Sat May 4, 2013, 01:44 PM
michigandem58 (1,044 posts)
LaPierre: 'How Many Bostonians Wish They Had A Gun Two Weeks Ago?'
NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre sparked controversy on Saturday when he asked, "How many Bostonians wish they had a gun two weeks ago?"
The comments came in the middle of his speech at the annual NRA members meeting in Houston, Texas. LaPierre explained that during the Boston lockdown that took place while police were chasing the bombing suspects, "frightened citizens [were] sheltered in place with no means to defend themselves." ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/04/wayne-lapierre-boston-marathon-bombings-guns-nra_n_3215449.html
|
166 replies, 31126 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
michigandem58 | May 2013 | OP |
hunter | May 2013 | #1 | |
Warpy | May 2013 | #77 | |
LiberalFighter | May 2013 | #99 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #2 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #3 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #106 | |
kelliekat44 | May 2013 | #157 | |
markiv | May 2013 | #4 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #5 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #8 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #11 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #13 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #14 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #15 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #17 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #19 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #23 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #31 | |
BainsBane | May 2013 | #30 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #108 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #148 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #104 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #105 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #107 | |
Walk away | May 2013 | #82 | |
LiberalFighter | May 2013 | #100 | |
LanternWaste | May 2013 | #120 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #133 | |
rl6214 | May 2013 | #113 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #123 | |
Pholus | May 2013 | #16 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #22 | |
billh58 | May 2013 | #32 | |
Pholus | May 2013 | #55 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #56 | |
Sekhmets Daughter | May 2013 | #66 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #70 | |
Pholus | May 2013 | #75 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #112 | |
datasuspect | May 2013 | #89 | |
Pholus | May 2013 | #71 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #72 | |
0rganism | May 2013 | #126 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #129 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #149 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #151 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #58 | |
Pelican | May 2013 | #62 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #65 | |
LanternWaste | May 2013 | #121 | |
Tommy_Carcetti | May 2013 | #128 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #143 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #144 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #145 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #146 | |
Kingofalldems | May 2013 | #94 | |
billh58 | May 2013 | #36 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #46 | |
billh58 | May 2013 | #48 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #37 | |
billh58 | May 2013 | #33 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #42 | |
billh58 | May 2013 | #45 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #124 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #131 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #135 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #138 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #139 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #140 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #141 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #142 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #39 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #41 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #59 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #60 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #61 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #64 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #67 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #96 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #156 | |
Cali_Democrat | May 2013 | #63 | |
RetroLounge | May 2013 | #95 | |
Gormy Cuss | May 2013 | #43 | |
cui bono | May 2013 | #44 | |
rl6214 | May 2013 | #114 | |
cui bono | May 2013 | #122 | |
Hippo_Tron | May 2013 | #49 | |
devilgrrl | May 2013 | #53 | |
Uzair | May 2013 | #73 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #111 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #130 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #132 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #136 | |
2ndAmForComputers | May 2013 | #137 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #147 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #150 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #152 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #153 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #161 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #163 | |
Electric Monk | May 2013 | #164 | |
HangOnKids | May 2013 | #159 | |
Bake | May 2013 | #158 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #166 | |
OneGrassRoot | May 2013 | #6 | |
Cha | May 2013 | #26 | |
Cha | May 2013 | #27 | |
OneGrassRoot | May 2013 | #90 | |
Jamaal510 | May 2013 | #7 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #109 | |
Marr | May 2013 | #9 | |
spanone | May 2013 | #10 | |
moondust | May 2013 | #12 | |
Initech | May 2013 | #18 | |
slor | May 2013 | #20 | |
nobodyspecial | May 2013 | #21 | |
quaker bill | May 2013 | #88 | |
hack89 | May 2013 | #92 | |
Cha | May 2013 | #24 | |
reformist2 | May 2013 | #25 | |
Turbineguy | May 2013 | #28 | |
onenote | May 2013 | #29 | |
Frustratedlady | May 2013 | #40 | |
dkf | May 2013 | #34 | |
TheCowsCameHome | May 2013 | #35 | |
Politicalboi | May 2013 | #38 | |
struggle4progress | May 2013 | #47 | |
SummerSnow | May 2013 | #86 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #117 | |
Rex | May 2013 | #50 | |
smirkymonkey | May 2013 | #98 | |
liberal N proud | May 2013 | #51 | |
Pisces | May 2013 | #52 | |
etherealtruth | May 2013 | #102 | |
Buzz Clik | May 2013 | #54 | |
newmember | May 2013 | #74 | |
Buzz Clik | May 2013 | #76 | |
newmember | May 2013 | #78 | |
Post removed | May 2013 | #79 | |
freshwest | May 2013 | #118 | |
Marrah_G | May 2013 | #57 | |
RagAss | May 2013 | #68 | |
newmember | May 2013 | #69 | |
JI7 | May 2013 | #80 | |
Life Long Dem | May 2013 | #81 | |
samsingh | May 2013 | #83 | |
winter is coming | May 2013 | #84 | |
flvegan | May 2013 | #85 | |
6000eliot | May 2013 | #87 | |
rl6214 | May 2013 | #116 | |
6000eliot | May 2013 | #134 | |
rl6214 | May 2013 | #154 | |
ileus | May 2013 | #91 | |
gulliver | May 2013 | #93 | |
Logical | May 2013 | #97 | |
Skip Intro | May 2013 | #155 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #162 | |
CreekDog | May 2013 | #165 | |
Skittles | May 2013 | #101 | |
Enrique | May 2013 | #103 | |
TeamPooka | May 2013 | #110 | |
rl6214 | May 2013 | #115 | |
Sheepshank | May 2013 | #119 | |
Tommy_Carcetti | May 2013 | #125 | |
Deep13 | May 2013 | #127 | |
treestar | May 2013 | #160 |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 01:49 PM
hunter (36,957 posts)
1. I don't know. But I'm glad they didn't.
Fearful people with guns are dangerous.
Some innocent bystander or a police officer searching for the suspects could have been shot. |
Response to hunter (Reply #1)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:59 PM
Warpy (107,323 posts)
77. Boston is a pretty antigun city
People are sick to death of punks with guns.
