The Descent Bulletin Board
https://descentbb.net/
Feeling proud you are pushing the same tired memes that you libs can only see? NRA approved shooter? Only you can come up with such idiocy. I like how you over look the guy was reported to the FBI not once but twice and the FBI admitted to dropping the ball in stopping him. So yeah lets ban the guns and ignore the kid was a know mental case who bragged how he wanted to kill students. Lets make more gun free zones out of schools to make them hideously vulnerable. Lets arm the teachers with nothing but the clothes on their backs like the coach who died by stepping between the shooter and his students. On but wait....as you famously once said, all you have to do is pull out your cell phone and call for help. Got any real solutions or your intellect too limited by the PC talking points you are fed and the regurgitate?callmeslick wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2018 7:52 am note that the usual narrative NS pushes(the shooter was a Dem, was not a white nationalist, etc), which I pre-empted here, was now proveably pushed by RUSSIAN sources. Feeling proud, comrade Nightshade? Your fellows in the Kremlin do the same thing you do here.
Obviously you are confused. All I saw in the last 8 years was divisive politics played out by Obama and friends. Case in point Obama decided the Boston police dept needed federal oversight as it was so racist. Nice try on the deflection attempt.
The government will never be able to "protect you" even if it were a tyrannical total police state (like leftist democrats want it to be.)
If I'm not mistaken, Slick has repeatedly advocated for sensible regulations, none of which exist today. Without a legal framework addressing guns and mental illness the FBI can't do anything no matter how many times a potential shooter is reported.
How quickly you've conveniently forgot that the recent loss of our most precious freedoms and the slow, cancerous formation of a police state, can directly be laid at the feet of that wonderful piece of legislation, The Patriot Act. Yes, some of that was the Dems fault since they went along with the charade, all because they were just as psychotic after 911 as everyone else. But that "Act" was brought to you courtesy of 2 Republican leaders, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They claimed that all they wanted was to protect us from terrorists, but in reality what they really wanted was more power and the ability to wage war. So like a bunch of scared sheep, we Americans willingly let them take away our freedoms in exchange for security. We've never gotten it back either. Once you give a leader more power without questioning it, it sticks around long after. Other leaders that follow always keep it and abuse it, because power is a favored drug. You'll never ever get it back into the hands of the people without a revolution either.Nightshade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:56 pm
The government will never be able to "protect you" even if it were a tyrannical total police state (like leftist democrats want it to be.)
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The democrats were in total power for two years...but they did nothing to repeal it, did they?Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:33 pm
How quickly you've conveniently forgot that the recent loss of our most precious freedoms and the slow, cancerous formation of a police state, can directly be laid at the feet of that wonderful piece of legislation, The Patriot Act. Yes, some of that was the Dems fault since they went along with the charade, all because they were just as psychotic after 911 as everyone else. But that "Act" was brought to you courtesy of 2 Republican leaders, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They claimed that all they wanted was to protect us from terrorists, but in reality what they really wanted was more power and the ability to wage war. So like a bunch of scared sheep, we Americans willingly let them take away our freedoms in exchange for security. We've never gotten it back either. Once you give a leader more power without questioning it, it sticks around long after. Other leaders that follow always keep it and abuse it, because power is a favored drug. You'll never ever get it back into the hands of the people without a revolution either.
Since you asked in a non abusive manner how about:vision wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:30 pmIf I'm not mistaken, Slick has repeatedly advocated for sensible regulations, none of which exist today. Without a legal framework addressing guns and mental illness the FBI can't do anything no matter how many times a potential shooter is reported.
What solutions do you have that aren't right-wing talking points?
Take away a murderer's toy, and he'll strive for another one. Period.
Maybe it takes an armed fortress to dissuade these potential shooters.
I tend toward thinking gun laws are a bit like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube at this point, but Chicago can be an example that helps show the opposite of your point. Local gun laws are too narrow to have much effect on availability. The market for which guns are produced still exists, it's just a little further down the road to the next city, county, or state.LightWolf wrote:Take Chicago, the center of gang violence. How are the strictest gun laws in the nation helping them?
