Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 6 of 20<<<45678>>>
07-05-2020 12:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:This would not have happened at all in a country that banned guns outright.

Intentional Lie #1. (The Cambria Shootings).
Cambria was a crime committed with legal guns IBD.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/02/police-no-grounds-derrick-bird-guns-ban " licences for three shotguns and a rifle granted to Bird, " Again the wackos ONLY have access to what is legally attainable.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...It is always putting people at risk to have a shootout in public.

Intentional Lie #2. Shootouts don't happen when everyone is armed,
Sure they do. The Branch Dividians in Waco for example. Everyone was armed. Shootout.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...hotels should search every guest and their luggage?
...Why should We the Law Abiding People suffer...
Was that a yes or no?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Paddock had the most lethal arsenal that was legal....
...If there had been armed people nearby ...
He was inside his hotel room and he shot through the door at police who were nearby within 12 minutes of the first shot fired. Are you saying you can change Vegas gun policy around to have avoided the incident?

IBdaMann wrote:If the law had allowed everybody to put a cap in the bastard, fewer people would have died.
Firing across the street at the Mandalay Bay Hotel? Someone could have gotten a lucky shot? What are you saying IBD?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The "Wacko" crimes, like paddocks, completely debunk the NRA fantasy that laws do nothing since criminals can get anything. The wackos are only able to get what is easy to find.
...those you classify as "Wackos" were very smart and calculating ...
OK find one instance where the "Wacko" had an illegal gun. Just one. Paddock clearly would have had real machine guns if he could have gotten them.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...murder rate in the U.S. being so much higher
there are no comparable countries
So to maintain the fantasy that ITN was not dead wrong in saying the US had a low murder rate you're just going to say it's not possible to make any comparison? OK

6.2 per 100,000 population
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012

So the whole world's average is 6.2, the US is 5.35.
https://ourworldindata.org/homicides#all-charts-preview
We seem to be on par with much of Africa.
Edited on 07-05-2020 12:46
07-05-2020 17:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote:Again the wackos ONLY have access to what is legally attainable.

Lie #1. Truth: Criminals always have access to what is legal and what is on the black market. Gun cravens base their arguments on the false premise that black markets don't exist and that outlawing something necessarily removes it from existence.

IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote: The Branch Dividians in Waco for example. Everyone was armed. Shootout.

Lie #2. Truth: The "violent criminals" in this case were the Federal government who cannot be deterred by victims with firearms as would be the case with any other violent criminal.

tmiddles wrote: Was that a yes or no?

Quote my complete answer to your question and then ask me again (hint: I answered your question; you should read my responses)

IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote: He was inside his hotel room and he shot through the door at police who were nearby within 12 minutes of the first shot fired. Are you saying you can change Vegas gun policy around to have avoided the incident?

I thought this question was answered by having hotels check for firearms. Either that or abandon the notion of trying to make violent crime disappear altogether.

IBdaMann wrote: Firing across the street at the Mandalay Bay Hotel? Someone could have gotten a lucky shot? What are you saying IBD?
Not people across the street ... people on his side of the street, people inside the hotel.

tmiddles wrote: OK find one instance where the "Wacko" had an illegal gun.

Invalid requirement. You are limiting me to those you classify as a "wacko."

You have dodged the point that the US is a completely unique country with its own issues and circumstances. There are no comparable countries on this planet. Your statistics still amount to apples and oranges.

.
Attached image:

07-05-2020 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:This would not have happened at all in a country that banned guns outright.

Intentional Lie #1. (The Cambria Shootings).
Cambria was a crime committed with legal guns IBD.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/02/police-no-grounds-derrick-bird-guns-ban " licences for three shotguns and a rifle granted to Bird, " Again the wackos ONLY have access to what is legally attainable.

Lie. You forget the black market. See your local drug dealer for details.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...It is always putting people at risk to have a shootout in public.

Intentional Lie #2. Shootouts don't happen when everyone is armed,
Sure they do. The Branch Dividians in Waco for example. Everyone was armed. Shootout.

The Branch Davidians were attacked by the U.S. government. They defended themselves. They should have. They had every right to do so.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...hotels should search every guest and their luggage?
...Why should We the Law Abiding People suffer...
Was that a yes or no?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Paddock had the most lethal arsenal that was legal....
...If there had been armed people nearby ...
He was inside his hotel room and he shot through the door at police who were nearby within 12 minutes of the first shot fired. Are you saying you can change Vegas gun policy around to have avoided the incident?

No. RQAA. Las Vegas cannot set 'gun policy'. Like the rest of Nevada, they must conform to the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If the law had allowed everybody to put a cap in the bastard, fewer people would have died.
Firing across the street at the Mandalay Bay Hotel? Someone could have gotten a lucky shot? What are you saying IBD?

Yes. Someone could have got in a lucky shot, and would have, if the bastard hadn't killed himself first.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The "Wacko" crimes, like paddocks, completely debunk the NRA fantasy that laws do nothing since criminals can get anything. The wackos are only able to get what is easy to find.
...those you classify as "Wackos" were very smart and calculating ...
OK find one instance where the "Wacko" had an illegal gun. Just one. Paddock clearly would have had real machine guns if he could have gotten them.

Machine guns are legal. You can go and shoot one just by going into range that offers these guns for rent. You can also buy one or make one.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...murder rate in the U.S. being so much higher
there are no comparable countries
So to maintain the fantasy that ITN was not dead wrong in saying the US had a low murder rate you're just going to say it's not possible to make any comparison? OK

The U.S. enjoys a relatively low murder rate.
tmiddles wrote:
6.2 per 100,000 population
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012

So the whole world's average is 6.2, the US is 5.35.

Like I said...a relatively low murder rate.
https://ourworldindata.org/homicides#all-charts-preview
We seem to be on par with much of Africa.

Africa isn't the world. Perhaps your geography teacher couldn't figure out what State his car was parked in.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-05-2020 10:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:Criminals always have access to what is legal and what is on the black market.
This is the Legion of Doom, Lex Luther NRA fantasy camp of Criminals being all powerful. They are not I assure you. A billion dollar drug cartel certainly can get whatever they want. A drug addict looking to mug you or a teenager intent on shooting up the school cannot. Even a non-criminally connected rich guy like Paddock could not get illegal guns. A teenager in High School does not have black market underworld connections. "Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500."link
But then again it was a legal gun. Even toddlers are racking off rounds with those.
And nice try with this IBD notice it says Illegally obtained Here is the link:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
"82 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2020 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

Legally owned firearms in the U.S.

Within the United States, one must be at least 18 years old in order to purchase shotguns, rifles, and ammunition, and at least 21 years old to purchase all other firearms. Some people may be restricted from owning firearms, such as individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military or tourists. Guns must be sold through licensed dealers, and purchasers must undergo a background check. However, the much-discussed "gun show loophole" allows people to purchase firearms from a flea market, gun show, online, or from a personal collector without a background check."

! But the guns were legal! NO machine guns which would obviously be THE weapon of choice for ANY mass shooting. Why? Because they are illegal.

So take this 2017 incident: " a 3-year-old boy found his father's loaded gun in the kitchen and fatally shot himself in the head with it. " link Now the toddler is not old enough to poses firearms making that an illegal possession of a firearm. Needless to say the 3 year old did not have or need any underworld connections to "illegally" obtain a "legal" gun.

IBdaMann wrote:...Gun cravens..
As in having a fear of guns? You don't? If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you. Everyone should have a healthy fear of anything lethal.

IBdaMann wrote:...false premise ...that outlawing something necessarily removes it from existence.
Still waiting on those examples of mass shootings committed with illegal weapons.

IBdaMann wrote:...(hint:
Nope, don't do easter egg hunts for you anymore IBD.

IBdaMann wrote:...having hotels check for firearms. Either that or abandon the notion of trying to make violent crime disappear altogether.
Did you say you agreed with anything there?

IBdaMann wrote: ...Mandalay Bay...people inside the hotel.
The police were at his door, with guns, 12 minutes after the first shot. So what is missing in your view? Do you have some fantasy that had YOU been a guest you'd have "capped him" or whatever you gun nuts say, breaking into another guests room to do so?

IBdaMann wrote: You have dodged the point that the US is a completely unique country with its own issues and circumstances. There are no comparable countries on this planet. Your statistics still amount to apples and oranges.
You are pretending I raised the issue. ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate. So how can he make that claim? Do you agree with him?

Into the Night wrote: The Branch Davidians were attacked by the U.S. government. They defended themselves. They should have. They had every right to do so.
But you and IBD keep claiming that having guns makes you safer. Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today? Didn't having and using guns result, rightly or wrongly, in their deaths?