That being said, nobody knew those bags were bombs until they blew up and then the brothers weren't anywhere near them. What good could a gun possibly have done anyone? LaPierre obviously needs his screws tightened. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #77)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:16 PM
LiberalFighter (46,121 posts)
99. Too many (if not most of them) are not sane enough.
He probably thinks they could back in time and mow them down with a machine gun.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 01:49 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
2. Where I live, like Boston, we pay people to do that for us. No thanks, Wayne.
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 01:53 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
3. Yeah Wayne, wouldn't it have been awesome to have a free for all gunfight after those bombs went off
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #3)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:20 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
106. Yup. A target rich environment! Kill 'em all, let Gawd sort 'em out!
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #3)
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:54 AM
kelliekat44 (7,759 posts)
157. I really have to check my thinking about this man and gun-lovers...my thoughts are evil. nt
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 01:54 PM
markiv (1,489 posts)
4. yup - just shoot at unidentified bomb suspects, after the bombs went off
nra needs a new spokesman
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:04 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
5. Valid question. I bet the answer is most of them.
Not to shoot wildly at shadows, but if you got a person so dangerous the entire city is shut down, and you're ordered to stay in your home, what do you do if the perp busts down your back door - ask him to sit and wait quietly until you can get the cops there?
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:18 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
8. It turned out that Dzhokhar wasn't even armed, just running away and hiding, though
![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #8)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:31 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
11. Luckily it did turn out that way.
Sadly, it didn't turn out that way for these victims:
Police: Man Shot, Killed in Home Invasion in Southeast Houston News 92 FM-3 hours ago Police say a man was shot and killed during a home invasion at a southeast Houston apartment complex overnight. Channel 13 reports it ... Amarillo police identify man killed during home invasion robbery LubbockOnline.com-May 2, 2013 Amarillo police have taped off a house in the 800 block of South Kentucky Street while they investigate a shooting on Wednesday, May 1, 2013. Man Killed During Md. Home Invasion Identified W*USA 9-Apr 30, 2013 Investigators believe the stabbing took place at the Boddie's home during a home invasion in the 3800 block of Regency Park Court with a ... Man Killed in Apparent Home Invasion Stabbing NBC4 Washington-Apr 29, 2013 A man whose friend crashed a vehicle while taking him to the hospital with several stab wounds Monday afternoon has died. News4's Shomari ... James 'Snoop' Johnson accused of killing Pekin man during home ... Peoria Journal Star-Apr 30, 2013 James “Snoop” Johnson is biracial, and it was a darker-skinned man whom Justin Siebenthal's mother saw firing the gunshots that killed her ... abc11.com Home invasion suspects killed in gunfight with NC homeowner Fox News-Apr 13, 2013 Two men suspected of attempting to invade a home in North Carolina Friday died after a gunfight with the homeowner. Fayetteville Police tell ... WRTV Indianapolis Teen pleads guilty to murder in deadly home invasion ABC 57 News-by Melissa Hudson-May 2, 2013 ELKHART, Ind. – The teenager charged in the death of 76-year-old Norma Hopper, who was killed during a home invasion, pleaded guilty ... WXIA-TV Man gets death for killing elderly man during home invasion Chronicle-Telegram-Apr 26, 2013 MEDINA — Convicted murderer Steven Cepec was sentenced to death Thursday for killing a 73-year-old Chatham Township man during a ... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=killed+home+invasion&oq=killed+home+invasion&gs_l=serp.3...61014.67794.0.67968.32.26.5.0.0.0.134.2267.19j7.26.0...0.0...1c.1.12.serp._xHZgylGJw0 -------- Again, I'll bet the majority of those locked in their homes who didn't have a means of self-protection wished they had. Now, you surely have the right to have a gun in your home or not, but you don't have the right to tell me that I may or may not. Sorry. ![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:38 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
13. I also have the right to tell you that it's a dumb thing to do, and increases the chances of your
being killed by firearms by 72%, but yes, you do still have the right to act dumb if you want to. Because FREEDOM! Duh!
![]() ![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #13)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:44 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
14. rofl
yes, posting an image means you are correct, at least in Electric Monk land.
Sorry the idea of freedom and people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions is so disquieting to you. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #14)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:51 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
15. I like cjeek dgg
![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #15)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:00 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
17. These intelligent conversations with you are quite invigorating.
:yawn:
You just don't know what to do without Meta, do you? How's that purge list of yours coming, btw? ![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #17)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:13 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
19. Actually, since you bring it up, 4 of the 5 I listed have since been shitcanned. Here's the latest.
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:35 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
23. 3 questions:
Was that the list a board admin called a witch hunt and asked you not to associate with his name? The one you said leaving my name off of was a mistake?
Or is this a different list? And do you find it healthy to obsess about an anonymous message board to the degree that you create lists of users you'd like to see banned? |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #23)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:52 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
31. Re-read this subthread. You're the one who started making it personal (post #14).
![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:50 PM
BainsBane (52,689 posts)
30. good job
Which others?
|
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:35 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
108. Oooooh, EarlG is the greatest! Reason given:
Aside from the avalanche of NRA talking points, holdencaufield seems borderline aroused by armed insurrection fantasies.
![]() My HERO!! |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #17)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:58 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
148. You alerted your own thread about me, you shouldn't be criticizing anybody here.
you have no room to talk.
just a few months ago: you started a thread calling me out in Meta, by name. after you started getting called out yourself in that thread, you alerted on yourself the content of your alert showed that you were pretending to be someone else, and someone who liked me, which you don't, obviously. so don't even lecture anybody on how to behave. |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #15)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:13 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
104. Thank God I printed that epic before Meta shut down. Still good for a belly laugh.
![]() |
Response to freshwest (Reply #104)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:15 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
105. I wish I'd saved a copy :( It didn't occur to me that meta might be disappeared. nt
|
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #105)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:29 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
107. It started the night of the Mayan Apocalypse and lasted 2 days. 321 posts.
Creek Dog is Stalking Skip Intro was the title I gave it. I thought it was running along just fine and was sorry to see the party end. Sigh.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #14)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:09 AM
Walk away (9,494 posts)
82. That is your idea of freedom? Guns?
I hope that you realize that as time goes on, more and more people will shun you for owning one. The gun culture has gone too far and people are waking up to an America with a fringe group of people who think it's just great to give their seven year old children real guns and bullets.
