No easy solution take 2
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
Please, no conspiracy theories, no internet insanity, just serious discussion about a serious problem. I ask everyone who posts here to NOT respond to anything crazy. Just ignore the crazy and try to focus on the real.
Top
supporter
Posted by K.Duffy (+1812) 9 years ago
The ban on non-military ownership of assault rifles and especially the ammunition for them should, to me , be a no brain-er 1st move. **I know the paranoids instantly make this, "The gov.'s coming to take ALL our guns!!" instead of rationally thinking, "you know, I don't need a 30 round clip to hunt.."**

Help for the seriously mentally ill is a much tougher one.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
Removing loopholes such as the Gun Show loophole. Would seem pretty straightforward.

Background checks (for both commercial and private sale).

I realize that YES, people will still try and get guns the illegal way, but if a background check prevents one senseless gun murder, as a law-abiding citizen, I'm totally cool waiting for said background check to clear.

In fact, I am PROUD to legally purchase my guns and ammunition. By all means, do that research and see how much of a responsible gun owner I am. This should be a new NRA patch-- "Proud, Legal, Responsible Gun Owner!"
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
Newark, NJ Mayor Cory Booker's thoughts on pragmatic gun solutions is a MUST READ. I'm not advocating all of his ideas, but there is serious food for thought in this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost...46911.html
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17178) 9 years ago
"I read old newspapers for a living. Guess what? People were shot at work or murdered by spouses or ran riot and just killed randomly 25 years ago and 50 years ago and 100 years ago. The pictures are in color now but the story remains the same." -- Amorette Allison

http://milescity.com/foru...19/#131225


Why the sudden need to do something about our nation's violent ways? Are you saying that violence has gotten worse?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
We have always killed each other. We just didn't kill large numbers of completely random strangers. I don't know if that is just because there more of us, because we have higher capacity guns or the idea of slaughtering vast numbers of people has somehow become more appealing. I have never come across someone killing dozens of innocent people at once in the old newspapers. That is definitely a modern trend.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17178) 9 years ago
From that same thread:

"The whole thing of crime getting worse, my best friend Dave, especially in regards to people killing themselves or others, in a manner worst than the past, is a rather irritating issue -- because it's not true." -- MilesCity.com Webmaster

http://milescity.com/foru...19/#131238

So, I'm not buying this urgent need to do something. In the past it was, "Just another day in paradise." Why do anything differently now?
Top
Posted by Sledge H. (+6) 9 years ago
Applying to law that every law abiding citizen must own and be proficient with fire arms with the ability to carry anywhere they see fit.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
Maybe we are just noticing what we should have noticed a long time ago. There is a problem with gun violence and maybe we are now evolved enough to deal with it reasonably. NRA, aside.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10002) 9 years ago
Hey, that was a pretty good quote from me.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
I am just kind of wondering about Hannah`s legally buying firearms. It seems that you are implying buying a firearm from your neighbor is illegal or giving your grandson your 7 shot 6 shooter. Or 9 shot for that matter. Please post all of your firearms purchases including serial number and your address here Hannah and I will try to check into the legality of your purchases thank you.

Also Hannah? Can you describe your use of the word "tons"? As in there have been tons of changes made to the constitution. I count 27 , the last change took 202 years. The first 10 don`t really count as they were the bill of rights. So 17 changes is tons? Can you tell me how many changes is in a tonne? A suggestion as I will make to Ammorette below. Maybe the two of you could get together , plan an outing to your local library , apply for a library card and check out some books on history , weights and measures and slang. I believe they will be very helpful at the library in issuing a card(s)to you.

Ammorette?? Do you think in the " Indian Wars " of the west that the soldiers and politicians knew personally the people that they were infecting with what kind of turned out to the natives to be a plague????????????????? Do some research. I dunno , try to check out a history book at the library or something. And maybe think a bit more about implying that you feel sorry for people because they are not you. I`m doing fine being me. Just sayin.........

Ammorette , I apologize for responding to something absolutely crazy but sometimes it just has to be done.

[This message has been edited by SD (1/5/2013)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
@SD

Looking above... I think you posted your Reply to the wrong thread, as the phrasing and words you're attributing to me aren't located in this message thread. Please try to stay on topic (and keep your conversation civil; your little barbs are sounding very juvenile in what has been a decent discussion thus far).

