Instead of punishing law abiding citizens by checking their ID before giving them a beer all because of the acts of some deranged alcohol-loving teens we should do nothing because... money.

"Take the guns first; go through due process second" — LD Saunders

And Alex Jones' head explodes.

Now you see that Trump is a real man! — Agustino

Credit where credit is due. Would it be too much to ask that he follow up by kicking his sons' butts for this?

:halo: :naughty:

:pray: :pray: :pray:

Someone else took care of his ass for me. :point: :fire:

Your closet socialism is safe with us. ;)

We've been accused of driving members away for being overly tolerant as well as being overly intolerant. It's impossible for us to satisfy everyone, but we will continue to try to give reasonable explanations for mod actions and in cases where we think we've made a mistake, we'll reverse it. I don't believe this was such a case.

I can't find any mention of him claiming civilians had access to machine guns either. He mentioned automatic weaponry, which with a bump stock is effectively possible. But if he really did say all that, quote him, and I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, let's try to keep things factual.

No. You're obviously misrespresenting him. (Unless he's completely insane, which I doubt).

The only mention of bazookas is here:

Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too I'm prepared: — Agustino

If you can't distinguish a joke like the above from a serious point then you really have a problem, frankly.

The other falsehood, moreover, was the suggestion by Agustino that civilians have access to the first set of military weapons. — Thorongil

Where did @Agustino claim that civilians had access to the first set of weapons you mentioned, which were:

"grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc"?

He said there was:

...no need ever to own assault rifles, automatic war weaponry, etc. — Agustino

By automatic war weaponry, I presume he meant rifles like the one in Buxtebuddha's video, which were designed with war in mind, and are, with modification, automatic. In any case, he obviously doesn't think tanks, helicopters and fighter jets are in civilian hands nor does anyone else. You know that, right?

The continued attempts in this thread to paint me as some rabid, gun toting and loving NRA shill are getting really, really old. — Thorongil

I never mentioned you in connection with the NRA or rabidness or loving guns, and I'm not responsible for anyone who has. My comment concerns your mischaracterizing of your interlocutor's as "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods". We're not. The growing piles of dead children are testimony to the fact that some fear of these weapons being easily available is absolutely justified.

Agreed.

Anyone who claims that guns like this are not the equivalent of war weapons and accuses those who claim they are of "fear-mongering" and "peddling falsehoods" is either deliberately lying or willfully ignorant.

"While it was still legal for gun dealers to sell automatic weapons until the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, which banned new automatic weapons, these first Colt AR-15s were semi-automatic weapons.
...

...automatic war weaponry, etc — Agustino

However, to this day, civilians can still own automatic weapons that were grandfathered in before 1986. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/ar-15-semi-automatic-history-why-used-mass-shootings-2018-2#they-can-also-be-customized-in-a-number-of-ways-including-scopes-large-capacity-magazines-bump-stocks-and-more-all-of-which-adds-to-the-guns-popularity-8



"In a 10-4 decision, the federal court upheld Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban, finding that guns like the AR-15 are weapons of war, and thus American civilians don’t have an unfettered right to buy and own them under the Second Amendment."

https://www.thetrace.org/2017/02/assault-rifles-ban-ar-15-weapon-of-war/

"Our father, Eugene Stoner,designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,”

"He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

in standard civilian life there should be absolutely no need ever to own assault rifles.., — Agustino

They can't. It's illegal to own such weapons. — Thorongil

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004. Attempts to renew this ban have failed, as have attempts to pass a new ban, such as the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 ."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_legislation_in_the_United_States#Proposed_Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2015



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/16/americans-age-to-buy-ar15-assault-rifle-mass-shootings

:clap: :clap: @Banno. It's time to #BoycottNRA and #BoycottNRAsponsors.

Cheers. Best strawman ever.

Think you replied to the wrong person there.

It's all about money, really. — Ciceronianus the White

If only they could be a little more subtle about it. But maybe they don't have to be any more. :death:

How boring of you. Besides, the only way to stop a violent, punishing bad guy is with a violent, punishing good guy. Whatever. Just so long as they both have guns and are around children. But then, that sounds dangerous. Let's give the kids guns too just to be on the safe side.

No, we will call you sexist and ban you. :hearts:

And on that note...

I'm glad you don't disagree with me concerning the perverse suggestion that teachers should be armed. Extra security at schools including the possible employment of armed guards is a different issue, and seems a less objectionable proposal on the surface for obvious reasons though I still don't agree with it. I'd rather we stop treating the symptoms and start treating the cause. There's a fairly simple equation at work here—the more guns there are in a given environment, the more often they get used, and the more often innocent people get killed through their use, both accidentally and purposefully.