Most people think that is crazy and their numbers are growing. Just like slavery and segregation, gun ownership will be marginalized. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #14)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:21 PM
LiberalFighter (46,121 posts)
100. The problem is that too many people (would) make bad decisions that could harm others.
And just because people think for themselves doesn't mean their decision should be be followed when their is the issue of the harm it may caused.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #14)
Mon May 6, 2013, 02:13 PM
LanternWaste (37,748 posts)
120. I'd re-frame the answer I'd been given into something complete different too
"hinking for themselves and making their own decisions is so disquieting to you..."
I'd re-frame the answer I'd been given into something complete different too if I had nothing else except bumper-stickers and la Pierre quotes to fall back on. |
Response to LanternWaste (Reply #120)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:40 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
133. My words come from me. No bumperstickers or talking points.
What I say comes from me.
A foreign concept to a few here, it would seem. |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #13)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:47 AM
rl6214 (8,142 posts)
113. Got a link to that 72%?
Response to rl6214 (Reply #113)
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:12 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
123. Here's where that quoted % came from, I think
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:56 PM
Pholus (4,062 posts)
16. Yes they died wishing for guns...
because gun huggers denied them the chance to have the problem mitigated beforehand, with reasonable background checks. Awesome!
So all of us sink to the level of frontier justice. USA! USA! USA! |
Response to Pholus (Reply #16)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:30 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
22. They probably did.
I guess explaining to the perps (who couldn't give a damn less about what gun laws are passed), that they were safer without a gun in their home didn't work.
It is fantasy that increased background checks (and the gun grabbing push was for much much more that that) would make gun violence disappear. How strict are the gun laws in Chicago? All firearms must be registered and licensed. Safety courses are required. Background checks including fingerprinting are required. "Assault weapons" are banned. Gun sales in Chicago are banned. Magazines are limited to 12 rounds. Residents must immediately report stolen or lost firearms. All "common sense gun control," right? How has that worked out? Over 500 murdered last year. Check this headline from two days ago: ------- 3 dead, 17 wounded in shootings across Chicago overnight http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-01/news/chi-at-least-8-wounded-in-separate-shootings-on-the-south-north-side-20130430_1_6800-block-stroger-hospital-23-year-old-man At least three people were killed and 17 wounded in shootings across Chicago overnight as the city saw its warmest weather in seven months. In one of the fatal shootings, three men were shot in a parking lot across the street from the headquarters of the UIC Police Department, police said. The shooting happened around 10:40 p.m. in the 1000 block of West Maxwell Street, Police News Affairs Officer Amina Greer said -------- That is reality. None of those stringent laws stopped any of those murders, any of those shootings. And the big idea is to implement such stringent laws across the nation? No, won't happen. It will fail every time. As it should. Don't want a gun in your home? Don't have one. But who the hell are you to try to make that decision for me? My rights, my freedom, don't come from you. Sorry. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:57 PM
billh58 (6,601 posts)
32. Your support for
the right-wing NRA, and it's gun manufacturer shill Wayne LaPierre, is duly noted. Thanks so much for your input, and I'm sure that your Gungeon buddies and Uncle Wayne are so very proud of you.
I look forward to the day when you big, brave, RKBA protectors-of-all-freedoms, will stand up to our mean old Democratic Party and silence the "grabbers" once and for all. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)
Sat May 4, 2013, 07:48 PM
Pholus (4,062 posts)
55. What a big, unfounded, assertion there sparky!
I'm amused how you gunners love to describe yourselves as the "nonemotional, logical" ones even as you spew "truthiness" filled homilies such as this. So okay, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, Genius. You pointed at a year with 500 "successful" murders as proof that gun laws "fail every time." Of course, according to Crain's Chicago Business there were 7,400 illegal guns seized in the same period of time. Your assertion is unfounded but provable -- all you have to do is convincingly show that those 7,400 guns would not have increased the number of murders and it's YOU FTW!!!!! You can't of course. That's why you're full of bullshit here.
But I can't stop marveling at your your inductive masterpiece. It's the gundamentalist gift that just keeps on giving! Intellectual laziness is only my first charge against you. The second charge, sir, is nihilism. So let me trivially extend your argument to show you why it is unworthy of a passing score even in an InstandDegrees.com freshman comp class. So you just took a list of murders and used them as proof that stringent gun laws don't work. Similar arguments can be made: So a handful of successful tax cheats mean tax laws fail, right? And a handful of successful speeders do the same for speeding laws, right? And a handful of successful pedos do the same for child sex laws, right? And a handful of successful drug lords do the same for drug laws, right? I henceforth dub your completely moronic argument "the Crowley" because you simply have tried to conclude that the existence of any crime means laws have utterly failed. So we have to go back on Mr. Crowley's version of what the whole of the law is. Of course, in our brief association I figure you actually would consider that a feature and not a bug. My advice, dude, is that "Mad Max" was a movie. A very old, very bad movie. Come out into the daylight once in a while. And about your all-so-important rights you're mewling about. Your right to swing your arm ends at my face. Keep that in mind and we might get along. But the past years have shown that you guys are waaaaay too self-absorbed to keep your end of the bargain. |
Response to Pholus (Reply #55)
Sat May 4, 2013, 09:31 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
56. Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that?
That reminded me of a sucky rollercoaster.
The line, "So okay, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, Genius," cracked me up though. ![]() Overall a D, and that's being generous. btw, am I trying to snip away at your rights or you to mine? You're the one swinging your arms man, and whining because others don't roll over and accept it. And I don't make the gun figures up for Chicago. Your argument is that it would be worse without those laws? If that's the case, with seemingly nightly shootings continuing despite every gun restriction save confiscation, don't you have to wonder if you're really identifying and addressing the actual problem? Because clearly, it isn't about passing restrictive gun laws. The problem persists at an extreme level despite those. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #56)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:18 PM
Sekhmets Daughter (7,515 posts)
66. A jury voted 3-3 to Leave It Alone
At Sat May 4, 2013, 10:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2799745 REASON FOR ALERT: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.) ALERTER'S COMMENTS: Multiple ad hominem personal attacks. "Was I supposed to drop acid before reading that? That reminded me of a sucky rollercoaster. Overall a D, and that's being generous. " because he doesn't want to address the content of what he's replying to. Also deliberately (I think) misinterprets the part about 'your freedom to swing your arms ends at my nose'. Quite rude = hide. You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 4, 2013, 11:17 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT. Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: 2 authors going after each other, if one comment is to be hidden, then so should the other comment. Leave it alone, or hide both. I choose to err on the side of caution. Leave it alone. Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Snarky, but not hidable, IMO. Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Oh please...must everything be written as if it is to appear in the Sunday Church bulletin? Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future. |
Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #66)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:30 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
70. Thanks for the info. n/t
Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #66)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:49 PM
Pholus (4,062 posts)
75. That shouldn't have been alerted!
Certainly I am disappointed that he didn't respond to the specifics but frankly I can't see how he could. I wrapped my position pretty neatly and I don't think its easy to crack. I do get intense, but that's part of the fun of the exchange.
