was OK for Obama and Holder to walk guns into Mexican drug cartels. Originally Posted by gnadfly

+10000

Today's society is more to blame than a gun is , or an SUV even . We are decayed and corrupt as a nation and society and probably beyond repair no matter what's banned or not banned . We all just hurl our feeble thoughts and opinions as if we know just what to do to correct it . Who knows who's right and wrong anymore . . Originally Posted by AdamBomB

And that's something i've pointed out on other sites, and gotten bashed for..
Schools in the 50s to even mid-late 80s, had
A) GOD in them
B) Teachers able to issue on the spot discipline to kids
C) NROTC programs and some even had drill squads so guns were ON CAMPUSES..

YET WE never had a school shooting, till what, the mid 90s?? LONG after they were all removed?

I have to admit I've not been glued to the TV for updates (even if the reports were factual), but I did hear a special agent discussing what the FBI "knew" and didn't know before the shooting.

So when you say "LE" was "given the bald evidence" upon which they could "act" I am not quite sure to what you are referencing.

Generally speaking the same folks complaining about LE "not acting" based upon information revealed POST-EVENT are the same crowd complaining about LE acting in the absence of current, real time information that would legally support LE taking any action! Originally Posted by LexusLover

HOW many times did the local cops get called to the Cruz house for domestic violence (HIM beating the parents up?) 39!.. I've seen friends and others, who got arrested and CHARGED, after just ONE CALL OUT.. So had the LOCAL cops done that from the get go, he'd already have a DV Conviction on his record which ON ITS OWN, would have prevented him buying the guns...

The FBI admitted that it failed to follow procedures and investigate a January call warning them about the shooter, and the sheriff's office admitted it received 20 something calls in the last two years and failed add "1+1+1" to create a case. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yesterday, evening I heard that reported. I kept watching for a clip of an FBI agent reporting that specific information and/or the text of the January 2018 alleged report so one can evaluate the usefulness of the report as far as identity and/or activity.

This has the sound of the post-911 witch hunt and the aging "connecting the dots" accusations that where made. I'm not suggesting there was not such a "report," but personally I would like to hear or read the actual report in January 2018.

As an aside: This guy didn't have parents, but he was living with a family (who had a family member about his age?). I heard one of the adults in the house where he was living was aware he had weapons. They are not his "parents," but they are responsible for what occurs in their residence. They are not getting much attention.

And that's something i've pointed out on other sites, and gotten bashed for..
Schools in the 50s to even mid-late 80s, had
A) GOD in them
B) Teachers able to issue on the spot discipline to kids
C) NROTC programs and some even had drill squads so guns were ON CAMPUSES..

YET WE never had a school shooting, till what, the mid 90s?? LONG after they were all removed?



HOW many times did the local cops get called to the Cruz house for domestic violence (HIM beating the parents up?) 39!.. I've seen friends and others, who got arrested and CHARGED, after just ONE CALL OUT.. So had the LOCAL cops done that from the get go, he'd already have a DV Conviction on his record which ON ITS OWN, would have prevented him buying the guns... Originally Posted by garhkal

A couple of points: As for the schools role: I agree with you that the politically/culturally "correct" environment in public schools from the 80's-90's on, which has been driven by the "feel good" Liberal principles forced upon schools through court decisions, statutes, and regulations has prohibited the schools (teachers and staff) from maintaining appropriate behavior in schools with parents demanding more of the schools and less authority of the schools over their children.

There was violence in schools and around schools in the 60's and 70's ... there was no internet, no 24/7 news cycles, and no cell phones. There was primarily print media and limited TV news that relied upon reports from school district personnel of incidents, who were interested in quelling any "concerns" in the community.

In today's media environment "we" hear more and see more, plus the parents are less involved in their children's behavior!

As for the "call outs" .... one would have to look at them in detail and determine why and how they were handled. I'm not arguing about the 39, but when you report he was beating up "his parents" ... I am hearing his "parents" were dead.