As for "legally purchasing guns", please reference the article from Cory Booker that I posted in THIS thread to brush up on some NRA-approved gun purchasing ideas (and refrain from taking my comments out of context, please. Thank you for your consideration.)
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3259) 9 years ago
I just wish they would get the "darn" library cards:-)
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
Thanks, Amorette. There's an acceptable baseline of public safety, particularly in the public square; there is a right to self-defense at home; and there are general points of agreement about the use of sporting firearms in the field from the prior thread that can be used as a platform for this follow-up. There are also facts unique to this area that make the discussion timely and relevant. Those facts include:

1. Custer Co. leads the state in total suicides, Montana leads the nation in its suicide rate, and the U.S. leads all industrialized nations in gun deaths by a wide margin.
2. Montana ranks as the 3rd highest gun ownership state in the nation.
2. Both agriculture and hunting, in which the use of firearms is regarded as both necessary and highly valued, are large contributors to the Miles City economy.
3. The widespread adoption of a cowboy mythology feeds a robust sense of self-reliance.
4. The state of our regional mental health infrastructure is anemic and the State of Montana has failed to require the regular reporting of mental health information to the NICS database.
5. The City Council recently provided for the concealed carry of firearms by permitted active and retired law enforcement, military, and other "public officials" in our parks, sporting facilities, and public assemblies.

There are razor sharp wits (David, Bridgier, Buck, Gunnar, Brian) and thoughtful minds at work in this forum. From points of agreement and these unique facts, I'm certain the community can come together and sharply reduce the risk of suicide, homicide and gun injury. The suggestions, so far, have already been unusually constructive. Thank you all. ^5 -> Hannah & Karla.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+183) 9 years ago
Highest suicide rate by County is Deer Lodge County(29.1) not Custer. (26.2) Nonetheless, a surprising and dreadful statistic. Yellowstone County leads the State in total suicides. (310)
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Hannah

Barbs? I learnt `bout the constitution and it`s amendments in high school. It does not matter what thread it is in when someone is just plain wrong. One amendment in 202 years is not tons.

To be constructive here there has to be at least a shred of accuracy. The finest computer will not give you the right answer if the wrong information is fed in to it.

It seems people here have no idea what they are talking about , make an assumption that they are comfortable with and then deem it as the truth. That or someone claims others are "sharp" if they share the same point of view as theirs.

It is no wonder there is no easy solution.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14970) 9 years ago
There are several ways in which the constitution has changed over the years:

(1) the passage of basic legislation by Congress;

(2) actions taken by the President;

(3) key decisions of the Supreme Court;

(4) the activities of political parties;

(5) custom.

The notion that a law passed by congress and declared "constitutional" by the court is a tacit changing of the constitution. Hannah's use of the word "tons" is thus justified.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
I apparently didn't list out enough detail on the different Constitutional adjustments I was referencing in a different thread (care to actually comment on the subject in THIS thread, SD?) I should have clarified further than "tons", as it seems to distract you from actually discussing the topic at hand: gun violence in this country.

As for your "one amendment in 202 years" statement-- if you are a female voter, you might be interested that the 19th Amendment in 1920 didn't take 202 years, or the 20th Amendment, or the 21st, etc. Your assessment is flawed (as Richard so eloquently pointed out-- with facts). The Supreme Court also rules in Constitutionality. Please accept what the Founders intended for the Constitution to be: a living, breathing document that could limit the government for generations.

So please take the time, SD, to quit arguing semantics with people on this thread and let's tackle the subject-- people have published articles, ideas, and posed solutions. Care to tackle the actual discussion, or would you like to focus on more of my slang terms?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
SD--Communication requires both sides to know what is being discussed. You tend to jump around abruptly and leave me completely baffled. What do the Indian Wars of the late nineteenth century have to do with the topic at hand? If you could clarify that, then I could respond. I'm assuming you are trying to make some sort of moral equivalency between modern gun violence and earlier wars but I don't quite see the connection.

By the way, if you haven't read "In the Shadow of Wounded Knee" by Roger de Silvestro on the death of Lt. Edward Casey, I highly recommend it. Fascinating tale, connected with Miles City and Fort Keogh, about the last white soldier killed in the Indian Wars.

On the subject of amending the constitution, anyone remember how well Prohibition worked? Sometimes, the system has to correct itself.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (1/6/2013)]
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Ok

1st ,Richard is just plain out to lunch. You should be embarassed Richard.

Ammorette. I think you made a statement about mass killing(s) of people the killer(s) did not know. History is full of mass anonymous to the victims killings , tons of it in fact.