I don't see you arguing for less guns in banks. Has there ever been a problem there? — Harry Hindu

Yes, the problem is more people getting killed, so you're wrong to think I wouldn't argue for that. I'd rather bank robbers take the money, leave, and then be pursued by the police (armed if necessary) than that they get involved in shootouts with armed guards and risk killing customers in the crossfire. Obviously, the more armed the guards are, the more armed the criminals will tend to be, and the more potential there is for violence. And it's not as if it's preventative. Which is why we don't have armed guards in banks in Ireland, for example, and we have less robberies and less people getting killed in robberies. So, apart from this being common sense, it works. But just research it yourself.

https://www.revealnews.org/article/fbi-bank-robbery-data-shows-armed-guards-increase-risk-of-violence/

"Research [shows] that...the presence of defensive weapons creates a greater risk of violence
...In an environment like this, arming guards in all locations is premature. Even in locations where robberies do occur, the presence of a guard increases the likelihood of violence and injury."

Introduction to private security - John Dempsey

"According to the FBI, the simple presence of any on-site weapon automatically increases the potential risk of violence. When a Security Guard is armed on the job, the potential threat of violence automatically increases yet again..."

https://www.eldoradoinsurance.com/security-industry-news/security-guard-violence-trends/

(Insurance company).

"Many people perceive armed security officers favorably as a deterrent against violence and an assurance that a violent incident can be quickly quelled. From a client's ... The presence of an additional firearm—even in an officer's hands—only stands to increase the risk of casualties."

https://sm.asisonline.org/Pages/Guns-and-Security-The-Risks-of-Arming-Security-Officers.aspx

(Security management company).

The idea that the way to solve the problem of violence is to increase the means of carrying it out is completely wrong no matter how selectively you try to apply the principle. And the attitude of looking to guns as being a solution to anything rather than simply a menace we'd all be better off without is very culturally specific to the U.S. The weight of empirical evidence shows that a less armed society at every level (apart from military defence) is a safer and more secure society. There is nothing to fall back on for the gun lovers except their love for their guns and a bunch of irrational attempts at justification that fall apart even on a very basic analysis.

If I were still in teaching and some arsehole told me to carry a gun, I'd tell them where to stick it. Militarising schools is not the solution to gun violence, less guns is. Someone please tell the children who run America that.

The claim now isn't that the election was rigged, it's that it was interfered with by a foreign government who influenced the outcome. A rigged election is one in which the outcome is inevitable based on interference.

It's fine. I was joking.

Trump would love this discussion so much I should really close it.

I've come to the same conclusion - for the short to medium term at least. The massacres just don't bother enough Americans enough relative to how much they love their guns. Arguing the point becomes almost an exercise in masochism.

Et voilà.

What has been gotten at in the hideous portrait of HMQEII? — Bitter Crank

Not sure. I'm presuming it's not an accident that she looks like that though. Maybe there's a joke in there somewhere?

That one of Jackie strikes me as rather creepy, for example. She looks like nightmarish, ghastly doll. — Ciceronianus the White

That's what I thought. As for the Michelle Obama, it doesn't do much for me - too bland in my view.

If the purpose of portraiture is to create a physical likeness of a person, that of Michelle Obama probably doesn't meet that purpose — Ciceronianus the White

It is partly and it does partly. The portrait below doesn't look much like the Queen of England, for example, but portraits are more about getting at something deeper about the person than mere physical resemblance. Not that you can leave that behind, but you can push it to the side.

I see some people making consistently accurate predictions on price movements for bitcoin - both the rises and falls. That indicates there's more to it than simple market sentiment and herd mentality. I'm curious what. — Benkei

I haven't seen anything more accurate than simply tracing the bubble curve above, which I've been using as a predictive mechanism since the price took off in December. If there are micro-movements being reliably predicted then that does suggest something else at play. I've seen no evidence of that though. What people are you referring to?

Just follow the bubble curve. Bitcoin is pixie dust. It's worth whatever people expect it to be worth. Personally, I expect it to fatefully follow the burst trajectory as per above and fall below 3,000USD within a short period.

We very well may get banned in China at some point anyway. Their loss. They've got nothing on me seeing as I've escaped the place. But let propaganda from whatever side be held up to the light not swept under the carpet.

I think you would be doing the community a service if you removed the post. — Wayfarer

Now you're sounding like an ideologue yourself. You just admitted you don't know much about Tibetan history. Why not learn more before taking a stand? Some of what's written in the post happens to be true. That's not to defend China. I'm not a fan of the place or its system.

(Y)

Un serendipitously gave you all you need. (And, no, it wasn't a conspiracy.)

Butter Chicken Masala.

(Let's see how long it takes you.)

(N)