If I found a grizzly bear had wandered onto my land and eaten my dog I would have every right to kick it's ass. Now if I died in the process, as hard as I might punch, wouldn't some one be rather insane to look back on the incident and say I did the right thing and should have tried to kick the bear's ass?
Pretty much an analogous scenario to General David Koresh's little war.

Shootouts are inherently unsafe. It's generally a much better idea to not engage in them. Guns are effective tools for killing other people they are not defensive. A bullet proof vest is defensive.
Edited on 08-05-2020 11:00
08-05-2020 19:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Criminals always have access to what is legal and what is on the black market.
This is the Legion of Doom, Lex Luther NRA fantasy camp of Criminals being all powerful.

The NRA does not support criminal activity. Stop making this lie, bigot.
tmiddles wrote:
They are not I assure you.

Criminals have access to any gun they want, just as you do.
tmiddles wrote:
A billion dollar drug cartel certainly can get whatever they want.

Just as you can.
tmiddles wrote:
A drug addict looking to mug you or a teenager intent on shooting up the school cannot.

Lie. Yes they can.
tmiddles wrote:
Even a non-criminally connected rich guy like Paddock could not get illegal guns.

There are no illegal guns. You keep trying to spread this lie as well.
tmiddles wrote:
A teenager in High School does not have black market underworld connections.

Lie. Yes they do. 'High School' is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized.
tmiddles wrote:
"Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500."...deleted Holy Link...

One example of a teenager in high school obtaining a gun. There is no such thing as an 'assault pistol' or an 'assault rifle'. You obviously know nothing about guns.
tmiddles wrote:
But then again it was a legal gun.

All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Even toddlers are racking off rounds with those.

They are generally not strong enough, and any responsible parent does not let toddlers play with guns, bullets, matches, the car, household poisons and cleaners, etc.
tmiddles wrote:
And nice try with this IBD notice it says Illegally obtained Here is the link:
...deleted Holy Link...

All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
"82 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2020 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

Fake data. All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Legally owned firearms in the U.S.

All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Within the United States, one must be at least 18 years old in order to purchase shotguns, rifles, and ammunition, and at least 21 years old to purchase all other firearms. Some people may be restricted from owning firearms, such as individuals who have been dishonorably discharged from the military or tourists. Guns must be sold through licensed dealers, and purchasers must undergo a background check. However, the much-discussed "gun show loophole" allows people to purchase firearms from a flea market, gun show, online, or from a personal collector without a background check."

All guns are legal. Some of these laws are constitutional, others are not.
tmiddles wrote:
But the guns were legal!

All guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
NO machine guns which would obviously be THE weapon of choice for ANY mass shooting. Why? Because they are illegal.

A machine gun is legal.
tmiddles wrote:
So take this 2017 incident: " a 3-year-old boy found his father's loaded gun in the kitchen and fatally shot himself in the head with it. " link Now the toddler is not old enough to poses firearms making that an illegal possession of a firearm. Needless to say the 3 year old did not have or need any underworld connections to "illegally" obtain a "legal" gun.

You forget that parents generally don't let toddlers play with guns, matches, cleaners, the family cars, or leave them unattended around water, or let them play on the freeway.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Gun cravens..
As in having a fear of guns? You don't? If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you. Everyone should have a healthy fear of anything lethal.

Then live in fear. You are surrounded by lethal things. Other people carrying guns, bookcases, food in your house, everyone you see, every car or truck on the road, the wiring in your walls, aircraft flying overhead, the doctor's office, the stairs, household cleaners, the dogs in your neighborhood, the Sun, the ice and snow, a myriad of viruses and bacteria in the air, the police, the government, any bicycles you have, any trees near you, the pole you hang your clothes on in the closet, the knives in your kitchen, the nearest crosswalk, insects and bugs, wild animals (even a bunny), even the clothes you might wear.

ALL of these have killed people. ALL of these are lethal.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...false premise ...that outlawing something necessarily removes it from existence.
Still waiting on those examples of mass shootings committed with illegal weapons.

All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...(hint:
Nope, don't do easter egg hunts for you anymore IBD.

Lie. You are doing one right now.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...having hotels check for firearms. Either that or abandon the notion of trying to make violent crime disappear altogether.
Did you say you agreed with anything there?

Yes. RQAA. Anytime you check into any hotel, you agree to abide by it's rules and policies. They are the landlord, after all.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...Mandalay Bay...people inside the hotel.
The police were at his door, with guns, 12 minutes after the first shot. So what is missing in your view? Do you have some fantasy that had YOU been a guest you'd have "capped him" or whatever you gun nuts say, breaking into another guests room to do so?

Bigotry. Self defense is an inherent right. Defense of others is an inherent right.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: You have dodged the point that the US is a completely unique country with its own issues and circumstances. There are no comparable countries on this planet. Your statistics still amount to apples and oranges.
You are pretending I raised the issue. ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate. So how can he make that claim? Do you agree with him?

RQAA. TMSb5.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The Branch Davidians were attacked by the U.S. government. They defended themselves. They should have. They had every right to do so.
But you and IBD keep claiming that having guns makes you safer. Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today? Didn't having and using guns result, rightly or wrongly, in their deaths?

No. The government shooting at them and firebombing their compound resulted in their deaths.
tmiddles wrote:
If I found a grizzly bear had wandered onto my land and eaten my dog I would have every right to kick it's ass.

That you do. It's far safer to shoot it. It's generally not a good idea to kick bears in the butt.
tmiddles wrote:
Now if I died in the process, as hard as I might punch, wouldn't some one be rather insane to look back on the incident and say I did the right thing and should have tried to kick the bear's ass?

No, you should've shot it.
tmiddles wrote:
Pretty much an analogous scenario to General David Koresh's little war.

He didn't start any war. The government did.
tmiddles wrote:
Shootouts are inherently unsafe.

Sure beats dying though.
tmiddles wrote:
It's generally a much better idea to not engage in them.

If you can, but if you have to, you have to.
tmiddles wrote:
Guns are effective tools for killing other people they are not defensive.

They are both offensive and defensive. They are also great fun.
tmiddles wrote:
A bullet proof vest is defensive.

It is both offensive and defensive. They are boring.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 08-05-2020 19:06
09-05-2020 00:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1211)
tmiddles wrote:
! But the guns were legal! NO machine guns which would obviously be THE weapon of choice for ANY mass shooting.

Machine guns are actually rather impractical for the purpose of mass shootings.

tmiddles wrote:
Why? Because they are illegal.

Machine guns are not illegal.

tmiddles wrote:
So take this 2017 incident: " a 3-year-old boy found his father's loaded gun in the kitchen and fatally shot himself in the head with it. " link Now the toddler is not old enough to poses firearms making that an illegal possession of a firearm. Needless to say the 3 year old did not have or need any underworld connections to "illegally" obtain a "legal" gun.

Why did the father leave his gun in a place where his 3 year old could access it?

This says nothing about the many millions of people who collectively own many millions of guns wherein no accidents occur, let alone any homicides.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Gun cravens..
As in having a fear of guns? You don't?

I do not fear guns. Why should I?

tmiddles wrote:
If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you.

Wishing harm upon others... real classy there, tmiddles...

tmiddles wrote:
Everyone should have a healthy fear of anything lethal.

Not everyone is a fear mongerer like you are... Not everyone lives in fear like you do.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...false premise ...that outlawing something necessarily removes it from existence.
Still waiting on those examples of mass shootings committed with illegal weapons.

Machine guns are not illegal.

tmiddles wrote:
The police were at his door, with guns, 12 minutes after the first shot. So what is missing in your view?

12 minutes of time where I could've been defending myself.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you have some fantasy that had YOU been a guest you'd have "capped him" or whatever you gun nuts say, breaking into another guests room to do so?

Not a fantasy... Law abiding people "cap" criminals quite regularly.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: You have dodged the point that the US is a completely unique country with its own issues and circumstances. There are no comparable countries on this planet. Your statistics still amount to apples and oranges.
You are pretending I raised the issue. ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate.

It DOES have a low murder rate.

tmiddles wrote:
So how can he make that claim?

FBI homicide statistics.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you agree with him?

Yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: The Branch Davidians were attacked by the U.S. government. They defended themselves. They should have. They had every right to do so.
But you and IBD keep claiming that having guns makes you safer.

They allow you to better defend yourself.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?

Who knows...

tmiddles wrote:
Didn't having and using guns result, rightly or wrongly, in their deaths?

No.

tmiddles wrote:
Shootouts are inherently unsafe. It's generally a much better idea to not engage in them. Guns are effective tools for killing other people they are not defensive.

They can be either.

tmiddles wrote:
A bullet proof vest is defensive.

They can be either.
Edited on 09-05-2020 00:42
09-05-2020 03:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Gun cravens..
As in having a fear of guns? You don't? If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you. Everyone should have a healthy fear of anything lethal.

I don't fear inanimate objects. I control them. They are my bitches. They may very well fear me.

