Charleston, South Carolina

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 301 - 320 of total 490 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:01pm PT

Insults do not constitute debate. They are just more hatred.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:07pm PT

Why do you liberals want to victimize people? Why do you insist that people CAN be only helpless victims?

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:10pm PT

The anti-gun crowd views firearm owners as the ones insisting that the rest of the population be helpless victims.

Let's not forget this was a hate crime. The gun was the tool; but taking it away wouldn't necessarily eliminate the hate, nor the crime.

Norton

Social climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:46pm PT

So, what CAN be done to mitigate the likelihood of mass murder anyway?

THREAT ASSESSMENT, for starters

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30024/mass-shooters-1014/

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber

joshua tree

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:49pm PT

MB1 you don't have to answer my question if you don't feel like it : )

But don't you believe God is the alpha and omega, the eternal God inthat He knows all before today and tomorrow? Haven't you seen clues that He see's not only the past but also the future possibly at the same time? He has given in the bible numbers of those who will be saved and how many will be lost. To think otherwise gives no respect to His claiming to have a plan, does it? By your posts I don't think you see it this way. It's neither here nor there concerning our relationship with Jesus. Just someth'in to think about :)

It is tragic for those 9 families to loose their loved ones. It saddens us all. But in our hearts don't we know those 9 are being celebrated in heaven right now with our Heavenly Father. And how could there be more pride in our Fathers eyes than for how His children(the deceased family's) have behaved in the face of their enemy?

Ksolem

Trad climber

Monrovia, California

Jun 22, 2015 - 04:55pm PT

what would you recommend then, if anything?

That is a very difficult question. What I do know is that responding to this event and the others with a solution that won't address the problem is about as smart as our invasion of Iraq.

Several issues do rear their ugly heads. Psychotropic drugs. Just plain old mental illness. Cultural racism? It's certainly not pervasive throughout the general population, but perhaps in small units; families, support groups, small but locally influential groups like KKK etc. But still a person has to cross a certain bridge from light to dark to sit in a church among faithful people for an hour, studying them to determine who's first etc., and then begin the act of killing.

There were a lot of red flags about this guy, and not just among his friends (useless sacks of sht who did nothing.) How about the ones on social media. That is a public arena. We've got an NSA which is watching who we call and when and they can't find the guy's facebook and website? And how many others stumbled into these sites and passed them by?

It's a slippery slope asking people to turn in neighbors and friends who they suspect are on the way to mayhem, but in cases like this I think it is incumbent on anyone in contact with a crazy to make authorities aware.

Norton

Social climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:00pm PT

I jus tend to think God choose those 9 because He had trust in how they would react. And they inturn proved His love.

seriously Blu?

You really believe the great spirit in the sky picked those nine people to be slaughtered
with bullets, and this spirt chose them because he had trust in how they would react?

in what way did they die, react, that proved god's trust in them, blu?

zBrown

Ice climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:12pm PT

I read just today that there are approximately two dozen gang related murders in San Diego each year. The article didn't specify, but most if not all, involved somebody being shot with a gun.

What's the point? When I was growing up in the 1950's & 1960's there were none. Correcting for population growth, zero is still zero.

What's the explanation? Obamacare? The low-spark of well-heeled gangs? The decline of Ike and Nixon?

crankster

Trad climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:17pm PT

Madbolter, you're talking nonsense. You presumably would arm the entire U.S. population; that's your solution to gun violence. And you write that with a straight face? I hope not.

[Click to View YouTube Video]

Stewart

Trad climber

Courtenay, B.C.

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 22, 2015 - 05:17pm PT

Moosedrool; I told you that you're not dealing with the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree here. I doubt that Rdog could find Poland on the map. I doubt that he could find Europe on the map.

madbolter: You're right - I probably wouldn't say this stuff to your face. I do everything within my power to avoid mentally unstable gun fanatics.

BLUEBLOCR: How dare you actually claim to have the authority to pretend that you alone are capable of interpreting the words of Christ? If I want to go to church, I'll hang out with those Christian martyrs in Charleston instead of asking an apologist for mass murder like yourself for spiritual guidance.

GDavis

Social climber

SOL CAL

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:26pm PT

What do you guys want to talk about the next time a shooting happens?