How white nationalists fooled the media about Florida shootercallmeslick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2018 3:14 pm ......that's all, just another day in NRA-purchased America, right?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... sts-415672Following misrepresentations by a white nationalist leader and coordinated efforts by internet trolls, numerous researchers and media outlets spread a seemingly false claim that the man charged with killing more than a dozen people at a Florida high school belonged to an extremist group.
Law enforcement agencies say they have no evidence so far to support this claim, and the rumor appears to have been perpetrated by white nationalist trolls themselves.
On Thursday afternoon, the Anti-Defamation League reported that a white supremacist group claimed ties with Nikolas Cruz, who confessed to the shooting spree that killed at least 17 people, including many high-school students, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“A spokesperson for the white supremacist group Republic of Florida (ROF) told the Anti-Defamation League on Thursday, February 15, that Nikolas Cruz [....] was associated with his group,” the ADL reported. The ADL quoted a man named Jordan Jereb, who runs the small group, which is based in Tallahassee.
“Jereb added that ROF had not ordered or wanted Cruz to do anything like the school shooting,” the ADL wrote in a blog post that was quickly picked up by ABC News and The Associated Press, and later percolated through dozens of other media outlets. Even The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, picked up the claim.
Sure, sounds good if it can be done without abuse. How can you convince 2A advocates this isn't a breech of the constitutional liberty of mentally ill people, and would you be in support of all the government funding that goes along with regulating the people deciding who is not fit to own firearms? Will you call your Republican representatives and express this view?woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amExpanding police powers to go in a take firearms from obviously disturbed individuals like Cruz who made well known his proclivities. How much more warning did they need to prevent this from happening? Do you know if your doctor deems you a mental case and he knows you have fire arms, he (the doctor) can send the police over to confiscate all your firearms? As well they should. Does this sound to right wing or is it sensible?
I never understood the logic behind the gun free zone label, so I'm with you there. When you say give teachers the tools and training they need, you're talking about guns, correct? Schools are often on the chopping block when it comes time to balance the budget and teachers regularly have to buy their own teaching supplies. Would you be in support of the financing involved with training literally hundreds of thousands of teachers and giving them guns? Security personnel trained for a live shooter event would be expensive. How many would it take and wouldn't they just become the first targets a shooter would fire upon?woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amProtect the schools better by removing the fallacy that by labeling them "gun free" zones. Stop having teachers use their bodies as shields and give them the tools and training to actually protect their charges. Hire trained security personnel if you must but stop regarding our students as bullet bags that are only good for promoting political ideology. Is this too right wing?
I don't play violent games and don't like violence in movies, but I have also never seen a study that positively links games and movies with violence. I'm not sure censorship would help. I believe the problem is not fictional or play violence, but an incredible sense of apathy and hopelessness in children. It's no secret that kids today are not like previous generations. They don't rebel, they don't stir up trouble, and with the exception of some of the stupider ones eating laundry detergent, most are happy sit in their rooms and play games with their friends. Rather than censoring what they see, perhaps we should show them we are making progress toward combating things that fill them with dread, like the hopelessness that comes along with extreme income inequality, racial conflict, political division, climate change, and other things that make kids retreat from the world?
Right. This is the way things are heading if we don't get to the root cause. As the only anti-gun member of descentbb.net, I have never thought the solution was entirely about legislation, but more about promoting equality and altruism. If you live in a world where your needs are met, there is no incentive to shoot anyone with a gun.woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amAs to the AR style rifles, this is just a distraction. Make it harder to own if you must but just remember if you do, a enterprising student will get some fertilizer and diesel fuel, pack it in a car and park it in front of the school when the parents are picking up their kids. The Boston Marathon will pale in comparison. What will you ban then?