|
Response to Pholus (Reply #75)
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:58 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
112. Half the jury disagreed, and thought it should have been hidden, as did the alerter. nt
|
Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #66)
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:01 AM
datasuspect (26,591 posts)
89. they got owned
then they went and cried to the alert system.
nuts. i generally stay out of the guns sewer on DU - will continue to do so. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #56)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:34 PM
Pholus (4,062 posts)
71. Whatever. You already lost.
Really. A sucky rollercoaster? That's your best comeback?
Sorry to tell you this Sherlock, but that was the just pit forming in your stomach when your NRA-approved cut and paste about failed gun laws in Chicago got ripped out from under you, placing your position in free fall. So 500 murders got through. Sounds bad. But what WOULD it have been? The key point is that 7500 illegal guns were also confiscated during that period DUE to the laws. C'mon you pride yourself on your logic so go ahead. The 500 murders are not caused by the gun laws -- it's caused by people who break laws. You know, those guys you say have guns regardless -- you know, criminals. The confiscations are the direct result of the laws and given the grounds for confiscations those guns were also taken from -- wait for it -- criminals. For your "failure" conclusion to be correct you simply need to prove the now absent guns made no difference to the murder rate. Except you can't. You know it, and I know it. I'll take a moment to mock you now: Bwahahahhaaha. Whew, that felt good. I'd say "epic fail" but frankly it's kind of a "feeble fail" in this case. Actually I find you kinda of humorous as well. Certainly, you helped me coin the "Crowley Rule" which neatly describes the fallacy of the whole meme. Certainly YOU had no comeback to that other than to lamely exclaim "Well you *almost* fail too -- with a D." In the end, your rights end where mine begin. What you obviously don't get is how that works. I attribute that to your arrogant self-interest. You claim the Second Amendment is not abridged by anything -- by implication you mean MY RIGHTS don't matter. So in your bleating about your rights I hear the faint sound of jackboots and you not giving a rat's ass when it comes to mine. I certainly know most gunners do tend to have that authoritarian bent when they talk.... |
Response to Pholus (Reply #71)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:35 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
72. Ok, nite nite. n/t
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #56)
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:24 PM
0rganism (23,603 posts)
126. no, but you might want to shore up your arguments afterward
seeing as how Pholus just tore you a new one.
|
Response to 0rganism (Reply #126)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:21 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
129. How do you get that, though?
First, to me, his reply was slightly incomprehensible. But when you start off by calling someone Wiley Coyote, I mean, are you really wanting to be taken seriously?
At any rate, no one really answered the Chicago aspect. All the gun laws anyone could want are in effect there, except for blanket confiscation. And the murder rate and gun violence are outrageous. Those are facts. That is reality. So I posed, and still do, the question: are even stricter gun laws than we have now the answer to gun crime? If so, why isn't that tactic working in Chicago? In light of that reality, is it so far-fetched to think that maybe more restrictive gun laws are not the answer? I've been attacked personally here for having a minority view on gun control. Other Dems share this view. Other DUers share this view. But instead of discussing the issue in a reality-based manner, we get slings and arrows for deviating even slightly from the program. Are we all to be simply led around on leashes, told what to say, think and do? And to attack anyone who disagrees? Is that what this is here? I don't accept that. I don't think a vocal, nasty few who demand conformity speak for the greater DU community. You've been here a while. Tell me where I'm wrong here? |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #129)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:05 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
149. you're saying that gun laws are proven to work or not work based on one city which borders Indiana?
borders Indiana, which has little if, any restrictions to speak of on guns.
you're saying that gun laws are proven effective or ineffective based on the example of Chicago alone. or will you come back and post the name of another city with gun laws that is just a few miles from a state with loose gun laws? |
Response to CreekDog (Reply #149)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:18 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
151. Traffic must be hell from Chicago to Indiana and back.
![]() I'm not gonna walk down bs lane with you again, CD. I've seen all there is to see there. |
Response to Pholus (Reply #55)
Sat May 4, 2013, 09:54 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
58. If we applied Gun Lobby Logic™ to other issues....
![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #22)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:09 PM
Pelican (1,156 posts)
62. Doesn't matter...
You'll be told that the reason it is so violent there is because of the lax gun control in the surrounding areas.
Now, if we could clamp down on those folks, then everything would be much better. ![]() |
Response to Pelican (Reply #62)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:16 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
65. Yeah, I've seen that one before.
Just a little more authoritarianism and rainbows will sprout from the horizon while we all dance with unicorns.
Striking to me how eager some are to freely and with much enthusiasm toss away long-established rights. Ridiculous that they demand we all do the same. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #65)
Mon May 6, 2013, 02:18 PM
LanternWaste (37,748 posts)
121. As is striking to me how many people defend the Right-wing PAC NRA yet lack the courage of their own
As is striking to me how many people defend the Right-wing PAC NRA yet lack the courage of their own convictions to come out do so in an obvious manner rather than stating something along the lines of "it's a valid question" in response to a question posed by the NRA...
six of one, half a dozen of the other... |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #65)
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:42 PM
Tommy_Carcetti (42,263 posts)
128. You're a smooth smoothie, you know.
![]() |
Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #128)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:26 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
143. I think I'm really more like a shot of Whiskey.
Straightforward and unpretentious, with little room for bs and drama.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #143)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:34 AM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
144. "with little room for bs and drama" like alerting on yourself while pretending to be someone else?
