Not much outrage regarding the YouTube shooter

[RinconRyder]

NOT TOO LATE TO GO BACK U KNOW..

If it was just me I would have moved 20 years ago when I retired. Unfortunately, my wife still has all her family here so that puts an anchor on my a**.

 

[Netminder]

If it was just me I would have moved 20 years ago when I retired. Unfortunately, my wife still has all her family here so that puts an anchor on my a**.

It is funny how you all think you can just move to Canada! We cannot just move to your great country, what makes you think you can to ours? Not that I would not like the freedom to do so if citizens of our two countries wanted to! Ok, carry on! Tic Toc!

 

[UtahPete]

It is funny how you all think you can just move to Canada! We cannot just move to your great country, what makes you think you can to ours? Not that I would not like the freedom to do so if citizens of our two countries wanted to! Ok, carry on! Tic Toc!

Canada has always provided political asylum to the oppressed :thumbup:

 

[Bob Denman]

It is funny how you all think you can just move to Canada! We cannot just move to your great country, what makes you think you can to ours? Not that I would not like the freedom to do so if citizens of our two countries wanted to! Ok, carry on! Tic Toc!

:agree: Your new Border Patrol Agents DO look pretty tough! :yikes:

 

[ES44AC]

It is funny how you all think you can just move to Canada! We cannot just move to your great country, what makes you think you can to ours? Not that I would not like the freedom to do so if citizens of our two countries wanted to! Ok, carry on! Tic Toc!

Every country should limit who comes in to stay, unlike the United States. I can't leave the US without a passport, but we let the freeloaders in by the millions .

My sister in laws dumb sister decided she was moving to the UK on a whim. She was arrested upon landing there and sent back here 2 weeks later. Makes me laugh every time I think about it. The US government needs to return to sender a lot more.

 

[johnsimion]

you do not have to register to a political party to vote. if you don't register to a party it prevents you from voting in the primaries (in nys).
but you can vote in the general election.

As yet you haven't answered how you know who is a "liberal." Your posts aren't exactly clear but I gather that you think "antifa" and presumably persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic are "liberals." Personally I would call such people "criminals," not "liberals." But whatever. What IS your definition? Where do you put the guy who ran down the woman in Charlottesville? Liberal, too? Or the Vegas shooter? Or the person who just shot all those people at the Waffle House? I mean, that guy is white, drives a pickup truck, lives in a red state and owns an AR-15. He's practically the definition of a "liberal," right? At least that's what the comments say on Fox News today.

If "liberals" = "criminals," though, what do you call the 66 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton?

Seems to me that "liberal" is just an unthinking term for people you don't like. Well, try to open your mind to the possibility that life isn't just black and white. Take me for example. I don't like Antifa or persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic. I think they should all be in jail. For a long time. I own guns and I oppose gun laws because I think they won't work. I think we need more police, judges and harsher prisons. I think we need to send all the illegals home and we need more Border Patrol and smart law enforcement on the border (e.g., drones) -- but not "the Wall" because (a) nobody but an idiot thinks Mexico would pay for it, and (b) because the cartels have already dug tunnels under the existing walls. Walls don't work so why build more? Oh, and I served 23 years in the military and retired from it. I am pro-choice because I think we need smaller, less intrusive government, I oppose getting involved in military actions in countries that don't threaten us (e.g., Iraq or Syria), I opposed the current "tax cuts" because they are based on wishes and fantasy rather than equivalent spending cuts. I even held my nose and voted for Hillary even though I can't stand her because I hated the windbag that got elected even more. I believe in the First Amendment so faithfully that I actually think we should tolerate political viewpoints of others rather than threaten to kill and deport them, as the commenters on Fox frequently wish for "liberals." And in spite of all that, I don't have a criminal record. So, you tell me, am I a liberal? I'm sorry, I don't mean to make your head explode with all this heavy thinking.

 

[UtahPete]

As yet you haven't answered how you know who is a "liberal." Your posts aren't exactly clear but I gather that you think "antifa" and presumably persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic are "liberals." Personally I would call such people "criminals," not "liberals." But whatever. What IS your definition? Where do you put the guy who ran down the woman in Charlottesville? Liberal, too? Or the Vegas shooter? Or the person who just shot all those people at the Waffle House? I mean, that guy is white, drives a pickup truck, lives in a red state and owns an AR-15. He's practically the definition of a "liberal," right? At least that's what the comments say on Fox News today.

If "liberals" = "criminals," though, what do you call the 66 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton?