I'm guessing within about 3 to 4 months we'll have another mass shooting, probably ballpark half dozen deaths and another half dozen serious injuries. A nation will mourn, Obama will make a speech, the whole enchilada.

Do we just blurt out the same talking points again? We all have solutions, so it's good we keep repeating them in our own little echo chamber to eachother. I also like how fired up everyone here seems to get at a problem that will NOT get solved and that WILL continue.

I don't know about what we've been talking about, or if any of the hair brained solutions presented here will turn out. But for SURE, 100%, there will be many more mass shootings.

So, at least we'll get some entertainment from it, right? That's all it is to us anyway. A chance to entrench ourselves at the expense of a national tragedy. Rad.

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:41pm PT

MB if the way I remember your story is wrong, I apologize for it up front. I dont remember you saying they came at you, but I'll go back and look and I trust your not the rediting type.

Brandishing isn't just Yosemite Sam rootin tootin his pistols.
If your flashing a weapon to convey your intent to use it, guess what.

So you missed the irony in my statement, To bad, it was meant for serious gun toters like you. Your the ones costantly stating how infinitesimal the chances are of ever being a statistic from gun violence, yet you feel compelled to carry for protection at all times, I can smell the fear.

The problem we have here isn't guns and it isn't people, it's people with guns. Can we find mutual ground on keeping guns away from people with problems. No, because to many like you don't want to give ground for an unfounded fear of losing your guns it being such a slippery slope and all. You don't want a federal registry for guns, you want state control and you know stright up it won't work. None of the states are going to agree universally for any one law, let alone the many that States already have.

I don't feel your really trying to bring anything to the table here except for fearmongering. Any ideas that might help you stymeie if it doesnt fit your mind. We get it, nothing works for you, but some of use are willing to give. Sometimes compromise can is better than nothing.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:41pm PT

You presumably would arm the entire U.S. population

You're VERY confused.

I would not "arm" anybody. At all. Period.

I'm not the "active" one in the gun/anti-gun debate. The anti-gunners are the "active" ones, actively trying to DISARM people who want to be armed.

If people want to be armed, I say: let them be armed. If people don't want to be armed, I say: let them not be armed. I believe in the right of people to either entirely proxy off their right of self-defense or take a more proactive position regarding it, as incidents like this one reveal the truth that should be repeated again and again and again: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Everybody in that church who WANTED to be armed had a RIGHT to be armed, and their state senate DISARMED them at the very place it turned out they most needed to exercise their rights.

Why do you liberals try to ACTIVELY take away people's right of self-defense?

Norton

Social climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:53pm PT

Everybody in that church who WANTED to be armed had a RIGHT to be armed, and their state senate DISARMED them at the very place it turned out they most needed to exercise their rights.

Why do you liberals try to ACTIVELY take away people's right of self-defense?

what?

I think you are confused, it was the very conservative Republican South Carolina legislature that passed that state's law outlawing firearms in churches.

no "ordinary" person could legally have a gun with them in that church

but don't believe me, look it up, just takes a second

but back to your question: Why do conservatives take away the right of people to defend
themselves in their own state's houses of worship?

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2015 - 05:57pm PT

So you missed the irony in my statement, To bad, it was meant for serious gun toters like you.

I have NO idea what you can possibly mean by "serious gun toters." It's just more pejorative crap.

Your the ones costantly stating how infinitesimal the chances are of ever being a statistic from gun violence, yet you feel compelled to carry for protection at all times, I can smell the fear.

You are smelling your own armpits, bud.

The problem we have here isn't guns and it isn't people, it's people with guns.

Absolutely ridiculous and simplistic! If you can encapsulate the layers of social and human-nature problems in such an oversimplified statement, and then use that as your basis for your oversimplified nonsense about getting rid of guns to "solve" "the" problem, then there is nothing in your perspective with which to compromise.

Can we find mutual ground on keeping guns away from people with problems.

Sure! How often have I publicly stated that I'm all in favor of universal background checks, PROVIDED that the statute explicit disallows the feds from maintaining anything resembling a national gun registry? What do you want?

No, because to many like you don't want to give ground for an unfounded fear of losing your guns it being such a slippery slope and all.

You've got me profoundly confused with somebody else, perhaps because you spend most of your mental energy dreaming up new insults.