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() It really takes a special sort to be their own internet stalker. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #144)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:37 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
145. Speaking of stalking...
![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #145)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:44 AM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
146. For correcting your assertion? What definition of "stalking" does that fall under?
"engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to—
(A) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; (B) suffer substantial emotional distress." Are you suffering emotional distress over this, Skip? |
Response to Pelican (Reply #62)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:39 AM
Kingofalldems (37,188 posts)
94. NRA all the way!
We should all bow down before them.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:23 PM
billh58 (6,601 posts)
36. Did it ever dawn on
you and your Gungeoneer buddies that there are other solutions besides guns? Better locks, stronger doors, better outside lighting, security systems, dogs, etc., etc., would help prevent home intrusions and reduce the need for guns.
Better home security is not the ultimate answer, but neither are guns. Gungeoneers are so obvious when they advance guns as the cure for crime and self-protection. Millions of Americans take preventative measures and precautions against being victims, but you guys seem very anxious to look for "justification" to shoot someone. |
Response to billh58 (Reply #36)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:50 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
46. All of those are smart measures.
I don't see anyone pushing guns as the only safety measure, or looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
Yet there is an endless list of people killed in home invasions who might otherwise have survived had they been armed and able to fight back. That's reality. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #46)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:59 PM
billh58 (6,601 posts)
48. That response
dances around the issue of taking precautions against home invasions by favoring the option of shooting someone who was not deterred or prevented from breaking and entering in the first place.
If more people took home security more seriously, there would be fewer people killed and the need for guns would be reduced. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #11)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:25 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
37. Do you still like cjeek dgg?
![]() RL |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:08 PM
billh58 (6,601 posts)
33. So basically what you
are saying is that Bostonians are too stupid to realize that they need a gun until some bombs go off and a mad man is on the run?
Don't you think that those who wanted guns had them, and those who chose to allow the police to protect them and did not see the need for a dangerous weapon in their homes, did not have a gun? Or is that too far outside of the "all gunz, all the time, for everyone" credo of the NRA and the Gungeon for you to comprehend? |
Response to billh58 (Reply #33)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:33 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
42. No, I'm saying what I just said. Why get insulting about it?
My guess is that many of those in Boston who did not have a gun in their home while the city was locked-down and a murderous terrorist was on the loose probably wished, at that point in time, that they did have one.
It's a pretty simple statement. No need to be insulting. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #42)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:42 PM
billh58 (6,601 posts)
45. And I'm saying that
if they had wanted a dangerous weapon in their home, they would have had one. I believe that it's insulting to imply that they were too stupid to realize a "need" before it arose. Those with alarm systems and strong locks were most likely not all that concerned, especially when there were multitudes of police cruising around.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #42)
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:06 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
124. And what you just said is what billh58 said you said.
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #124)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:38 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
131. No, that just is not factual.
We are in reality, yes?
That poster accused me of saying I thought unarmed Bostonians were stupid. I did no such thing. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #131)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:44 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
135. It's the logical conclusion of what you said.
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #135)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:03 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
138. No, it isn't a logical conclusion at all.
It seems more like an attempt to skirt the hard realities of the issue by casting aspersions upon those who don't walk in lockstep on this particular issue.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #138)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:06 AM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
139. Let's get back to basics.
OP: Wayne LaPierre said some extremely nutty, extremely right-wing, extremely hateful, extremely anti-liberal thing. (Like he often does.)
You gave your thumbs-up to the aforementioned thing. Simple as that. |
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #139)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:14 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
140. I think it was and is a valid question.
USA Today posed the same question recently. It isn't fringe. It's reality. It would be a NORMAL reaction, in such an extreme situation, for an unarmed person to wish he/she had an equivalent means of protection as the murderous terrorist who shut the city down and was roaming through neighborhoods. It isn't a sick and twisted question. It isn't a sick and twisted reaction. But let's get even more back to basics. You say the question is sick and twisted. How so? |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #140)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:16 AM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
141. I came to the conclusion your worldview makes it impossible for you to see how so.
Therefore, bye. Gotta sleep.
|
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #141)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:20 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
142. Not much in way of explanation, but ok.
Goodnight.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:26 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
39. So you are in agreement with whackjob LaPierre?
Why am I not surprised.
![]() RL |
Response to RetroLounge (Reply #39)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:30 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
41. When people make a valid point, I agree that it is a valid point.
![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #41)
Sat May 4, 2013, 10:51 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
59. of course you do
![]() RL |
Response to RetroLounge (Reply #59)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:02 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
60. You're so meta. n/t
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #60)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:03 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
61. You like Cleeqk dggg?
huh?
RL |
Response to RetroLounge (Reply #61)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
64. As if to prove my point.
childish mumblings in place of substance
![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #64)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:22 PM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
67. The "childish mumblings" are paraphrasing your EPIC FAIL in meta that will never be forgotton. nt
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #64)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:07 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
96. "childish mumblings"
Is that a phrase you learned over on your other web home?
Keep digging freep, no one here is fooled. ![]() RL |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #64)
Tue May 7, 2013, 10:07 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
156. "I like cjeekdgg" were YOUR WORDS, which you wrote in an alert to the hosts
pretending to be someone else.
yes, what YOU did was childish, you alerted on your own stalking thread about me to get it shut down when people called you out for posting it. you alerted by pretending to be someone else then claimed it was your "friend" that typed it into your phone. |
Response to RetroLounge (Reply #39)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:10 PM
Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)
63. Par for the course for good old skippy
I don't know why he doesn't just post on free republic and get it over with. Everyone there would completely agree with his right wing talking points. I don't really know who he's trying to convert here.
Maybe he does have a freeper account. Who knows. |
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #63)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:06 PM
RetroLounge (37,250 posts)
95. +1000
He's gotta get his talking points from somewhere, why not freeperville.
RL |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:34 PM
Gormy Cuss (30,884 posts)
43. Having lived in Boston, I'd say very few.
It's just not a shoot'em up town. Sure, they'd lock the windows and doors, maybe even barricade them and look for makeshift weapons like frying pans, baseball bats, and knives. Plus we paid for good law enforcement and expect good response.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:39 PM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
44. I'd take that bet. You know what I bet they wished for more?
Taggants.