Have you ever gone to an airshow ... or do you stay far away out of fear?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...having hotels check for firearms. Either that or abandon the notion of trying to make violent crime disappear altogether.
Did you say you agreed with anything there?

I don't utilize this nearly enough: RQAA.

tmiddles wrote: The police were [not] at his door, with guns, [until] 12 minutes after the first shot.

Fourteen people could have ordered and received their Vente mocha lattes at Starbucks in that amount of time.

Fully armed and equipped law enforcement can't even stop mass shootings yet you believe that some sort of legislation can? You're a moron.

tmiddles wrote: ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate.

Once you noticed the subjective word "LOW" it became your responsibility to ask for context if you were confused, rather than compare apples and oranges and claim they are nonetheless "comparable."

Notice, you never asked for clarification. The US is a totally unique country with a totally unique situation, culture, population ... and a Democrat Party that seeks to increase the murder rate in every city it controls. Did you perform any sort of analysis/breakdown of Democrat-controlled cities vs. Republican-controlled cities? Was that a "no"? No other country has This Particular Factor at play. It is but one of many. I repeat, it is only one of many.

Until you stop comparing apples and oranges, your arguments and conclusions will be summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: But you and IBD keep claiming that having guns makes you safer.

You have now changed topics to one treating the ramifications of a tyrannical government run by an authoritarian deep state. Shall we explore?

tmiddles wrote: Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?

Do you doubt that many slaves who died trying to escape captivity would have remained alive had they simply capitulated to their slave-masters? Do you doubt that many Venezuelans who died at the hands of trigger-happy and sadistic riot police while protesting the government's destruction of the country would have remained alive had they simply stayed home?

Will you go on record as insisting that those who died were insane? Pretty much an analogous scenario to General David Koresh's little war.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2020 05:32
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Gun cravens..
As in having a fear of guns? You don't? If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you. Everyone should have a healthy fear of anything lethal.

I don't fear inanimate objects. I control them. They are my bitches. They may very well fear me.

Have you ever gone to an airshow ... or do you stay far away out of fear?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...having hotels check for firearms. Either that or abandon the notion of trying to make violent crime disappear altogether.
Did you say you agreed with anything there?

I don't utilize this nearly enough: RQAA.

tmiddles wrote: The police were [not] at his door, with guns, [until] 12 minutes after the first shot.

Fourteen people could have ordered and received their Vente mocha lattes at Starbucks in that amount of time.

Fully armed and equipped law enforcement can't even stop mass shootings yet you believe that some sort of legislation can? You're a moron.

tmiddles wrote: ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate.

Once you noticed the subjective word "LOW" it became your responsibility to ask for context if you were confused, rather than compare apples and oranges and claim they are nonetheless "comparable."

Notice, you never asked for clarification. The US is a totally unique country with a totally unique situation, culture, population ... and a Democrat Party that seeks to increase the murder rate in every city it controls. Did you perform any sort of analysis/breakdown of Democrat-controlled cities vs. Republican-controlled cities? Was that a "no"? No other country has This Particular Factor at play. It is but one of many. I repeat, it is only one of many.

Until you stop comparing apples and oranges, your arguments and conclusions will be summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: But you and IBD keep claiming that having guns makes you safer.

You have now changed topics to one treating the ramifications of a tyrannical government run by an authoritarian deep state. Shall we explore?

tmiddles wrote: Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?

Do you doubt that many slaves who died trying to escape captivity would have remained alive had they simply capitulated to their slave-masters? Do you doubt that many Venezuelans who died at the hands of trigger-happy and sadistic riot police while protesting the government's destruction of the country would have remained alive had they simply stayed home?

Will you go on record as insisting that those who died were insane? Pretty much an analogous scenario to General David Koresh's little war.


.


Because of social distancing, I avoid people like IBDM and his Harvey. Gotta love it.
09-05-2020 06:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
James___ wrote:
Because of social distancing, I avoid people like IBDM and his Harvey.

... but despite social distancing, you still like BDSM on your Harley?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-05-2020 07:20
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Because of social distancing, I avoid people like IBDM and his Harvey.

... but despite social distancing, you still like BDSM on your Harley?

.



Harley's going to have to have a few more shots of his non alcohol, alcohol.
Just not sure if the same BeDaMann on Marley changes things though. I heard that Harvey, er, Marley is a bad dog and likes doing it on the carpet.

You guys are friggin hilarious

Edited on 09-05-2020 07:21
09-05-2020 22:21
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2388)
Does mass shootings cause climate change? Or is climate change causing mass shootings? Seems to me, that if we ban climate change, there would be fewer mass shootings, either way...
10-05-2020 02:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
The NRA does not support criminal activity.
No they support the myth that making something illegal has no impact on it's being available. The theory that laws are useless in the face of all powerful criminals. That is the lie.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"82 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2020 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

Fake data. All guns are legal.
Uh this was what IBD cited so you're calling his citation "Fake Data". Why is it fake? Just 'cuz?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?...
No. The government shooting at them and firebombing their compound resulted in their deaths.
Would they be alive today had they been unarmed? Answer the question.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I found a grizzly bear ...kick it's ass.
...It's generally not a good idea to kick bears in the butt.
And what if the bear had a gun? Should you go out an engage the bear in a shootout or call the professionals to handle it?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...General David Koresh's little war.

He didn't start any war. The government did.
So you believe that the search warrants and court orders to search the property weren't legit? Have some strange theory on sovereign land within the US border?

gfm7175 wrote:
Machine guns are not illegal.
You could claim that heroine is also legal and be just as wrong. Did Rush Limbaugh manage to use a lot of legal heroine in the form of prescription pills? Yes. Is heroine legal? No.

"Private civilian ownership of machine guns is illegal unless the individual has been explicitly permitted by the federal ATF to own them."link

"For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:
- the possessor isn't a "prohibited person,"
- the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
- their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features)."link

Prohibited possession in 13 states: link
California
Colorado
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Louisiana
Maryland81
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin

So it's possible to obtain a permit for an antique machine gun (at least 35 years old) in some parts of the country. Certainly more legal than I thought they would be but still not surprising they are never used in crimes or mass shootings.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you.

Wishing harm upon others... real classy there, tmiddles...
How is that "wishing harm" it's clear the both you and IBD lack the respect for fire arms which is necessary to own one. If you are passing the test for possession you're being dishonest in your answers.
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't fear inanimate objects. I control them. They are my bitches. They may very well fear me.
Yikes

Respect for the danger of firearms

That's not "fear mongering" that's basic sanity. Dangerous things are, well, dangerous. Treat them with the proper respect for that fact.

I fear for your neighbors. Yahoos like you are a danger to us all.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The police were at his door, with guns, 12 minutes after the first shot. So what is missing in your view?

12 minutes of time where I could've been defending myself.
What does that even mean? What are you saying you would have done if you'd been in either the concert crowd or the hotel, armed however you like, that would have made any difference at all?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate.

It DOES have a low murder rate.
As we are about even with Africa and at 4-6 times the murder rate of comparable economies what do you base that claim on? "Low" is a comparative term. What are you comparing 5+ murders per 100,000 per year to (those are the FBI homicide statistics.)?

gfm7175 wrote:They allow you to better defend yourself.
Who is trying to hurt you and why? What's a "for example" where a gun would make you safer? I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.

IBdaMann wrote:Fully armed and equipped law enforcement can't even stop mass shootings yet you believe that some sort of legislation can?
All in your spirit of "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN" and "NOTHING CAN BE DONE" yet you are still failing to provide a single example of a weapon, not made legally available, that's been used in a shooting. Also it's interesting you're claiming that fully armed police couldn't prevent this so it seems the "defensive" capacity of guns is being called into question here by you.

IBdaMann wrote:... the subjective word "LOW"
The word low is comparative, so is high. Now had you said the murder rate was acceptable, or "good" or "not a problem" I suppose you could have nothing to back that up at all. But ITN made this claim IN COMPARISON with other countries.
tmiddles wrote:
what does stop mass shootings is a country where guns are illegal.

Into the Night wrote:
You also keep overlooking the low murder rate in the U.S.


IBdaMann wrote:Notice, you never asked for clarification.
I always do and never with any success as you guys just dodge away. Here you go:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:... Of comparable countries our murder rate is 5 to 6 times higher. So ITN what do you mean? Seems like the US has an extremely high homicide rate for our economic level.

Non-sequitur fallacy.

IBdaMann wrote:...your arguments and conclusions will be summarily dismissed.
Not my argument IBD it's ITN's and now GFM's. I didn't say the US had a low murder rate, they did. I'm simply trying to understand why. They have yet to explain why they have volunteered that claim.