Well, they're obviously either STILL psychotic, or they're kowtowing to the military industrial complex at this point.Nightshade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:54 pmThe democrats were in total power for two years...but they did nothing to repeal it, did they?Tunnelcat wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:33 pm
How quickly you've conveniently forgot that the recent loss of our most precious freedoms and the slow, cancerous formation of a police state, can directly be laid at the feet of that wonderful piece of legislation, The Patriot Act. Yes, some of that was the Dems fault since they went along with the charade, all because they were just as psychotic after 911 as everyone else. But that "Act" was brought to you courtesy of 2 Republican leaders, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They claimed that all they wanted was to protect us from terrorists, but in reality what they really wanted was more power and the ability to wage war. So like a bunch of scared sheep, we Americans willingly let them take away our freedoms in exchange for security. We've never gotten it back either. Once you give a leader more power without questioning it, it sticks around long after. Other leaders that follow always keep it and abuse it, because power is a favored drug. You'll never ever get it back into the hands of the people without a revolution either.
Better to leave them defenseless then is your view point? I suspect your attitude would change if your school was involved and you got to see the bloody bodies of some of your students lying on the floor. How many more dead students would convince you taking prudent safety measures are needed? a 100, a 1000?
We already have laws about people not fit to own firearms. Felons for one. I'm not sure there are too many 2A advocates that wouldn't approve taking firearm away from mentally ill people (and in the case of Cruz demonstrably so). At the very least give the local cops the power to take away the firearms and by pass the oh so obviously inept FBI. Abuse? There probably will be but much better that than having a corpse count of students.vision wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:54 pmSure, sounds good if it can be done without abuse. How can you convince 2A advocates this isn't a breech of the constitutional liberty of mentally ill people, and would you be in support of all the government funding that goes along with regulating the people deciding who is not fit to own firearms? Will you call your Republican representatives and express this view?woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amExpanding police powers to go in a take firearms from obviously disturbed individuals like Cruz who made well known his proclivities. How much more warning did they need to prevent this from happening? Do you know if your doctor deems you a mental case and he knows you have fire arms, he (the doctor) can send the police over to confiscate all your firearms? As well they should. Does this sound to right wing or is it sensible?
I never understood the logic behind the gun free zone label, so I'm with you there. When you say give teachers the tools and training they need, you're talking about guns, correct? Schools are often on the chopping block when it comes time to balance the budget and teachers regularly have to buy their own teaching supplies. Would you be in support of the financing involved with training literally hundreds of thousands of teachers and giving them guns? Security personnel trained for a live shooter event would be expensive. How many would it take and wouldn't they just become the first targets a shooter would fire upon? [/quote]woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amProtect the schools better by removing the fallacy that by labeling them "gun free" zones. Stop having teachers use their bodies as shields and give them the tools and training to actually protect their charges. Hire trained security personnel if you must but stop regarding our students as bullet bags that are only good for promoting political ideology. Is this too right wing?
I don't play violent games and don't like violence in movies, but I have also never seen a study that positively links games and movies with violence. I'm not sure censorship would help. I believe the problem is not fictional or play violence, but an incredible sense of apathy and hopelessness in children. It's no secret that kids today are not like previous generations. They don't rebel, they don't stir up trouble, and with the exception of some of the stupider ones eating laundry detergent, most are happy sit in their rooms and play games with their friends. Rather than censoring what they see, perhaps we should show them we are making progress toward combating things that fill them with dread, like the hopelessness that comes along with extreme income inequality, racial conflict, political division, climate change, and other things that make kids retreat from the world? [/quote]
I would disagree. People with mental orders will still exist no matter how altruistic society may be. Until we get to the root cause I'm afraid some of the above ideas we expressed will have to take affect.vision wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:54 pmRight. This is the way things are heading if we don't get to the root cause. As the only anti-gun member of descentbb.net, I have never thought the solution was entirely about legislation, but more about promoting equality and altruism. If you live in a world where your needs are met, there is no incentive to shoot anyone with a gun.woodchip wrote: ↑Sun Feb 18, 2018 8:08 amAs to the AR style rifles, this is just a distraction. Make it harder to own if you must but just remember if you do, a enterprising student will get some fertilizer and diesel fuel, pack it in a car and park it in front of the school when the parents are picking up their kids. The Boston Marathon will pale in comparison. What will you ban then?