They could've known who the bombers were within hours if the NRA would "allow" us to use them. There would never have been the circumstances you describe above, inaccurately I might add as people were never "ordered to stay" in their own homes, and they would never have had to wish they owned a weapon with which they would be more likely to kill themselves or one of their loved ones. |
Response to cui bono (Reply #44)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:57 AM
rl6214 (8,142 posts)
114. Tag giants for what?
The fireworks or the pressure cookers they used to make the bombs?
|
Response to rl6214 (Reply #114)
Mon May 6, 2013, 03:11 PM
cui bono (19,926 posts)
122. The fireworks. n/t
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 05:03 PM
Hippo_Tron (25,453 posts)
49. There's over 600,000 people in the city of Boston
The odds of Dzhokar coming and knocking on your door were extremely slim.
|
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:43 PM
Uzair (241 posts)
73. Do you enjoy having your wet dreams?
The most likely scenario to play out when a gun is in a household is an accident, or a domestic murder, or a suicide. THESE ARE THE FACTS AND THEY ARE NOT IN DISPUTE.
But keep on having your fantasy of "taking out the bad guy". You're enabling the thousands of deaths that happen every year because you haven't grown up yet from your adolescent wet dreams. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Sun May 5, 2013, 11:55 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
111. Only in the head of a sick, twisted person.
Real Bostonians are not like you'd like them to be. Thankfully.
|
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #111)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:35 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
130. Only a sick, twisted unarmed Bostonian would wish
he or she had a gun to protect himself/herself and his/her family while the city was on lock-down and a murderous terrorist roamed through neighborhoods?
That Bostonian would be sick and twisted to wish he/she had gun for self-protection in that situation? Sick and twisted? Really? |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #130)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:38 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
132. You know what I was referring to. Not any hypothetical Bostonian.
Response to 2ndAmForComputers (Reply #132)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:56 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
136. Just flat out BS. You are clearly talking about Bostonians.
![]() You are clearly saying that only sick and twisted people would wish they had a gun while the city is on lock-down so police can find a murderous terrorist who was roaming through neighborhoods. You're clearly talking about Bostonians. You say "real Bostonians" would not be so sick and twisted. Sheesh, it's right there. Yeah, I know what you're saying. You said it very clearly. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #136)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:58 PM
2ndAmForComputers (3,527 posts)
137. No. I was talking about Wayne LaPierre's sick and twisted implication about Bostonians.
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:47 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
147. How about WillPitt?
think he wanted a gun right then?
what did he say? |
Response to CreekDog (Reply #147)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:12 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
150. No idea.
Maybe you should ask him.
I will tell you that I am amazed that a few here would spend such effort to ridicule what, to me at least, appears to be a logical question. Who wouldn't want to be able to protect himself or herself when faced with the scary and real possibility of coming into contact with a terrorist who had just killed several people? What is the alternative? Offer the perp some cookies and reruns of Scooby Doo in hopes he'll chill out until the cops get there? In which scenario would you feel safer? Is it sick and twisted to want to protect yourself and your family? For us this is just pushing words around on a virtual page. But for them, that was real. It was happening. Surely there was fear. Surely there were some who didn't have a gun in their home who wished they had. This is reality. Human nature. Nothing wrong with it. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #150)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:19 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
152. because you ridicule us, our president and our values
at almost every opportunity.
what, you expect a medal from DUers after you've worked to undermine them on issue after issue? |
Response to CreekDog (Reply #152)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:49 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
153. Why do you do that? That isn't true.
I haven't worked to undermine anyone.
I merely speak my mind, and I have a strange compulsion to call out bs when I see it. I've been that way since I joined DU. People were allowed to have differences of opinion back then. You remember, right? Everybody doesn't agree on everything all the time. And it is bizarre to demand everyone pretend they do. I'm merely talking reality as I see it. And look at the personal attacks on me here, far removed from the topic at hand in this thread. What is that? For holding a minority opinion on this issue I get insults rather than discussion. Only by a few, but still - wtf is that? Baffling. But, I'm going to speak my mind as long as I'm here. I'm not going to walk in lockstep or have others think for me. I'm always open to discussion if the other person can get beyond the knee-jerk, adolescent name calling. It does crack me up, though, to see the freak-out by a few when they encounter an opinion that differs slightly from their own. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #153)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:47 PM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
161. We aren't asking you to "agree on everything all the time", you disagree with us ALL THE TIME
or at least, that's all you post about.
you think that's our standard? yeah, you know that's not true, you are just trying to justify your existence here. most of us liberals here disagree all the time, but we are often disagreeing to the left of each other and in lots of different ways. you disagree with almost all of us from the right, all the time on multiple issues and nevermind that you when a racial issue comes up, involving our president or Trayvon Martin or any other black person, you are there to chime in to say that it's not racism. have you ever posted to say, "oh yes, this is racism, that's terrible"...only when the victim was white. this is why you don't belong here. you don't even like us or anything we stand for anymore. for your own sake, stop torturing yourself, go to FR where your posts will be agreed with. |
Response to CreekDog (Reply #161)
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:25 PM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
163. Oh, you've determined I don't belong here, eh?
You know, maybe you could ask Skinner to let you form some approval committee that you can chair which will decide which of us can be here and what we can think and say, and what we cannot.
Explain to him too how the DU Community Standards, which allow for a wide variety of center-left opinions, are just too permissive. I'm sure he'd be willing to bow to your judgement on the matter. ![]() Here's a news flash, cd - Nobody here needs your approval or permission to post. Nobody has an obligation to justify anything to you. News flash 2: Meta is closed and the purity police have been disbanded. You and your pals can hurl insults and give Shatner a run for his money for melodrama, and start whiny threads in ATA, but it won't change that. The poll-traps and witch hunts have ended. Climb down from your imaginary throne and get over it. |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #163)
Wed May 8, 2013, 02:48 AM
Electric Monk (13,869 posts)
164. kick nt
|
Response to CreekDog (Reply #152)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:40 PM
HangOnKids (4,291 posts)
159. Oh Poor Skip He Just Speaks His Mind
![]() |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Tue May 7, 2013, 12:25 PM
Bake (21,977 posts)
158. I'd bet that more than a few of them DO have one or more guns in their homes.
Just a SWAG ...