IBdaMann wrote:You have now changed topics to one treating the ramifications of a tyrannical government run by an authoritarian deep state. Shall we explore?
Absolutely. It was a question for you so please answer as you see fit.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?
Do you...? Do you ...? Will you ....?
So you refuse the answer. And I will go on record that David Koresh was insane and he took a lot of good people down with him. A black man in the south with a gun during slavery would not outlive a black man without a gun. And Venezuelans who are protesting are engaged in a war. What they are doing is decidedly unsafe but may be necessary. It may even be safer for some of them to have guns, I don't know. If I were going to fight a war I'd want the best weapons available.
Edited on 10-05-2020 03:07
10-05-2020 06:03
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Tmiddles, would you sign this letter? Why or why not?


Dear men and women in uniform,
We thank you every day for your sacrifice and service. In the interest of increased safety for you and your loved ones, we will be asking you to permanently surrender all service weapons as they will no longer be allowed. Studies have shown it is much safer to run away or just hide from violence, rather than confront a violent situation before or during it's escalation. Good luck and Godspeed.

Your truly,


____________


Tmiddles
Edited on 10-05-2020 06:10
10-05-2020 07:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
GasGuzzler wrote:...men and women in uniform,...surrender all service weapons...

Haven't been really following the thread I see GG:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.
It is not legislating something into nonexistence to delegate it. As with medicine, fire, and other areas surrounding human health our society, wisely in my opinion, delegates and restricts those functions to a highly trained and qualified class of professionals.

tmiddles wrote:
Should you go out an engage the bear in a shootout or call the professionals to handle it?

tmiddles wrote: I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.

By professionals I of course mean Police officers, who should be the ones using guns to deal with anyone in a non military setting and military personnel should be the only ones using guns in a military setting. I have never even hinted at anything else. Oh and in Waco the only ones with guns should have been the police as well.

It's hard enough to use deadly force appropriately for highly trained officers with decades of experience. We can do without the buckaroos making that call in the backyards of america. Learn to call 911 and get better sense about how not to use a gun.

Another great thing about the pros is they have options to go along with their training and experience: SWAT, Big guns, little guns, tasers, pepper spray, battons, dogs, hand to hand fighting skill and hand cuffs. I'd like the fat dude with his Smith and Wesson fantasies to kindly stay in his house, hiding, while the police respond to the noises out in his shed. Because I'm sure he loves the Dirty Harry film series, talks about how he'd blow someone away if they tried to steal his lawn mower, but doesn't even own anything other than a gun to deal with a criminal, a gun he kinda knows how to use.

I consider the 12 minute response time of officers in Vegas to be maybe not excellent but certainly good. There is no indication from anyone, certainly not on this board, that more liberal gun laws would have helped in anyway in Vegas. We know that the shooter had exactly as much killing power as we allowed him to have legally.

So now you know. If you ever have any other questions about my point of view simply ask. I don't play "RQAA".
Edited on 10-05-2020 08:30
10-05-2020 09:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote: By professionals I of course mean Police officers, who should be the ones using guns to deal with anyone in a non military setting and military personnel should be the only ones using guns in a military setting.

Exactly. Your position is, and always has been, that all law abiding citizens MUST be rendered completely defenseless. This is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was intended to prevent. This is exactly what all Marxist and tyrannical governments do just before the government commences with the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents and the mass executions ordered out of irrational paranoia.

I think we understand your intent.

Oh, can I assume that your position is based on a strong understanding that the police cannot be everywhere, that the police have no extrasensory perception to know when and where crimes are about to be committed and that the police have no power to magically teleport to wherever they need to be, yes?

You actively advocate for maximum damage and death for all violent crimes. You actively advocate for total authoritarian government control. You advocate for the abolition of individual freedoms.

I think we understand your intent.

tmiddles wrote: Oh and in Waco the only ones with guns should have been the police as well.

The 2nd Amendment says otherwise. The FBI and the ATF should not have gone apeshit tyrannical. They did not need to assault the compound. It is not the government's role to create criminals, to create shootout situations when none need occur, to apply force just because it gives government agents an adrenaline rush.

tmiddles wrote: It's hard enough to use deadly force appropriately for highly trained officers with decades of experience.

Immaterial, you would even confiscate the legal firearms of all law abiding citizens who are trained officers with many years of experience. You would confiscate the firearms of all law abiding hunters with many, many years of experience. You care nothing for people; you want them defenseless. Period.

tmiddles wrote: We can do without the buckaroos making that call in the backyards of america.

i.e. if a woman is about to be raped, she had better not somehow feel empowered to "make that call" to use a firearm to prevent the rape (or worse). Who the F-U-C-K does she think she is? You make a great point.

tmiddles wrote: Learn to call 911 and get better sense about how not to use a gun.

... because we all know that violent criminals allot sufficient time for the "alert the cops" phase and ensure everyone has a cell phone in hand (with plenty of reception). This ensures sufficient police can teleport to the scene to engage at the commencement of the "violent crime" phase.

Yes, we're tracking with you.

tmiddles wrote: Another great thing about the pros is they have options to go along with their training and experience:

In your Utopia, those with the most experience have retired and are now having their guns confiscated by you. Meanwhile the only experience the rookies are receiving when they show up at the scene after everything has already occurred is how to do the paperwork properly.

In your world, the police exist only to document the violent crime inflicted upon We the Defenseless by violent criminals who operate with impunity.

No, thanks.

tmiddles wrote: I consider the 12 minute response time of officers in Vegas to be maybe not excellent but certainly good.

I agree. They should be aspiring to response times of at least 20 minutes because, as it stands, they might actually arrive in time to protect someone and we can't very well have that, can we?

tmiddles wrote: There is no indication from anyone, certainly not on this board, that more liberal gun laws would have helped in anyway in Vegas.

There is no indication from anyone, certainly not on this board, that more liberal gun laws definitely would not have helped. All we know is that they couldn't have hurt.

tmiddles wrote: If you ever have any other questions about my point of view simply ask.

IRONY: noun.
When tmiddles implies that he is hurt by a possible misrepresentation of his position.

tmiddles wrote: I don't play "RQAA".

Sure you do. You play it every day. Your position on the team is the guy who asks the same already-answered questions over and over and over ad infinitum as though they have never been answered. You have a dishonesty batting average in the high 800's.

You took "RQAA Rookie of the Year" for 2019. You are light years ahead of anyone else in 2020. Claiming that you don't play RQAA is like saying that Messi doesn't play soccer.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-05-2020 10:26
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(563)
All the states in Australia have different firearm rules I personaly feel the rules in the state I live in are fair.You can only have a handgun if you shoot at a club.There is no field application and no self defence clause If you live somewhere you need a handgun for self defence move somewhere else.I catch a lot of public transport and some of the people that get on and off are visibly being affected by mind altering substances and I do not care who you are I do not wish these people to have access to handguns Americas ratio of firearm related homocide is way out of control compared to any where in the world.You can claim Americans are more warlike.What more than Germans and Croatians.No you do not have the right to be able to gun down other citizens I do not care about your alledged constitution.
10-05-2020 10:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...all law abiding citizens MUST be rendered completely defenseless... tyrannical governments

Are you under the impression that citzens could resist the US military now? Shouldn't some heavy fire power be legalized to make that possible if you want that.


We ARE defensless against are own military with all the weapons that are currently legal.

IBdaMann wrote:The FBI and the ATF should not have gone apeshit tyrannical. They did not need to assault the compound.
So you think they did the right thing killing cops that day?

When a cop serves a search warrant you get to decide when they're allowed in?

Finding contraban is pretty tough when you don't have the element of surprise.

IBdaMann wrote:...You would confiscate
Just keep trying to straw man. If you'd like to state my postion you can do that by quoting me.

Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection. It's simply a weird psychological condition and a fetish. Civilized society shouldn't be indulging it.

I think have authorized, highly trained deputies is an excellent idea by the way. Anyone who knows how to apply force when needed, and is accountable, is a great addition to our police force if it's controlled (especially if they are willing to do so as volunteers!) We have volunteer fire and police already.

IBdaMann wrote:...if a woman is about to be raped,
Pretty mucht he on scenario I can think of where someone would want to get to you physically when you're unarmed (as in they aren't trying to remove a threat). But as I've said I don't think small, short range, single shot guns in the home should be illegal. An "anti-rape machine gun" is just stupid.

IBdaMann wrote:...police can teleport to the scene to engage at the commencement of the "violent crime" phase....
Aside from rape when and why would anyone want to get to you physically? The Mob put a hit out on you? Your gang gotta beef with a neighboring gang?

IBdaMann wrote:There is no indication from anyone, ..that more liberal gun laws definitely would not have helped. All we know is that they couldn't have hurt.
Uh, no, if Paddock had not had bump stocks there would be fewer dead people. Same goes for hich capacity magazines, long range weaponry, owning 1000s of rounds of ammunition, and so on:



And going the other way: Had he been able to legally own machine guns, ballistic weapons, and heavier firepower not currently available he would have killed a lot more people.