Do some deep research on Wounded Knee and you just might be suprised. I have not read the book you suggest but am familiar with events surrounding Wounded Knee. You may find murder , politics and conspiracy. Tonnes of it. I have my conspiracy theory , but it is covered up by a conspiracy. There was a relative of mine involved. It may be studied for centuries as Lincoln`s death will be.

Hannah. I must have been trying to do two things or more at once when I know many times one thing at once is too much. I think I may have been intending to use one particular amendment as an example. One of them took 202 years and I am not so sure that income tax has ever been ratified. And your slang is Ok , just explain ebonics as you go along should you choose to use it.

Prohibition didn`t last long. There were mass killings over it. Let this be a lesson to ALL. Sobriety does NOT work.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
You're still here, SD. That's a good sign. Thanks for sticking it out. I have some questions that I hope will merit a considered response from you:

1. Do you understand that the U.S. has a gun violence problem disproportionate to that of other industrialized nations?



2. Do you recognize that the relative ease of access to firearms, ammunition, high-capacity magazines, and "bump fire" attachments to military-style rifles by shooters from all walks of life is a contributing factor in American gun violence?



3. If so, what do you think is the appropriate community (aka government) response?
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
Ah. You make these jumps, SD, without explaining how you got where you ended up. The secret to communication is to fill in the gaps so the person you are communicating with knows what is going on.

Are you making what was technically an action of war equivalent to a man killing people at random? Yes, what happened at Wounded Knee was appalling and Nelson A. was furious that his direct orders were disobeyed and innocents were slaughtered BUT they were slaughtered by that well-ordered militia mentioned in the second amendment, not some random mentally ill person who could had the power of a Gatling gun at his private disposal.

Is an act of the military the same as a the act of a deranged civilian?
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
I`ll take that one Joe.

1. Do we really? Syria? Does Syria count?

2. The Swiss all have firearms in their homes. How is their crime rate. They have easy access to heavy military firepower. Think maybe firearms cannot be singled out here?

3. I have done my part. Have you?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
SD--

Can you give us the specifics of the Swiss gun-in-home situation (as it is VERY different than our situation in the US-- if you're referring to the Swiss).

Look that up and get back to us...

[This message has been edited by Hannah Nash (1/6/2013)]
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
For Ammorette

No , it is not the same. Is it the same when a muslim member of the US military commits the worst crime of it`s kind in US history? On a US base?

When the military kills you seem to think that it is somehow justified because it is the military. I do believe that you have just implied that Hitler`s actions were justified because it involved the military.

As for Wounded Knee , you need to do some research ,reading one book does not cut it. A sliver of information is what you have.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
For Hannah (this trying to keep up is getting difficult,I think my keyboard is running out of ink)

I believe military service is required in Swissland.(that is slang for Switzerland) When you complete your required service (two years?)you take your state of the art service rifle home with you. I think you may be required to possess a firearm. I did not take time to look any of this up , but access to military firepower is much easier than in the US. They have really cool military stuff there. You might be familiar with swiss army knives.

I think the entire transportation system can be destroyed in a matter of hours and they probably do not import every single item that is physically in their country from China like we do. (uniforms)
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
SD-- I have read more than one book on Wounded Knee so knock it off with the condescending attitude. We are not discussing the finer points of the Indian Wars in this area.

I am trying to figure out your position, not stating mine. What are you saying, because it isn't clear to me? Are you saying modern gun violence by civilians against civilians is the same thing as military action? You have so many examples of so many different acts of violence that I don't know what point you are trying to make beyond people are violent.

In plain and simple language, because I am a plain and simple person, tell me what you mean. Don't bring up another violent event, just explain what the heck you are trying to tell me because, honestly, I don't understand.

And could you do me the common courtesy of SPELLING MY NAME CORRECTLY. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (1/6/2013)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
SD--

I asked you to research the Swiss system, since you are using it as your prime example in response to one of Joe's questions, and you seem to have a lot of misinformation regarding their system.

This link provides the information: http://en.m.wikipedia.org...witzerland

If you are advocating the Swiss system (ie, all gun owners are a highly trained militia with military service, literally) I'm interested in your idea and wish to hear more.
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+753) 9 years ago
While you're all wasting your time on the concept of gun control I'm thrilled by what I see on NBC tonight. The Big Fat Losers are gonna make a run at childhood obesity. Aha, an honest attempt to improve pepoles lives. Here's a miracle that could actually happen. I'm glued. Jillian's already yelling at someone to haul their fat ass back home. Man, it ain't pretty.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14970) 9 years ago
Interesting Article:

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The courts had found that the first part, the "militia clause," trumped the second part, the "bear arms" clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms-but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety. But a coup d'état at the group's annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power-as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.) The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms. It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as "a fraud."