![]() Bake |
Response to Skip Intro (Reply #5)
Thu May 9, 2013, 12:03 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
166. looks like you're wrong
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:06 PM
OneGrassRoot (22,738 posts)
6. Here is my reply:
![]() |
Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #6)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:43 PM
Cha (286,351 posts)
26. Ohh, I'd never seen that before.. thanks,
OneGrassRoot! What a survivor.
|
Response to OneGrassRoot (Reply #6)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
Cha (286,351 posts)
27. Have you thought of making that an OP, OneGrassRoot? Seems like
a good one.
|
Response to Cha (Reply #27)
Sun May 5, 2013, 06:20 AM
OneGrassRoot (22,738 posts)
90. I did a couple of weeks ago...
I may do so again soon.
Thanks, Cha. ![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:12 PM
Jamaal510 (10,893 posts)
7. Hey Wayne,
I happen to live in one of the most crime-ridden cities in America, yet for my entire life, I have never needed to stay strapped. I can catch the bus and go to school as I please because I have enough sense to know to stay away from the roughest parts of town whenever possible, and to not wear anything too flashy. This is what we have police and the military for--to be armed and protect civilians.
You and Alex Jones are not going to get somebody like me to become all paranoid and turn into a coward. |
Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #7)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:43 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
109. +1. Not dealing with the crime ridden part, but all the rest.
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:22 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
9. How many do you suppose wished their *neighbors* were armed and
on a hair trigger two weeks ago?
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:27 PM
spanone (133,761 posts)
10. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a pressure cooker is a good guy with a pressure cooker.”
fuck you insane wayne
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 02:37 PM
moondust (19,193 posts)
12. I can think of two
who probably wished they'd had MORE guns. And some assault rifles. Maybe even a suitcase nuke or two. The Second Amendment does not prohibit suitcase nukes! MY FREEDOM TO OWN A SUITCASE NUKE HAS BEEN INFRINGED!!!!
(Maybe somebody should sue the gubmint for violating their right to own a suitcase nuke.) |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:07 PM
Initech (97,183 posts)
18. The NRA: Proving once again how completely clueless they are.
![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:21 PM
slor (5,504 posts)
20. Wow...he really is a vile
man.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:24 PM
nobodyspecial (2,286 posts)
21. Is gun ownership banned in Boston?
Why would he assume that everyone was unarmed?
|
Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #21)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:32 AM
quaker bill (8,198 posts)
88. my B-I-L teaches CCW permit classes in the Boston area
I am pretty sure he will teach anyone qualified to carry, so, I am sure guns are not banned there.
|
Response to nobodyspecial (Reply #21)
Sun May 5, 2013, 08:37 AM
hack89 (39,132 posts)
92. Very easy to own a shotgun
little harder to own a revolver. Can be very hard to own a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. They have three types of license and only one is "shall" issue. In many towns, a person can be denied a license to own a handgun "just because."
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/education/hed/hed_gun_laws.htm |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:38 PM
Cha (286,351 posts)
24. Again.. some idiot who wasn't there is attempting to speak
for Bostonians. Let's ask them. Not, someone with an agenda to sell every last gun in the world whether it's to a criminal who has mental problems or not.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:41 PM
reformist2 (9,841 posts)
25. It is a valid point, but it's astonishingly rude and insensitive given what just happened.
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:47 PM
Turbineguy (36,080 posts)
28. Yeah
they could have shot the bombs before they went off!
LaPierre moves to the top of the "10 Dumbest Motherfuckers on the Planet" list. He takes Michele Bachmann's spot. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 03:50 PM
onenote (40,009 posts)
29. Hey Wayne, ask the guy who was carjacked by the bombers if he wished he had a gun
My bet is that he's quite happy he didn't have a gun, since if he did, he almost certainly would be dead now.
|
Response to onenote (Reply #29)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:29 PM
Frustratedlady (16,254 posts)
40. And, Collins(?) who was killed when they couldn't get his gun out of the holster?
How do you explain that, Wayne?
I'm beginning to think the entire NRA operation needs to be investigated. What is the framework, who are the backers, what is their real purpose? I personally don't think it has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment or gun ownership. I'm beginning to think it is much more sinister. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:10 PM
dkf (37,305 posts)
34. I'm not handy with a gun so I don't want one...
But if there is a terrorist running around I know who I would run to. I just hope he has room in his house for me
![]() I will fight for his right to own a gun, but really it's self serving. If the rest of you want to rely on the few police we have that's your choice of course. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:20 PM
TheCowsCameHome (40,097 posts)
35. Where were you, Wayne, you f*cking coward.
Probably hiding behind a toilet somewhere.
Gawd, that man makes me ill. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:26 PM
Politicalboi (15,189 posts)
38. Yeah I'm sure the SWAT teams would have
Loved to enter homes with massive guns. Or had been shot by someone who thought they heard a noise outside, and shot first and looked last.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 04:59 PM
struggle4progress (114,739 posts)
47. Coming up next: Arming WTC janitors with handguns could have prevented 9/11!
NRA Solutions will be right back, after these important messages
|
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #47)
Sun May 5, 2013, 04:01 AM
SummerSnow (12,608 posts)
86. haha. I would like to see his response for that one.Anyway he can get it?
Response to struggle4progress (Reply #47)
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:47 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
117. Arming firemen turns them into freedom fighters! Runners can shoot their way to the finish line!
Quarterbacks need to carry for protection against those aggressive linebackers trying to sack 'em!
Doctors need armed bill collectors to make sure they don't go broke! Delivery drivers need guns to shoot out those oppressive red lights on their routes slowing them down! Employees need guns to stand up tall with their bosses and get a raise! Cranky people need to take strong actions to keep people off their lawn, guns will do that! Derp, drool, burp.... These suggestions for better living in America were brought to you by the proud patriots of the GOA, since the NRA isn't tough enough! Do I need a ![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 05:06 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
50. How many Bostonians wish you would just shut the fuck up?
The death peddlers are getting tiresome...can't someone shame them enough to stfu?
|
Response to Rex (Reply #50)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:08 PM
smirkymonkey (63,221 posts)
98. Thank YOU!
My sentiments exactly!
![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 05:07 PM
liberal N proud (59,790 posts)
51. Violence begets violence
![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 05:12 PM
Pisces (5,494 posts)
52. Imagine how many brown people would have been shot at the race if the lunatics were armed. Reddit
proved how easy it is to mistake guilty looking people who are actually innocent bystanders. People with guns is the last
thing we would have needed in this situation. |
Response to Pisces (Reply #52)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:26 PM
etherealtruth (22,165 posts)
102. Completely agree
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 05:24 PM
Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)
54. Paraphrashing:
My guess is that ALL of Boston was saying: "I wish those bastards didn't have bombs."