IBdaMann wrote:guy who asks the same already-answered questions
BS you guys just play RQAA when you lose.

Try making an actual argument.

duncan61 wrote:...Americas ratio of firearm related homocide is way out of control compared to any where in the world....
Well we are about even with the continent of Africa. Central/South America is worse! So we've go those bragging rights.

But yes we have nearly 6 times the murder rate you got down under.
Murders per 100,000
USA :: 5.35
Australia :: 0.94
10-05-2020 13:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote: We ARE defensless against are own military with all the weapons that are currently legal.

The military isn't attacking us. The defense we have, i.e. the rule of law, seems to be working.

In the case of defenselessness zones, the rule of law does not work and therefore is of no defense, which makes sense.

IBdaMann wrote: So you think they did the right thing killing cops that day?

Yes, I believe the colonists were right in dissolving the political bands which had connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitled them, and to kill soldiers and police in subsequent days. This country was founded on fighting back against a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure that We the People always can.

The Branch Davidians fought back against a tyrannical government the best they could. They demanded either liberty or death.

tmiddles wrote: When a cop serves a search warrant you get to decide when they're allowed in?

We'll table this discussion while you educate yourself on the difference between Constitutional due process and tyrannical government.

When you return, I'll give you a quiz like "Search warrant signed by a judge: due process or tyranny" We'll see how you do.

tmiddles wrote: Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection.

Of course not.





tmiddles wrote: It's simply a weird psychological condition and a fetish.

You are the gun craven. The psychological problem is on your end.

tmiddles wrote: An "anti-rape machine gun" is just stupid.

What if a crowd of people in sheets are coming onto someone's property to lynch the owner. An AR-15 would work best for that. I bet that once the owner had dropped three or four, the others would high-tail it out of there. In fact, if you were one of the dudes in the group, you and any other gun cravens would piss in your sheets at the mere sight of a firearm.

tmiddles wrote: Aside from rape when and why would anyone want to get to you physically?

Maybe the assailant has a big knife, or a tire iron, or a Louisville Slugger, or any of infinite possibilities.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-05-2020 13:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
The military isn't attacking us.
It was your claim, not mine, that we would be defenseless against an authoritarian government:
IBdaMann wrote:This is exactly what all Marxist and tyrannical governments do just before the government commences with the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents and the mass executions ordered out of irrational paranoia.
Did you not mean that the population would be disarmed to make this possible? As in the population would be able to fight against the government if it tried to do that?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So you think [the Brach Dividians in Waco] did the right thing killing cops that day?

Yes, ...This country was founded on fighting back against a tyrannical government.
So if a drug dealer had the FBI show up at their door, having a shoot out with them to preserve the sovereign right to one's abode would be justified?
How do private citizens decide when they can shoot the police because they don't like the laws?
Here's the search warrant (thought he Dravidians shot cops on sight, they didn't wait to read it):
http://www.jaedworks.com/shoebox/waco.html
"...ownership and instructions for converting semi-automatic firearms into machineguns, and the construction of improvised explosive weapons, ...Mrs. Bunds also told me that Howell had fathered at least fifteen (15) children from various women and young girls at the compound. Some of the girls who had babies fathered by Howell were as young as 12 years old. She had personally delivered seven(7) of these children."
DENNIS G. GREEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-WACO

Now maybe the honorable Judge Green got it wrong and the police had no right to look into this. Do you think all search warrants should just be shot at? Something special about Waco for you IBD?

IBdaMann wrote:...while you educate yourself on the difference between Constitutional due process and tyrannical government.
Made up IBD language that is not searchable. Nope, no easter egg hunts IBD. If you have a point (clearly you don't) then make it.

I understand the search warrant process well and have no problem with it. What was done in Waco was by the book.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection. Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection. It's simply a weird psychological condition and a fetish. Civilized society shouldn't be indulging it.

Of course not.
You make my point for me IBD. Anyone who posts that sign needs therapy and most definitely to be prevented from owning a firearm. Psycho stuff.

IBdaMann wrote:
What if a crowd of people in sheets are coming onto someone's property to lynch the owner. An AR-15 would work best for that.
Or maybe zombies! What about that?

Hey if Godzilla did come we would really need rocket launchers or some heavier stuff. So probably need to get that legalized.

Or just have ITN buy some. For him everything is legal.
10-05-2020 16:26
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
tmiddles, with the Branch Davidians that you are referring to was what happened in Waco, Texas, right?
One issue with that is that their leader always appeared in court. Any time he was served with a summons to appear, he showed up in court. The FBI did things differently to give them a reason to engage that cult.
The 1st amendment allows for Freedom of Religion. Ask Christians, the world is coming to an end. They (Branch Davidians) were waiting for the end. When that happens as many Christians believe it will, they were going to be prepared to survive it. Nothing they did ever showed any intent other than that.
Also I think the FBI at Ruby Ridge, Idaho also created a situation where they shot through a door killing an innocent woman. That was largely condemned as the FBI being the aggressor.
Yet when an FBI agent wanted to get a warrant to investigate a suspected terrorist, the higher ups at the FBI said no. If the warrant would have been asked for and received, then 9/11 would have been averted. The suspect had on his computer the plans for how 9/11 was going to happen.
And with 9/11 came the Patriot Act. Instead of the FBI doing the job it's supposed to do, it was an ACT that gave the government the right to violate the rights that the Bill of Rights gave to Americans.
BTW, if airplanes had locks on the doors to the cabin of an airplane, 9/11 would have been avoided. I mean does the general public really need an open door policy to the flight cabin of a 747? Kind of where people need to think once in a while.
With me, I think like Ancient Rome, the US will fall and smaller countries will rise from it's ashes.
It's like what was said about the War in Iraq, Americans are afraid. One of the highest standard of living in the world but Americans are afraid. What Americans should be doing is learning to understand why they have such a good life and what they need to do to keep it. But they don't. They just say "Well keep exploiting people and situations like we always have".
That's where if Americans worked together to maintain the quality of life they enjoy, they would call it socialism and claim it's an attack on America's core values which are found in the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition. http://www.sjtrek.com/trek/rules/
Edited on 10-05-2020 16:32
10-05-2020 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The NRA does not support criminal activity.
No they support the myth that making something illegal has no impact on it's being available. The theory that laws are useless in the face of all powerful criminals. That is the lie.

The NRA doesn't make that argument either, liar. Mantras 4c...30...34a...
You don't get to speak for the NRA or any of its members. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"82 of the mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and February 2020 involved weapons which were obtained legally; a clear majority. Only 16 incidents involved guns that were obtained illegally.

Fake data. All guns are legal.
Uh this was what IBD cited so you're calling his citation "Fake Data". Why is it fake? Just 'cuz?

All guns are legal. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?...
No. The government shooting at them and firebombing their compound resulted in their deaths.
Would they be alive today had they been unarmed? Answer the question.

I don't answer loaded questions that are speculative. Mantras 30...36e...29...
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If I found a grizzly bear ...kick it's ass.
...It's generally not a good idea to kick bears in the butt.
And what if the bear had a gun? Should you go out an engage the bear in a shootout or call the professionals to handle it?

Bears don't shoot back! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'll shoot the bear. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...General David Koresh's little war.

He didn't start any war. The government did.
So you believe that the search warrants and court orders to search the property weren't legit? Have some strange theory on sovereign land within the US border?

Shooting at people on the property is not a search. No court ordered the execution of those people by firing squad. Mantras 4f...lie...30...38a...29...
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Machine guns are not illegal.
You could claim that heroine is also legal and be just as wrong. Did Rush Limbaugh manage to use a lot of legal heroine in the form of prescription pills? Yes. Is heroine legal? No.

Rush Limbaugh never took heroine, either by prescription or otherwise. Heroine is legal under prescription. You are lying again. Mantra 30.
tmiddles wrote:
"Private civilian ownership of machine guns is illegal unless the individual has been explicitly permitted by the federal ATF to own them."link

"For example, a private citizen can lawfully own a machine gun only if:
- the possessor isn't a "prohibited person,"
- the full-auto machine gun was made before 1986, and
- their relevant state law does not ban that the firearm (whether banning machine guns outright or any firearm with certain features)."link

Machine guns are legal. The Federalist and rocketffl are not the Constitution of the United States and cannot change the Constitution of the United States. Mantra 4b.
tmiddles wrote:
Prohibited possession in 13 states: link
California
Colorado
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Louisiana
Maryland81
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Virginia
Wisconsin

Machine guns are legal in all 49 States. The law center is not able to change the Constitution of the United States. Mantra 4b...29.
tmiddles wrote:
So it's possible to obtain a permit for an antique machine gun (at least 35 years old) in some parts of the country. Certainly more legal than I thought they would be but still not surprising they are never used in crimes or mass shootings.