But the N.R.A. kept pushing-and there's a lesson here. Conservatives often embrace "originalism," the idea that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was ratified, in 1787. They mock the so-called liberal idea of a "living" constitution, whose meaning changes with the values of the country at large. But there is no better example of the living Constitution than the conservative re-casting of the Second Amendment in the last few decades of the twentieth century. (Reva Siegel, of Yale Law School, elaborates on this point in a brilliant article.)

The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House. At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find "clear-and long lost-proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." The N.R.A. began commissioning academic studies aimed at proving the same conclusion. An outré constitutional theory, rejected even by the establishment of the Republican Party, evolved, through brute political force, into the conservative conventional wisdom.

And so, eventually, this theory became the law of the land. In District of Columbia v. Heller, decided in 2008, the Supreme Court embraced the individual-rights view of the Second Amendment. It was a triumph above all for Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the opinion, but it required him to craft a thoroughly political compromise. In the eighteenth century, militias were proto-military operations, and their members had to obtain the best military hardware of the day. But Scalia could not create, in the twenty-first century, an individual right to contemporary military weapons-like tanks and Stinger missiles. In light of this, Scalia conjured a rule that said D.C. could not ban handguns because "handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."

So the government cannot ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons-like, say, an assault rifle-or so it appears. The full meaning of the court's Heller opinion is still up for grabs. But it is clear that the scope of the Second Amendment will be determined as much by politics as by the law. The courts will respond to public pressure-as they did by moving to the right on gun control in the last thirty years. And if legislators, responding to their constituents, sense a mandate for new restrictions on guns, the courts will find a way to uphold them. The battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power. In other words, the law of the Second Amendment is not settled; no law, not even the Constitution, ever is.


http://www.newyorker.com/...z2HG3DWVSC
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Hanna and Amorette

I see that the Swisslanders get to keep LMGs and grenade launchers at home with the munitions. Interesting link but I am not going to take the time to research it. Basically they keep some pretty heavy duty stuff at home.

Amorette

The whole Wounded Knee thing is so convoluted it takes years to even start to understand what happened. Maybe you will be one of the people that will study it for decades. The people that do or have are very opinionated on the events. I am very opinionated on one part of the events and I do not have the resources at my disposal to even start to attempt to do the research. My position has never been fully disected , there could be many reasons for that fact. Allllllll I know is that people I argue my position with , hardcores , get really mad and start shouting.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17485) 9 years ago
If I can be proud of one thing out of my 10 years of posting drivel on this site, it would be that I have got Richard Bonine Jr. to start reading The New Yorker.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Richard

That sure was long winded. Tons of words. It sure didn`t say much. I think it was an opinion , just skimmed it.


1934
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
SD-- if you read the link, you would read the restrictions, govt control, and ammunition restrictions on those high powered, government regulated (severely regulated, especially after '08) high end weapons. AND those people possessing those weapons are highly trained militia members serving close to 19 years of military service. AND after that service is concluded, those high-powered weapons are given back.

If you read any of the research I've posted, you would also know that all government ammunition was returned to the government in 2008. And that private gun sales are tracked, licenses are obtained and there is regulation in line with the European standards. Additionally, of you are found unfit to serve, or object to serving, you have to pay a 30% tax for NOT serving.

TL;DR The Swiss model in no way compares to the US system, and is a poor argument point.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
I am not asking about Wounded Knee. I am asking what opinion it is you are trying to express here, about this thread, about modern gun violence. You keep spouting off about all sorts of interesting things but I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.

And thank you for spelling my name correctly. I appreciate that.
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
SD:

I was hoping you might be one of the few gun rights absolutists in this forum who'd respond to my questions in good faith. It looks as though those hopes were misplaced as, instead, you decided to dodge each question with a non sequitur. I realize that you've been peppered for your remarks here and emotions may be running high but I'm looking forward to a more sincere exchange if and when you decide to engage in one.

To your credit, at least you managed a reply w/o resorting to insults or Lee Greenwood anthems.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Joe

I did respond. Just because it was not long winded does not mean that it is inadequate. You may take a look at my response to whoever it was that posted something from a left leaning publication. I acknowledged and replied. When I replied to you Joe , I also gave examples.