let me go make a snack while I wait for that response. Maybe I'll have enough time to brine and then roast a turkey before either Woody or NS veer from fascist talking points.vision wrote: ↑Sat Feb 17, 2018 5:30 pmIf I'm not mistaken, Slick has repeatedly advocated for sensible regulations, none of which exist today. Without a legal framework addressing guns and mental illness the FBI can't do anything no matter how many times a potential shooter is reported.
What solutions do you have that aren't right-wing talking points?
The only "prudent safety measures" I want to see are fixing our royally fucked-up society and getting ★■◆●ing MILITARY-GRADE MASS MURDER ENABLERS out of the hands of private citizens. No one should own an AR-15. Period. If you have any desire to, you're a goddamn psycho in my book.woodchip wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:19 am Better to leave them defenseless then is your view point? I suspect your attitude would change if your school was involved and you got to see the bloody bodies of some of your students lying on the floor. How many more dead students would convince you taking prudent safety measures are needed? a 100, a 1000?
Citations ★■◆●ing needed.
Don't give me that vapid bull★■◆●. How dense do you have to be to ignore the fact that the only reason any of these people are able to do what they do is because it's pathetically easy to get one's hands on objects solely designed to kill large numbers of people in a short amount of time? Some random disturbed teen isn't going to wander into the ghetto and buy guns from a shady guy in a back alley. It's many times more difficult to DRIVE than it is to obtain a weapon of mass murder. How hideously fucked-up is that?Take away a murderer's toy, and he'll strive for another one. Period.
As I said above, if this is what it actually takes, then this country is an absolute third-world shithole and has no business continuing to exist.Maybe it takes an armed fortress to dissuade these potential shooters.
Serious question: how old are you? Because you sound for all the world like a dumbass teenager parroting shitty Fox News talking points you heard from your parents. Grow up, develop a sense of how the world actually functions, and then get back to me.The thing to keep in mind is simple: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
Point taken. My comment was off target regarding mental illness.
Paolo del Vecchio of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has said, “Violence by those with mental illness is so small that even if you could somehow cure it all, 95 percent of violent crime would still exist.”
Well I own one and for a reason you are obviously unaware. There is something called "Service Rifle" competition along with a whole raft of other rifle /pistol competitions culminating once a year at Camp Perry for the national finals. lotsa people compete and use the Ar-15 as it is a very accurate rifle (some use the M-14 but it has fallen out of favor) and the recoil is quite light compared to the M-14. As a varmint rifle, the AR-15 also excels. So are people who bought one for these reasons psycho's? And I would have to agree that for home defense the AR-15 is not appropriate. A pistol or shotgun being the better choice.
Yes, if you have one sitting around your house, I question your mental state. If you want to engage in shooting competitions, keep them under lock and key at the range and use them there. Or better yet, get a hobby that doesn't involve objects intended to blow holes in people's brains.woodchip wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:26 amWell I own one and for a reason you are obviously unaware. There is something called "Service Rifle" competition along with a whole raft of other rifle /pistol competitions culminating once a year at Camp Perry for the national finals. lotsa people compete and use the Ar-15 as it is a very accurate rifle (some use the M-14 but it has fallen out of favor) and the recoil is quite light compared to the M-14. As a varmint rifle, the AR-15 also excels. So are people who bought one for these reasons psycho's? And I would have to agree that for home defense the AR-15 is not appropriate. A pistol or shotgun being the better choice.
Actually, the opposite seems to be true. A few recent studies have shown that playing video games, even violent ones, keeps people busy and out of trouble. The games are a diversion and a release.