Not sure what good a gun would have done them. |
Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #54)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:46 PM
newmember (805 posts)
74. I think the poster is saying during the lock down when the media
was saying the person has killed one policeman already.
He's armed , dangerous , desperate and possibly hiding in the neighborhood. |
Response to newmember (Reply #74)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:55 PM
Buzz Clik (38,437 posts)
76. Ah. So the asshole was attempting to prey on people's fears. Nice.
Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #76)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:02 AM
newmember (805 posts)
78. Him and the media but it was an intense situation , real or blown out of proportion, take your pick
I have never seen a manhunt like this conducted in America before. ..Have you?
And I'm sure neither had the people in Boston . |
Response to newmember (Reply #78)
Post removed
Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #54)
Mon May 6, 2013, 01:58 PM
freshwest (53,661 posts)
118. Imagine how much longer the marathon would have been if all the runners were carrying a piece as
they looked for possible terrorists along those 26 miles of road.
Isn't that really what Wayne is advocating? Every human being carrying a gun at all times, in all situations? A constant focus on nothing but their own safety from other armed humans, and little focus on the tasks of life? No such thing as and unarmed safety zone to get anything done of any kind, with attention being diverted to protection all the time? Living in a war zone? Inefficient, not conducive to higher cortical functioning, just operating at the visceral level. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 09:36 PM
Marrah_G (28,581 posts)
57. He is an idiot
All that would accomplish would have been innocent people getting shot.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:23 PM
RagAss (13,832 posts)
68. HAhahahhaaaaa !
![]() ![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sat May 4, 2013, 11:27 PM
newmember (805 posts)
69. He's probably right in some degree
You probably had some people that had a firearm tucked away in a small safe
or on top of a closet and had never touched or thought about for years. They probably took it out because of the lock down and the news media saying a terrorist is loose in the area. And I'm sure some of the people did have a thought of wishing they had a firearm in their home at that moment of terror when they were in lock down. It would be dishonest and silly to argue that some residents didn't have that thought. I know I have a large spray can of pepper spray and would have had it out handy within arms reach. If I had a gun I would have probably done the same instead of grabbing a spray can. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:05 AM
JI7 (87,922 posts)
80. from what i hear most of Boston was not frightened, but they were trying to help law enforcement
catch the terrorists . it made it much tougher for the 2 brothers to get away and do more damage without having more people, vehicles etc to mix in with.
seems like lapierre was hoping for a bunch of paranoid freaks to shoot at anything they suspected of being a bad guy. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:06 AM
Life Long Dem (8,582 posts)
81. Like the MIT officer?
![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:21 AM
samsingh (17,345 posts)
83. and how would the guns have stopped the attacks?
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:22 AM
winter is coming (11,785 posts)
84. How many people wish they had a gun every time this yahoo opens his pie-hole? n/t
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:26 AM
flvegan (64,231 posts)
85. None. We're Bruins fans.
"Frightened citizens" indeed, LOL!!!
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:00 AM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
87. Because the best defense against a BOMB is a gun, right?
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #87)
Mon May 6, 2013, 12:07 PM
rl6214 (8,142 posts)
116. Come on, you know he was talking about the manhunt after the bombs.
Even he's not that clueless.
|
Response to rl6214 (Reply #116)
Mon May 6, 2013, 11:42 PM
6000eliot (5,643 posts)
134. Oh, of course.
It makes even more sense to have the police, the public, and the bombers all firing at once.
|
Response to 6000eliot (Reply #134)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:51 AM
rl6214 (8,142 posts)
154. Well the police sure weren't too proficient, it took the younger brother
Running over the older brother to stop him, and they fired hundreds of rounds at the younger brother and only hit hima couple of times.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 08:26 AM
ileus (15,396 posts)
91. Hopefully most of them had one already.
at least one...
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 09:57 AM
gulliver (12,711 posts)
93. A bunch will get them, so the death toll from the bombings will climb.
I'm not against people buying weapons for self defense. I'm just pointing out that the statistics are not in their favor. A bunch of Bostonians who would never have brought home a gun for self defense will likely do so now. And the statistics will have their way.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 12:14 PM
Logical (22,457 posts)
97. If people were not in danger then why did the POLICE shut down the WHOLE FUCKING CITY?? Of....
course people would want a gun.
|
Response to Logical (Reply #97)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:59 AM
Skip Intro (19,768 posts)
155. Exactly. Thank You. n/t
Response to Logical (Reply #97)
Tue May 7, 2013, 11:13 PM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
162. ok, name some Boston area DUers who said they wanted a gun b/c they didn't have one
name one or two. should be easy if your logic is actually logical.
oh but you can't because it isn't. |
Response to Logical (Reply #97)
Thu May 9, 2013, 12:02 AM
CreekDog (46,192 posts)
165. seems like you don't know what you're talking about
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:25 PM
Skittles (149,435 posts)
101. only the cowards
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 05:29 PM
Enrique (27,461 posts)
103. yeah they could have shot that Saudi guy
![]() |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Sun May 5, 2013, 10:59 PM
TeamPooka (22,733 posts)
110. How Many Bostonians Wish the bombers couldn't buy their guns Wayne? nt
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Mon May 6, 2013, 12:02 PM
rl6214 (8,142 posts)
115. I would think anyone that wanted to own a gun already had one.
They are not entirely banned there like other cities.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Mon May 6, 2013, 02:13 PM
Sheepshank (12,504 posts)
119. LaPierre's an out of touch idiot. It's more like "How many Bostonians wished there were one less..."
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:16 PM
Tommy_Carcetti (42,263 posts)
125. Wha......?
The only way to stop two bad brothers who sneakily place bombs in a crowded area and then set them off from a distance is a good guy with a gun?????
And given that the only two people who were shot in the ensuing manhunt were armed police officers, I think guns had very little to do with it. |
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Mon May 6, 2013, 09:27 PM
Deep13 (39,136 posts)
127. Yeah, next time, shoot the bombs!
There's a remote chance it will work and an even more remote chance that you'll know there are bombs.
|
Response to michigandem58 (Original post)
Tue May 7, 2013, 01:41 PM
treestar (81,489 posts)
160. The guy who found the younger brother
did not have a gun.
|