As far as Switzerland goes , Hanna is a bit much convinced by a minutes worth of a link. Swiss heavy arms are very safely secured. I just do not know how many people have a key to the padlock.


Nite A/all
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+614) 9 years ago
You responded to questions that were not asked and with canards that have little to do with this discussion. Please try again.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Just for you Joe.
Because you are special.

Or getting to be that way.....

I dunno , but I would think that it is illegal for most of the people in syria to have the weapons that they have. Why doesn`t someone go take them away from them?

I think that answers the second question also.

You can look back for the third.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 9 years ago
Personally, I think the place to start the discussion is with the botched abortion that is "Stand Your Ground".

The idea that you somehow have the right to escalate ANY situation into one that requires gunplay is ludicrous.

Outside of certain long-held exceptions (ie, in your home, etc) the state's monopoly on violence should be absolute.

It's not because I love my government so much that I think they should be able to do whatever they please, it's just that I don't trust most of the people I know to bear the responsibility that comes with owning/using a firearm.

I know YOU think you're going to be calm and cool in a crisis, but what should give us that reassurance?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/7/2013)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
+1,000 Bridgier.

I have decided SD just wants everyone armed all the time. Beyond that, I am clueless as to his opinions.

[This message has been edited by Amorette Allison (1/7/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 9 years ago
Since none the freedom fighters can form a coherent sentence, I'll chime in.

I'm of the belief there is rarely, if ever, anything to be gained from individuals or groups foregoing their rights (whether it's the right to bear arms, rights of privacy, free speech, freedom to smoke cigarettes or crack cocaine, ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or drink large, sugary sodas).

That being said, I see no reason why anyone should oppose earning these rights. Can you hold a job, support a family, pay for the cost of rehab/cancer treatment, and afford drugs? If it doesn't interfere with my life, then why should I care? Have you spent years in the military or law enforcement training to use a high-powered rifle with large magazine? Then feel free. The "Swisslanders" have it right.

Anyone who owns a weapon with a high-capacity magazine is being disengenous if they say the weapon is for anything other than recreation, but being a fun and freedom lover, recreation is a perfectly good excuse. I'd challenge anyone to blow off thirty rounds in six seconds and tell me it wasn't fun.

Now when you get Amorette saying things about cop killer bullets, it's as much a fallacy everything SD says. Armor piercing rounds have their place (war), the well-regulated militia might even find them useful, but none of the school children were equipped with body armor so it really doesn't belong in the discussion. Feel free to outlaw their private ownership, it solves nothing.

Frankly, there has only been one valid point in the two attempts at a discussion. Richard, if he doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth, offered the actual solution. All we need is love. We need to treat ourselves, each other, and the planet with more love. If mental illness were black and white, it might be easy to implement some system to label the mentally ill and prevent them from owning weapons. The trouble is, depression goes into remission. Someone who isn't stable today could be stable tomorrow. Labeling people and treating them like criminals isn't a viable solution, it's McCarthyism. What happened in Newton is a tragedy and unfortunately the finger of blame should probably point at the kid's mother. A responsible gun owner with a dangerously unstable child needs to not be a gun owner. For all of us to retain our rights, a few of us may need to sacrifice them.

I know this won't satisfy everyone, some people want to take away the big, black dicks. To them, I guess I'd say, "It sure is easier to bully people when you take away their recourse." Some people are smart, some people are tough, there is a place for everyone. Love yourself, love your neighbor, and love your Earth. Show more understanding, teach your kids responsibility, do what you can. We will never prevent all the tragedies, but we can do our best (without being forced to by law enforcement).

Richard, sorry I was hard on you in the past (well, maybe not that sorry since you turned totally kick ass).

Also an apology for any spelling or grammatical errors as my active spell check seems to have crapped itself and I don't feel like proofreading.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17178) 9 years ago
I think parenthood has turned Buck all soft and mushy. I love ya, Buck.
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1672) 9 years ago
Ditto, David. Great post, Buck.
Top
supporter
Posted by ike eichler (+1228) 9 years ago
Never believed I could ever agree with anything you posted. The most reasonable example and solution of any post on this thread and topic. Great post!!
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Buck

I am HOWLING with laughter.

It`ll be Ok little bucky boy. No one is going to take away your big black dick.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
HEY RICHARD!!!!!!!

BUCK HAS THAT TEACHING TOOL FER `YA. I`FN YALL IS WILLING AND READY TO LUERN.

SOUNDS LIKE BUCK CAN TEACH `YA RIGHT UP
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 9 years ago
Someone must have changed your pee pants if you're laughing rather than the usual cowering in fear.