Paradox. First you say they would be used in mass murder, now you say they wouldn't. Which is it, dude?

BTW, machine guns are available and legal.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
If that's the case I hope someone finds out and disarms you.

Wishing harm upon others... real classy there, tmiddles...
How is that "wishing harm" it's clear the both you and IBD lack the respect for fire arms which is necessary to own one. If you are passing the test for possession you're being dishonest in your answers.

There is no legal test for possession of any gun or weapon in the United States. Mantra 4d.
IBdaMann wrote:
I don't fear inanimate objects. I control them. They are my bitches. They may very well fear me.
Yikes[/quote]
You are obviously afraid of inanimate objects. Stay away from your knife drawer! Mantra 9a...9b.
tmiddles wrote:
Respect for the danger of firearms

Just I have respect for the danger of knives, cars, explosives, water, household cleaners, electric circuits, aircraft, etc. Mantra 9a...9b.
tmiddles wrote:
That's not "fear mongering" that's basic sanity. Dangerous things are, well, dangerous. Treat them with the proper respect for that fact.

Lie. You are fear mongering. I don't need to join you in your hoplophobia.
tmiddles wrote:
I fear for your neighbors. Yahoos like you are a danger to us all.

Mantra 9b...38b.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
The police were at his door, with guns, 12 minutes after the first shot. So what is missing in your view?

12 minutes of time where I could've been defending myself.
What does that even mean? What are you saying you would have done if you'd been in either the concert crowd or the hotel, armed however you like, that would have made any difference at all?

Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:ITN claimed the US has a "LOW" murder rate.

It DOES have a low murder rate.
As we are about even with Africa and at 4-6 times the murder rate of comparable economies what do you base that claim on? "Low" is a comparative term. What are you comparing 5+ murders per 100,000 per year to (those are the FBI homicide statistics.)?

Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:They allow you to better defend yourself.
Who is trying to hurt you and why? What's a "for example" where a gun would make you safer? I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.

Mantra 29...hoplophobia.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Fully armed and equipped law enforcement can't even stop mass shootings yet you believe that some sort of legislation can?
All in your spirit of "NOTHING CAN BE KNOWN" and "NOTHING CAN BE DONE" yet you are still failing to provide a single example of a weapon, not made legally available, that's been used in a shooting. Also it's interesting you're claiming that fully armed police couldn't prevent this so it seems the "defensive" capacity of guns is being called into question here by you.

RQAA. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:... the subjective word "LOW"
The word low is comparative, so is high. Now had you said the murder rate was acceptable, or "good" or "not a problem" I suppose you could have nothing to back that up at all. But ITN made this claim IN COMPARISON with other countries.
...deleted redundancy...Mantras 29...29...25f...30...15
The murder rate in the United States is low.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You have now changed topics to one treating the ramifications of a tyrannical government run by an authoritarian deep state. Shall we explore?
Absolutely. It was a question for you so please answer as you see fit.

Mantra 17...29.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:[quote]tmiddles wrote: Do you doubt that, had the Davidians been unarmed they would be alive today?
Do you...? Do you ...? Will you ....?
So you refuse the answer.

Mantra 29. Loaded speculative question.
tmiddles wrote:
And I will go on record that David Koresh was insane and he took a lot of good people down with him.

Mantras 1...13...30...31...38a
tmiddles wrote:
A black man in the south with a gun during slavery would not outlive a black man without a gun.

Yes he could...especially if he owned slaves.
Mantra 31.
tmiddles wrote:
And Venezuelans who are protesting are engaged in a war.

The first thing you said that's right.
tmiddles wrote:
What they are doing is decidedly unsafe but may be necessary.

It is necessary.
tmiddles wrote:
It may even be safer for some of them to have guns, I don't know.

You don't get to choose whether they have guns or not, or whether they are 'safer' or not. You are not the king. Mantras 30...31.
tmiddles wrote:
If I were going to fight a war I'd want the best weapons available.

You are not locked in paradox. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-05-2020 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...men and women in uniform,...surrender all service weapons...

Haven't been really following the thread I see GG:

Lie. Mantra 15...21...12...30...31
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.
It is not legislating something into nonexistence to delegate it. As with medicine, fire, and other areas surrounding human health our society, wisely in my opinion, delegates and restricts those functions to a highly trained and qualified class of professionals.
You don't get to choose who is 'professional' or an 'expert' or who can and cannot own a gun. You do not get to change the Constitution. Mantra 29...4f...31...
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Should you go out an engage the bear in a shootout or call the professionals to handle it?

tmiddles wrote: I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.

By professionals I of course mean Police officers, who should be the ones using guns to deal with anyone in a non military setting

What about police officers that are breaking the law? Mantra 29...4f...
tmiddles wrote:
and military personnel should be the only ones using guns in a military setting.

What about a soldier that is breaking the law? Mantra 29...4f...
tmiddles wrote:
I have never even hinted at anything else. Oh and in Waco the only ones with guns should have been the police as well.

You are already condemned these citizens of the United States to death by a rogue firing squad. Now you want to remove any ability to shoot back??? Mantra 29...4f...30...9b...
tmiddles wrote:
It's hard enough to use deadly force appropriately for highly trained officers with decades of experience. We can do without the buckaroos making that call in the backyards of america.

Mantras 1...4f...9b... Your bigotry is showing again. You don't get to choose who is allowed to own a gun.
tmiddles wrote:
Learn to call 911 and get better sense about how not to use a gun.

People know how to use a gun. You do not have to be a police officer or soldier to know how to use a gun. 911 does nothing for a ranch or farm, and does nothing for rogue police officers or rogue government agents. It does nothing for someone shot dead by a criminal.
tmiddles wrote:
Another great thing about the pros is they have options to go along with their training and experience: SWAT, Big guns, little guns, tasers, pepper spray, battons, dogs, hand to hand fighting skill and hand cuffs.

In other words, guns and other weapons. Everyone can carry and use these weapons. The so-called 'pros' are not unique in this regard. Mantra 4f...9b.
tmiddles wrote:
I'd like the fat dude with his Smith and Wesson fantasies to kindly stay in his house, hiding, while the police respond to the noises out in his shed.

You don't get to dictate what he does, or place the police above the law. You are not the king. Mantra 9b.
tmiddles wrote:
Because I'm sure he loves the Dirty Harry film series, talks about how he'd blow someone away if they tried to steal his lawn mower, but doesn't even own anything other than a gun to deal with a criminal, a gun he kinda knows how to use.

Mantra 9b. Quite a few people are expert with a gun. Go see your local shooting range for details. I myself am an expert with staffs, swords, knives, guns, explosives, and quite a few other weapons you wouldn't even recognize as weapons.

I own three guns. I've only had to use them once, to kill a rapid dog that your so-called 'experts' couldn't catch. The dog was a menace to the neighborhood. Both the police and the dog catching 'experts' thanked me for dispatching the menace. So did the several of the neighbors.

tmiddles wrote:
I consider the 12 minute response time of officers in Vegas to be maybe not excellent but certainly good.

Useless in the situation I just described. The dog was a menace, and the officers couldn't catch the damn dog or manage to shoot it.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no indication from anyone, certainly not on this board, that more liberal gun laws would have helped in anyway in Vegas.

Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
We know that the shooter had exactly as much killing power as we allowed him to have legally.

All guns are legal. You do not get to change the Constitution. Mantra 9b.
tmiddles wrote:
So now you know. If you ever have any other questions about my point of view simply ask. I don't play "RQAA".

Lie. You play it all the time.

No arguments presented. Hoplophobia. Bigotry. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 10-05-2020 21:46
10-05-2020 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
duncan61 wrote:
All the states in Australia have different firearm rules I personaly feel the rules in the state I live in are fair.You can only have a handgun if you shoot at a club.There is no field application and no self defence clause If you live somewhere you need a handgun for self defence move somewhere else.I catch a lot of public transport and some of the people that get on and off are visibly being affected by mind altering substances and I do not care who you are I do not wish these people to have access to handguns Americas ratio of firearm related homocide is way out of control compared to any where in the world.You can claim Americans are more warlike.What more than Germans and Croatians.No you do not have the right to be able to gun down other citizens I do not care about your alledged constitution.


But I do, if that other citizen is threatening me or my family with bodily harm or is attempting to steal my property.

You have that right too. It's inherent. Constitutions do not give rights. Constitutions declare and define governments and what they can and cannot do. If a constitution does not specifically give a government a power or authority, it does not have that power or authority.

You are in Australia. You have the right of self defense. That right is inherent and no government can take that away.