You don't want a federal registry for guns, you want state control and you know stright up it won't work. None of the states are going to agree universally for any one law, let alone the many that States already have.

I don't know "straight up" that it won't work, and neither do you. And in the United STATES of America, we do believe in States' rights. The feds have no actual constitutional power to regulate guns in the way you wish they did. And what we DO know STRAIGHT UP is that every time the feds overstep their bounds and try to prohibit something for which there is an active market, they DO NOT succeed! What they do is create a black market, with the additional crimes and abuses that always attend black markets.

I don't feel your really trying to bring anything to the table here except for fearmongering.

I don't feel you are really trying to bring anything to the table here except for insults and simplistic hand-wringing.

Any ideas that might help you stymeie if it doesnt fit your mind.

Pot calling kettle. Kettle. Here kettle, kettle, kettle.

We get it, nothing works for you, but some of use are willing to give.

I'll tell you what works for me: You liberals leaving me the hell alone! You are not willing to "give." All you ever want to do is take, take, take. Leave me and tens of millions like me alone, and we'll get along just fine.

It's you liberal "masterminds" with your absurd dream that you can fix ANYTHING with another law that have ruined this society (and on countless levels, but I won't get into thread drift). Sticking strictly to the issue of gun control, you fix NOTHING with your mastermind efforts.

Even Dave Kos very honorably admits that gun control in any traditional sense would not have kept this situation from happening.

The issues ARE vastly complicated... much too complicated for you "masterminds" to figure out and solve. Leave it alone, let people HAVE their rights instead of always trying to FIX things by stomping on those rights.

Had people like you not meddled, people in that church could have had a fighting chance. For all your talk about "giving," it's people like you that are TAKING at the most fundamental levels.

Sometimes compromise can is better than nothing.

You insult and insult and insult and then talk about "compromise." What a laugh!

Just leave me alone, and you'll be "doing" all that I care for YOU and your ilk to "do".

zBrown

Ice climber

Jun 22, 2015 - 06:03pm PT

I have a dream. A dream of a world where there will be no more police. There will be no more armies. No judges and juries. There will be no more lynching and gang murders. No auto theft. No shoplifting. No strong-arm tactics by weak sauce players.

There will be just a bunch of heavily armed citizens (united?), paving (and keeping it paved) the way to truth, justice and the American way.

Infrastructure counts.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2015 - 06:03pm PT

You don't even want to disarm the criminals?

I was just about to compliment you on your very honorable post just upthread.

Of course I'd like to disarm criminals. The problem arises in how to do it. I have yet to hear a shred of a solution that doesn't STOMP on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

I'm all for universal background checks. I personally don't think they will accomplish much good, but even a little good is worthwhile, as long as it can be done without stomping on the self-defense rights of law-abiding citizens.

The LIBERALS (have to write it in all caps because I don't know why) are not calling for disarming the law-abiding reasonable gun owners.

Oh, come on. You know why! :-) It feels GOOD! Come on over to the dark side, Dave. You know you want to.

Regarding your statement, there are indeed liberals that are not calling for disarming citizens. There are many others that are. On this very thread, there's endless reference to "we need to have fewer guns" and so on. Pretty hard to tell where "limitations" and "disarmament" separate. Perhaps everybody on this thread should preface their positions with an acronym, like "Not about disarming society," or NADS, or "Disarm every member of society," or DEMS. You know, something like that, to make it clear what the "background" perspective of what often vague statements really is.

For my part, I believe in NADS! Get some!

You are debating with yourself.

Apparently not.

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jun 22, 2015 - 06:07pm PT

How often have I publicly stated that I'm all in favor of universal background checks, PROVIDED that the statute explicit disallows the feds from maintaining anything resembling a national gun registry? What do you want

PROVIDED,they do it the way you want it.

Just like I said.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 22, 2015 - 06:16pm PT

PROVIDED,they do it the way you want it.

Oh, get serious, if possible.

Let's say they want to pass universal background checks that include a provision to not allow the sale of ANY more guns. Would you agree with that law?

If so, then you reveal your real perspectives based in fantasy land.

If not, then you also want laws to be passed "the way you want them."

Look, you asked for compromise. I've offered a VERY reasonable one.

Not good enough for you, no surprise.

Let the insults resume.