Seems to me that "liberal" is just an unthinking term for people you don't like. Well, try to open your mind to the possibility that life isn't just black and white. Take me for example. I don't like Antifa or persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic. I think they should all be in jail. For a long time. I oppose gun laws because I think they won't work. I think we need more police, judges and harsher prisons. I think we need to send all the illegals home and we need more Border Patrol and smart law enforcement on the border (e.g., drones) -- but not "the Wall" because (a) nobody but an idiot thinks Mexico would pay for it, and (b) because the cartels have already dug tunnels under the existing walls. Walls don't work so why build more? Oh, and I served 23 years in the military and retired from it. I am pro-choice because I think we need smaller, less intrusive government, I oppose getting involved in military actions in countries that don't threaten us (e.g., Iraq or Syria), I opposed the current "tax cuts" because they are based on wishes and fantasy rather than equivalent spending cuts. I even held my nose and voted for Hillary even though I can't stand her because I hated the windbag that got elected even more. And in spite of all that, I don't have a criminal record. So, you tell me, am I a liberal? I'm sorry, I don't mean to make your head explode with all this heavy thinking.

VERY well said, John.

 

[Bob Denman]

Very few people are either "Liberal", or "Conservative". nojoke
Fiscally: I'm a Conservative Civil Libertarian. :thumbup:
(When it's the Government spending my money!)
But when I'm spending it: I'm like a Vegas high-roller on crack! :roflblack:
Socially: I range from Conservative, to pretty darn Liberal... :yikes:

I blame it on the "Duality of Man".

But I still don't want the neighbor's damn kids in my yard! :gaah:

 

[UtahPete]

Very few people are either "Liberal", or "Conservative". nojoke
Fiscally: I'm a Conservative Civil Libertarian. :thumbup: (When it's the Government spending my money!) But when I'm spending it: I'm like a Vegas high-roller on crack!
Socially: I range from Conservative, to pretty darn Liberal... :yikes: I blame it on the "Duality of Man". But I still don't want the neighbor's damn kids in my yard!

Bob, that is patently untrue, based on your thousands of posts. You should get off the fence before you hurt yourself. Unless, of course, you're trying to hedge your bets just in case Jesus is a liberal.

 

[Bob Denman]

It just rives you nUtZ: don't it? :roflblack:
I am more "Pro-Choice", than my Missus...
I'm also more... forgiving: when my tax dollars are given to those working-age folks, who just aren't!
(Well... not "forgiving" is the wrong term. Let's just say that if someone is trying to dig themselves out of a hole: I'm willing to at least loan them a shovel...)

 

[UtahPete]

It just rives you nUtZ: don't it? :roflblack:
I am more "Pro-Choice", than my Missus...
I'm also more... forgiving: when my tax dollars are given to those working-age folks, who just aren't!
(Well... not "forgiving" is the wrong term. Let's just say that if someone is trying to dig themselves out of a hole: I'm willing to at least loan them a shovel...)

Not at all. I'm amused by your flip-flopping and twisting of facts to suit your purpose. It fits the demographic.

I do wonder when you're going to go crying to daddy Lamont to pull the thread because your feelings got hurt.

As I said before, Bob, it's easy to act all tough when you're not faced with an actual threat.

 

[Netminder]

:agree: Your new Border Patrol Agents DO look pretty tough! :yikes:

View attachment 160212

Have you ever tried to ride a moose! Not easy!!!:joke:

 

[Trickie Dick]

The Supreme Court "interpreted" it in 2006. :dontknow:
Rather than say that he disagrees with the idea of qualified citizens owning firearms: he continues to question the legitimacy of the Amendment.
He is simply fishing "too far upstream".

For the life of me, I can't find a 2006 Supreme Court Vote in 2006. :dontknow:Now in 2010 the Supreme Court voted with a 5-4 majority the fundamental right for individuals to keep and bear arms. I'd be real interested in reading the 2006 decision that you so sanctimoniously quote. BTW, I don't really think a 5-4 vote is a landslide and certainly leaves open questions and discussions. Just keep on sending those dues though to ensure such discussion doesn't take place.

 

[vided]

As yet you haven't answered how you know who is a "liberal." Your posts aren't exactly clear but I gather that you think "antifa" and presumably persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic are "liberals." Personally I would call such people "criminals," not "liberals." But whatever. What IS your definition? Where do you put the guy who ran down the woman in Charlottesville? Liberal, too? Or the Vegas shooter? Or the person who just shot all those people at the Waffle House? I mean, that guy is white, drives a pickup truck, lives in a red state and owns an AR-15. He's practically the definition of a "liberal," right? At least that's what the comments say on Fox News today.

If "liberals" = "criminals," though, what do you call the 66 million Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton?

Seems to me that "liberal" is just an unthinking term for people you don't like. Well, try to open your mind to the possibility that life isn't just black and white. Take me for example. I don't like Antifa or persons breaking store windows, burning police cars and blocking traffic. I think they should all be in jail. For a long time. I own guns and I oppose gun laws because I think they won't work. I think we need more police, judges and harsher prisons. I think we need to send all the illegals home and we need more Border Patrol and smart law enforcement on the border (e.g., drones) -- but not "the Wall" because (a) nobody but an idiot thinks Mexico would pay for it, and (b) because the cartels have already dug tunnels under the existing walls. Walls don't work so why build more? Oh, and I served 23 years in the military and retired from it. I am pro-choice because I think we need smaller, less intrusive government, I oppose getting involved in military actions in countries that don't threaten us (e.g., Iraq or Syria), I opposed the current "tax cuts" because they are based on wishes and fantasy rather than equivalent spending cuts. I even held my nose and voted for Hillary even though I can't stand her because I hated the windbag that got elected even more. I believe in the First Amendment so faithfully that I actually think we should tolerate political viewpoints of others rather than threaten to kill and deport them, as the commenters on Fox frequently wish for "liberals." And in spite of all that, I don't have a criminal record. So, you tell me, am I a liberal? I'm sorry, I don't mean to make your head explode with all this heavy thinking.