You are in Australia. You do not live under the Constitution of the United States. By not caring about that Constitution, you are saying you do not care about the people in the United States, for it is they that created their State constitutions, and through those States, created the Constitution of the United States. Is this truly your intention? After all, the United States and Australia have been allies in quite a few conflicts around the world.

The United States enjoys a low murder rate (5.3). Not as good as Australia (0.8), but far better than El Salvador (61.8), which has very restrictive gun laws. Turns out that gun laws do not reduce murder rate.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-05-2020 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote: Did you not mean that the population would be disarmed to make this possible? As in the population would be able to fight against the government if it tried to do that?

I'm having difficulty parsing your question. Did you misunderstand something I wrote?

tmiddles wrote: So if a drug dealer had the FBI show up at their door, having a shoot out with them to preserve the sovereign right to one's abode would be justified?

That certainly is one loaded question with so many necessary details omitted that there is not enough information to even determine if there is a right answer.

tmiddles wrote: How do private citizens decide when they can shoot the police because they don't like the laws?

Did you mean to ask: "When in the Course of human events, how do We the People know when it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them?"

I presume that's what you meant. The answer is that the Constitution clearly specifies what powers the government has and that all others remain powers of the States or of We the People. When the government overreaches its authority then We the People have the right/obligation to dissolve the political bands that give any and all power to the government.

tmiddles wrote: I understand the search warrant process well and have no problem with it. What was done in Waco was by the book.

Was it by the book written by We the People or was it the book written by a government organization.

Let me just skip over your completely predictable dishonesty.

You are going to selectively focus on the "search warrant" alone and answer "Yes, it followed the Constitution" while ignoring the entirety of the event that followed police/law enforcement procedures which were not written by elected legislators and which are subject to the scrutiny of We the People at any time.

It was the February 28th shootout sparked by the ATF's botched investation that left Peter Gent dead outside the Branch Davidian compound. The ATF and the FBI left the body there to rot. On March 5th, David Koresh asked negotiators to remove the body and to bury it or something ... and the FBI denied that request ... but was willing to bring six gallons of milk for the children inside the compound, so that was nice of them.

IBdaMann wrote: You make my point for me IBD.

Yes, there is really only one point being made by both of us really and that is that you are a gun craven, i.e. that this entire issue is about your psychological "issue". You have an irrational fear of inanimate objects. That's on you.

Unfortunately, your disability renders you unable to even discuss the topic rationally and you would prefer that schools and public places become eternal mass-shooting magnets rather than accept the thought that someone somewhere out there has a firearm.

You are a cancer on society. You know how cancer works, right? Apply that to human society and that's how you fit in. We need to get rid of you in order to be healthy.

tmiddles wrote: Anyone who posts that sign needs therapy and most definitely to be prevented from owning a firearm. Psycho stuff.

Why do you say that? Is it because the sign has an image of a firearm which triggers your epileptic seizures?

tmiddles wrote: Or just have ITN buy some. For him everything is legal.

He's absolutely right about firearms being legal. The 2nd Amendment gets the final say.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-05-2020 23:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...all law abiding citizens MUST be rendered completely defenseless... tyrannical governments

Are you under the impression that citzens could resist the US military now?

We don't need to. The military isn't attacking us. Should it come to that, yes. the citizens can easily overpower the military.
tmiddles wrote:
Shouldn't some heavy fire power be legalized to make that possible if you want that.

It is legal to own a tank...even have its gun loaded. It is legal to own cannons too. Some people like to shoot them during the 4th of July or for other occasions. They do work. They do shoot actual cannon balls.
tmiddles wrote:
We ARE defensless against are own military with all the weapons that are currently legal.

All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:The FBI and the ATF should not have gone apeshit tyrannical. They did not need to assault the compound.
So you think they did the right thing killing cops that day?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
When a cop serves a search warrant you get to decide when they're allowed in?

Attacking people is not a search warrant or a search.
tmiddles wrote:
Finding contraban is pretty tough when you don't have the element of surprise.

Attacking people is not a search. Mantra 10.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...You would confiscate
Just keep trying to straw man. If you'd like to state my postion you can do that by quoting me.

He IS quoting you. Mantra lie...38b.
tmiddles wrote:
Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection.

Yes they are. They are also owned by private citizens for collecting, for competition, for hunting, for just plain entertainment value, and for any reason whatsoever. You do not get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. You do not get to declare the purpose someone may own a gun. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
It's simply a weird psychological condition and a fetish. Civilized society shouldn't be indulging it.

The United States is a civilized society. If you want to call them barbarians, then you are one too. Bigotry. Mantra 9b.
tmiddles wrote:
I think have authorized, highly trained deputies is an excellent idea by the way. Anyone who knows how to apply force when needed, and is accountable, is a great addition to our police force if it's controlled (especially if they are willing to do so as volunteers!) We have volunteer fire and police already.

All people are accountable for the use of any weapon. Even criminals. Mantra 9b...4f...29
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...if a woman is about to be raped,
Pretty mucht he on scenario I can think of where someone would want to get to you physically when you're unarmed (as in they aren't trying to remove a threat). But as I've said I don't think small, short range, single shot guns in the home should be illegal. An "anti-rape machine gun" is just stupid.

You do not get to declare what gun may be used for any given situation. You are not the king. Mantras 4f...29...9b...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...police can teleport to the scene to engage at the commencement of the "violent crime" phase....
Aside from rape when and why would anyone want to get to you physically? The Mob put a hit out on you? Your gang gotta beef with a neighboring gang?

Mantra 29...35b1...37d...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There is no indication from anyone, ..that more liberal gun laws definitely would not have helped. All we know is that they couldn't have hurt.
Uh, no, if Paddock had not had bump stocks there would be fewer dead people.

Lie. Mantra 29...31...25g...
tmiddles wrote:
Same goes for hich capacity magazines,

It takes one second to reload. Mass murders typically shoot at the rate of one shot every few seconds, slower then the firing rate on a 'Civil' war era gun. Mantra 29. You don't get to dictate how many cartridges may fit into a magazine or clip. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
long range weaponry,

Long range rifles are excellent for hunting and for defense on ranches and farms.You don't get to dictate how long the range on any weapon is allowed to be. You are not the king.
tmiddles wrote:
owning 1000s of rounds of ammunition,

You don't get to dictate how many round someone may own. You are not the king. I currently have about 15000 rounds (I buy my ammunition in bulk since it's cheaper). I also can make explosives, mines, and mortar rounds, and can reload cartridges.

But I am not out mass murdering anyone. I have never bombed anyone. I have never shot anyone (just a dog, and it needed shooting).
tmiddles wrote:
and so on:


Bump stocks are legal. All the guns Paddock had were legal. The crime he committed with them wasn't legal.
tmiddles wrote:
And going the other way: Had he been able to legally own machine guns,

He was. Machine guns are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
ballistic weapons,

Guns are ballistic weapons.
tmiddles wrote:
and heavier firepower not currently available

I guess you consider 23 guns, most of them AR-15 or AR-10 designs, are not heavy firepower. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
he would have killed a lot more people.

Then what? Machine guns? Not even the military uses them that way. Obviously you have never used a machine gun. Most of the bullets miss. The same was true of the Paddock murders. Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:guy who asks the same already-answered questions
BS you guys just play RQAA when you lose.

No, you just keep asking the same questions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and...

YOU play RQAA. Mantra 17...29...
tmiddles wrote:
Try making an actual argument.

Mantra 17....29.
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...Americas ratio of firearm related homocide is way out of control compared to any where in the world....
Well we are about even with the continent of Africa. Central/South America is worse! So we've go those bragging rights.

The murder rate in the United States is low.
tmiddles wrote:
But yes we have nearly 6 times the murder rate you got down under.
Murders per 100,000
USA :: 5.35
Australia :: 0.94

Yup. Still low.

BTW, these are 2017 figure. The United States has improved since then. Our murder rate is going down. Source: FBI


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-05-2020 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The military isn't attacking us.
It was your claim, not mine, that we would be defenseless against an authoritarian government:

No, it was YOUR claim. Mantra 17...lie.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:This is exactly what all Marxist and tyrannical governments do just before the government commences with the arbitrary imprisonment of political opponents and the mass executions ordered out of irrational paranoia.
Did you not mean that the population would be disarmed to make this possible? As in the population would be able to fight against the government if it tried to do that?

Mantra 29.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So you think [the Brach Dividians in Waco] did the right thing killing cops that day?

Yes, ...This country was founded on fighting back against a tyrannical government.
So if a drug dealer had the FBI show up at their door, having a shoot out with them to preserve the sovereign right to one's abode would be justified?
How do private citizens decide when they can shoot the police because they don't like the laws?