Evaluating "blame" based on media reports, as "we" have discovered over the past year plus, leads "us" to a dead end often.

If local LE appeared at this guy's residence in response to a violence complaint or call, which turned to be accurate, and did not "secure" the firearms at the residence (removing them into the PD custody) and assuring no more were acquired, then I would hold the local LE responsible for this specific incident.

The schools need to be pro-active at PREVENTION, and should have been. They get paid to babysit and take care of the students.

Another lie! Or were you lying back then? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again I challenge you to back up what you call lies from the posts I've made. I have recently shown that you have a problem distinguishing "lies" from "opinions" when you cited a post where you claimed I lied, which I obviously did not.

Put up or shut up.

Why don't you ask IB to clean up his spelling and grammar? Since it bothers you so bad, why don't you give him the same speech you give everyone else? Originally Posted by themystic

It doesn't "bother" me "so bad" .... just when pukes like you start your rants against others as though "your knowledge" is superior ... StandinInShit is a good example. You two are practically clones. You just started a thread that sounded like StandingInShit!

See Speedo! In the meantime ..

Again I challenge you to back up what you call lies from the posts I've made. I have recently shown that you have a problem distinguishing "lies" from "opinions" when you cited a post where you claimed I lied, which I obviously did not.

Put up or shut up. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sorry, puke. You can't!

You've lied so many times it's ridiculous! Now if you have a personal problem with a definition of "lie" you might want to consult your "academic" brothers AssUp and WTF! They invented the word on here.

Topics of your lies (short list): Clarksville, crimes, trailer parks, my RW information, and your lying.

The prime examples of how you respond to your lies is your "explanation" of why your failure to heed the posted speed limit by exceeding it is not a crime: You claim that if a police officer does not tell you that it's against the law to exceed the speed limit then it's not a crime (speeding is a crime!). Then you claim you can drive anywhere you want on the UT campus, but point out two PUBLIC STREETS that are open to the football game as your "authority" and when I confront you with the campus regs you say you've never been "stopped" on campus by a cop.

So your LIE is it's not a crime unless the cops tell you it is! You're not "clever"!

Own it. And you can keep yapping all you want. Go FLUFF yourself! Or just pretend:

Sorry, puke. You can't!

You've lied so many times it's ridiculous! Now if you have a personal problem with a definition of "lie" you might want to consult your "academic" brothers AssUp and WTF! They invented the word on here.

Topics of your lies (short list): Clarksville, crimes, trailer parks, my RW information, and your lying.

The prime examples of how you respond to your lies is your "explanation" of why your failure to heed the posted speed limit by exceeding it is not a crime: You claim that if a police officer does not tell you that it's against the law to exceed the speed limit then it's not a crime (speeding is a crime!). Then you claim you can drive anywhere you want on the UT campus, but point out two PUBLIC STREETS that are open to the football game as your "authority" and when I confront you with the campus regs you say you've never been "stopped" on campus by a cop.

So your LIE is it's not a crime unless the cops tell you it is! You're not "clever"!

Own it. And you can keep yapping all you want. Go FLUFF yourself! Or just pretend:
Originally Posted by LexusLover

You obviously have a difficult time distinguishing a LIE from and OPINION.

"Topics of your lies (short list): Clarksville, crimes, trailer parks, my RW information, and your lying."

All these are OPINIONS. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. Neither of us is lying when we express those opinions. Fucking idiot.

When a police officer TELLS ME I will not be given a ticket for driving 5 MPH over the speed limit then the posted speed limit loses all credibility. Technically I am breaking the law but in the eyes of the police, who are responsible for enforcing the law, I am NOT breaking the law. That's all I'm saying on the subject. I have not lied.

I proved you wrong time after time after time in the discussion on driving on college campuses. Every asinine defense you came up with for your stupid statement I shot down. Did you lie? No. You were wrong. But won't admit it to this day despite EVERYONE who expressed their opinion disagreed with you.

Please learn the difference between a "lie" and an "opinion".