Wowie buffalo bob, your entitled to your opinion. :thumbup::roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

 

[johnsimion]

Bob, that is patently untrue, based on your thousands of posts. You should get off the fence before you hurt yourself. Unless, of course, you're trying to hedge your bets just in case Jesus is a liberal.

If Bob doesn't belong to Antifa, break store windows, burn police cars or block traffic, he's not a "liberal" according to the Vided definition. Bob, you have to get out there and commit some crimes if you're going to be part of the Liberal club. On a more serious note, the whole thread just shows how ridiculous these labels are.

I think both parties use these labels to "divide and conquer" us and cover up their own corruption. Seriously. Here's an example: Welfare. Who wants to see our tax dollars handed out to unworthy people? Not I, for sure. But OTOH I don't mind helping people who genuinely need help. I suspect those views would be shared by the vast majority of Americans. So, are my views "liberal" or "conservative"? You tell me. You can't -- not until you start getting into details. Yet nobody will bother to get into details. It's too easy just to shout and put stupid labels on each other.

Case in point: As we all know -- because it's drilled into our heads a million times -- the Dems are all for increasing welfare and the Republicans are all for reducing it. But the facts don't bear that out. What welfare programs have the Republicans ever reduced or eliminated? I can't think of any in 40 years. In fact, it was during the BUSH administration that the government started handing out "*****phones" (google it, it's true) and they also increased the so-called "earned income credit" which is actually welfare when the refundable credit exceeds what the person actually paid in. Then there's *****care. Horrible program, almost everyone agrees, even the Democrats that wrote it. So, we elected Republicans in 2014 to repeal it. Did they? No. So we voted in a Republican House, Senate and President in 2016 to repeal it. Did they? No. They'll tell you it's all the Democrats' fault, yet they managed to pass the "tax cut" over Democratic objections. What, you can pass tax cuts over Democratic objections but you can't repeal *****care over Democratic objections? And the people were asking to repeal *****care but they were NOT asking to have tax cuts. We've been lied to -- over and over -- but you can bet they'll be back with more lies about repealing *****care at the next election. Why? Because they can still fool people and get votes. Yet, what is the alternative? Democrats??? As if they'd be any better! LOL. It was the Democrats who wrote the stupid law. My conclusion: The whole damned system is rotten and corrupt to the core. They're ALL in bed with each other and what's on the news is just a charade to cover up the fact that we are being used.

Meanwhile, we will continue to shout at each other and call each other names.

 

[BoilerAnimal]

Bob, I too, would like more info on this 2006 Supreme Court case that you referenced.

I also have little hope that anyone will ever be capable of disabusing you of your dystopian fantasy of fighting the government. Remember, the power of the ballot is a stronger weapon than your guns.

 

[vided]

Nicely written johnny, if you were selling grandmas 1987 yugo, which does have
a liberal case of rot. :thumbup::thumbup:

 

[kep-up]

Bob, I too, would like more info on this 2006 Supreme Court case that you referenced.

I also have little hope that anyone will ever be capable of disabusing you of your dystopian fantasy of fighting the government. Remember, the power of the ballot is a stronger weapon than your guns.

Not to put words into Bob's computer, but I believe he is referring to the 2008 DC vs. Heller decision in which the court stated (in paraphrase) "2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with any militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes".

Now to address the issue of military power far surpassing armed civilian resistance....... It's true the we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. However, even our military would not be able to stand against a well armed, even with sporting arms, populace. I firmly believe that a majority of our military would remember their oath to protect the constitution and would side with the populace.
I also believe in the event of military action against the populace, that this bickering about gun ownership would come to a quick end and both sides of the discussion would come together against a common enemy, a corrupt government run amok.
You are correct that our most powerful weapon is the ballot box, but until we as people get serious about using that power, we just don't have it as we should. Therefore, our best option is TERM LIMITS for all politicians. note: our president is allowed only 2 terms, so why should legislators have more?

 

[Bob Denman]

Yup! :thumbup:

 

[SPECTACUALR SPIDERMAN]

Not at all. I'm amused by your flip-flopping and twisting of facts to suit your purpose. It fits the demographic.

I do wonder when you're going to go crying to daddy Lamont to pull the thread because your feelings got hurt.

As I said before, Bob, it's easy to act all tough when you're not faced with an actual threat.

Boys, boys, now let's play nice or you will have to sit in the corner and no :spyder2: riding for a week.