Another point: Some people are totally hopeless.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Buck-

just grab ahold of your big black dick and back away and leave quietly right now before I take it away from you. I bet you with you had a gun right now.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Hey Buck

Sorry about the typos but I am laffing too hard at you
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 9 years ago
Case in point...
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Yes

You and your cherished big black dick are pretty helpless right now. Dunno how you are going to sleep tonight after I take it a way from you. That is , if you just hand it over and run away. Do it buck , hand over the big black dick. I am taking your most prized possession from you , forcibly if I have to , and there isn`t a DAMN thing you can do about it. I will come to your front door , knock on it , grab your limp ass and drag you out on the lawn and take your big black dick away from you and you ain`t gonna do nothin. What are you going to do buck? huh? Nothing , that`s what you are going to do. You are going to lay down like MY little b-boy that you are and cry. NOW HAND IT OVER.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Are you scared buck? Are you? If you could get back in to your house you could try to call 911. But I will not let you. Even if you did , I cut the phone line before I knocked on your door and I am RIGHT behind you. You are SUCH an easy mark there littly bucky boy. No neighbors around eh buck? Whatcha gonna do? You just gonna just lay there and wet yourself? Get UP.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
I ain`t wantin you in My way while I rob your house after taking your big black dick. Lesseee , what do I do with you now buck. I don`t want you yellin or nothin , even though there ain`t nobody to hear you. Whatcha gonna do bucky-boy , whatcha gonna do.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
Ummm

I ain`t got all day Buck. Do something.
Top
banned
Posted by SD (+1527) 9 years ago
I just kicked you into unconsciousness buck. You are lying there on the lawn bleeding all over the place.

I guess you just did nothing.

Gotta go , got a house to rob.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+17178) 9 years ago
See ya, SD.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 9 years ago
Uh... can I offer you a Seroquel?

Kinda figured he crossed the line somewhere in there. Odd duck, that fellow.

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (1/7/2013)]
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9960) 9 years ago
Great post Buck.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4945) 9 years ago
Fantastic post, Buck and obviously you hit the button with SD cause he went totally beserk and over the edge...so thank you very much....
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4462) 9 years ago
He must not read for comprehension too well.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2532) 9 years ago
^^^ understatement

He will obviously not be swayed by silly little things like facts. "He will not be fact-checked!!"
Genitalia was the straw that broke the back; I admit, that was a surprise.

Amorette might need to start this thread over... we keep getting derailed.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11808) 9 years ago
I don't know if there is any point. Sigh.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9960) 9 years ago
Of course there's a point. Two immediately come to mind.

1). Amid the "noise" there's been some good discussion in these threads.
2). If we don't hold discussion for fear of the "noise", then the screamers win.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 9 years ago
Genitalia was the straw that broke the back; I admit, that was a surprise.


Well, MLK Day IS in a few weeks - maybe the pressure got to him.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6166) 9 years ago
Wow, I step away for a few hours and ka-boom!
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+481) 9 years ago
Sounds to me like someone needs to find out who SD is and make sure
he doesn't have possession of any firearms.
Most excellent post Buck. Didn't know you had it in you.Ooops
didn't see the new post when I wrote this.

[This message has been edited by cj sampsel (1/8/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeff Denton (+753) 9 years ago
It sounds like Sheriff Arpaio has a plan to protect Arizona students. The story I read says it begins tomorrow. This should be interesting, huh?
Top
Posted by abigail (+83) 8 years ago
very interesting ready.
Boy was I born in the wrong time era. For a History lesson, I do remember something and in checking the second amendment, I even remembered correctly. Lets see on June 8th of 1789 the congress and senate agreed upon this article that was adopted On August 25 1789 and put into effect December 15 1791.Yep that is right "our second amendment right." I think the easiest way to solve this ridiculous bickering about guns and weapons. is to be nice and remind the president and congress that they are stepping on alot of toes even the bill of rights which states very clearly. No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.I believe that is covered under C.U.S Article 4.
Oh and one more thing, so now we are going to go against the 14th amendment also?? The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) held that the Second Amendment was incorporated. This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.[166].. So in conclusion we won't be losing our gun rights any time soon. So I think I will be selling my AR 15's for home protection, and the full clips for the disabled customer that can't make it to the shelve to reload since and I promise to follow the amendments to the tee. I will not sell anything that is not used by military, Or that have been made and not adjusted or changed in any way.
Top