If the FBI shows up and just starts shooting, they would be justified.
tmiddles wrote:
Here's the search warrant (thought he Dravidians shot cops on sight, they didn't wait to read it):

Attacking people is not a search.
tmiddles wrote:
"...ownership and instructions for converting semi-automatic firearms into machineguns, and the construction of improvised explosive weapons,

Nothing illegal about that. All weapons are legal. Mantra 29...hoplophobia...
tmiddles wrote:
...Mrs. Bunds also told me that Howell had fathered at least fifteen (15) children from various women and young girls at the compound. Some of the girls who had babies fathered by Howell were as young as 12 years old. She had personally delivered seven(7) of these children."
DENNIS G. GREEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS-WACO

Irrelevant. That does not justify mass murder by federal agents. Mantra 15...29...
tmiddles wrote:
Now maybe the honorable Judge Green got it wrong and the police had no right to look into this. Do you think all search warrants should just be shot at? Something special about Waco for you IBD?

Attacking people is not a search. Mantra 10...29...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...while you educate yourself on the difference between Constitutional due process and tyrannical government.
Made up IBD language that is not searchable. Nope, no easter egg hunts IBD. If you have a point (clearly you don't) then make it.

I understand the search warrant process well and have no problem with it. What was done in Waco was by the book.

Mass murder is illegal. Attempting to confiscate legal weapons from citizens is illegal.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection. Guns are not owned by private citizens for protection. It's simply a weird psychological condition and a fetish. Civilized society shouldn't be indulging it.

Of course not.
You make my point for me IBD. Anyone who posts that sign needs therapy and most definitely to be prevented from owning a firearm. Psycho stuff.

Mantra 13...bigotry...9b...hoplophobia...
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
What if a crowd of people in sheets are coming onto someone's property to lynch the owner. An AR-15 would work best for that.
Or maybe zombies! What about that?

Zombies don't wear sheets. Mantra 15...26...
tmiddles wrote:
Hey if Godzilla did come we would really need rocket launchers or some heavier stuff. So probably need to get that legalized.

Rocket launchers are legal. Artillery is legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Or just have ITN buy some. For him everything is legal.

You can buy rocket launchers and even artillery today. I don't need to buy anything for him. He can buy it himself. They are legal.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-05-2020 02:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
James___ wrote:... their leader always appeared in court. Any time he was served with a summons to appear, he showed up in court. The FBI did things differently to give them a reason to engage that cult.
You think if they served him with a summons to bring a knocked up 12 year old and an illegal machine gun he would have cooperated? Police need warrants to search a property sometimes. It's part of our legal system. With eye witness testimony of the crimes being committed a judged granted a warrant.

Into the Night wrote:
Shooting at people on the property is not a search. No court ordered the execution of those people by firing squad.
The only reason anyone got shot was because they were armed. Ironic? Maybe. But also totally predictable.

How do you commit suicide by cop? Roll up on one with a gun in your hand.

Into the Night wrote:I myself am an expert with staffs, swords, knives, guns, explosives, and quite a few other weapons you wouldn't even recognize as weapons.
oh dear

You're exactly who I worry about waving a gun around ITN.

Into the Night wrote:...if that other citizen is threatening me or my family with bodily harm..
and WHY would that happen? Serial killer? The chances are beyond remote that this would be an issue.

Into the Night wrote:The United States enjoys a low murder rate (5.3). Not as good as Australia (0.8), but far better than El Salvador (61.8),
Ah hah!!! We finally have your logic on t his one ITN. You are comparing us to El Salvador. Hey why restrict your self to geographically absurd comparisons. Open up human history, see what Genghis Khan had going on and maybe you can claim we have a fantastically low murder rate. So is this your reason too GFM? You also comparing us to El Salvador when you say our murder rate is low?

Into the Night wrote:Turns out that gun laws do not reduce murder rate.
cherry picking anyone? I do like a good cherry.
By that logic speaking Spanish gets you murdered.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:..population ... disarmed...to fight against the government...
...parsing your question.?
I took it that you were saying that the process of an authoritarian state dominating it's population began with taking away their guns. I get that wrong? The natural question for me then being do you think shotguns and Glocks would matter against an Abrams tank.

IBdaMann wrote:...The answer is that the Constitution clearly specifies what powers the government has ...
Yes and when an eye witness says you've been banging 12 year olds and making illegal weapons the cops can go to a judge, get a search warrant and execute it prepared to find contraband that would be hidden if time allowed, and armed to protect themselves.

Why don't you actually specify what they did wrong?

IBdaMann wrote:...while ignoring the entirety of the event that followed...
I am not. What followed was absolutely criminal on the part of the FBI. I just watched the miniseries and could not believe it was the same HRT commander that was at Ruby Ridge. I had to look it up as I was sure they'd made that up for dramatic effect.

You know what else? No one would have died if they had not brandished guns. Just the reality, right or wrong.
11-05-2020 03:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
tmiddles wrote:
Haven't been really following the thread I see GG
:



I just want to know why you figure me and my family are safer without guns, but the police and military are safer with guns. That's all. Seems pretty heartless.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 11-05-2020 03:02
11-05-2020 04:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Haven't been really following the thread I see GG

I just want to know why you figure me and my family are safer without guns, but the police and military are safer with guns. That's all. Seems pretty heartless.

Oh, pick me! Pick me!

tmiddles wants you and your family to be completely defenseless so that *he* will feel safer.

tmiddles is a gun craven who can't sleep at night because his hoplophobia consumes him. Every minute of every day he flies into a debilitating panic because someone, somewhere ... has a firearm. He hasn't slept since the last time he was sedated. Your having mentioned that your family is in posession of firearms now places yet another panic trigger foremost on his mind and he can no longer rest until your family's guns are confiscated by the peace-and-tranquility-providing government ... at which point he might have a chance to clear his mind and maybe get some rest without nurse-administered medication.

If you explain to him how complete defenselessness of the people is what draws violent crime like a magnet, he becomes relieved at the prospect.

Your mistake was thinking that this was about you and your family. Nope! Psyche! It's about tmiddles.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2020 04:57
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2388)
The value in having the public armed, is as a deterrent. Criminals never know who has the guns, and who has the balls to use them. Every crime they chose to commit, could very well be their last. They general don't just pick a victim randomly, when ever they feel the need.

If America were disarmed, with the southern border still wide open, would there be a lot more illegal immigrants crossing over, for the easy pickings? Maybe as part of the jobs recovery, Trump could put more people building onto the border wall... We are likely to see business closed for good. Many that do open will be at reduced staff. Lot of people still out of work.
11-05-2020 05:04
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles is a gun craven who can't sleep at night because his hoplophobia consumes him. Every minute of every day he flies into a debilitating panic because someone, somewhere ... has a firearm.

Worse yet, that someone, somewhere.....could be an armed conservative infected with CORONA!!!!!

Sweet dreams, tmiddles.



All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 11-05-2020 05:05
11-05-2020 05:12
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles is a gun craven who can't sleep at night because his hoplophobia consumes him. Every minute of every day he flies into a debilitating panic because someone, somewhere ... has a firearm.

Worse yet, that someone, somewhere.....could be an armed conservative infected with CORONA!!!!!

Sweet dreams, tmiddles.



Your irrationality and the need to strike out at others is a concern. 25% of homicides in the US in 2011 were by family members and involved a firearm. I see how you lash out in this forum. Do you hit your wife or kids if they disagree with you?
11-05-2020 05:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles is a gun craven who can't sleep at night because his hoplophobia consumes him. Every minute of every day he flies into a debilitating panic because someone, somewhere ... has a firearm.

Worse yet, that someone, somewhere.....could be an armed conservative infected with CORONA!!!!!

Sweet dreams, tmiddles.

GasGuzzler, simply tacking on "coronoaflu" doesn't make it any worse. Nothing can make it worse for tmiddles because firearms ... even the mere image of one ... pegs the needle at the maximum range of his fear meter. Even reminding tmiddles that hundreds of millions of people are starving in Africa couldn't add any additional consternation ... even assuming a hypothetical tmiddles that actually cared about humanity.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2020 05:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
tmiddles wrote: I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.


....and I would argue that you need to take a drive outside your city limits once in a while. There is this thing out there called America. It's a beautiful place.

You know, last time I "simply called the police" for a potentially deadly issue in my area, I was asked by the dispatch if I could "please continue to follow the vehicle in question. I just don't have a deputy anywhere near that location." I tailed the vehicle for 17 minutes before a deputy intercepted and made an arrest.

So tmiddles, I'm thinking if we were defenseless, someone could easily kill me and my entire family AND clean up the crime scene, AND be a good distance down the road in 17 minutes.

Your thoughts?
11-05-2020 05:46
James___
★★★★★
(3161)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.


....and I would argue that you need to take a drive outside your city limits once in a while. There is this thing out there called America. It's a beautiful place.

You know, last time I "simply called the police" for a potentially deadly issue in my area, I was asked by the dispatch if I could "please continue to follow the vehicle in question. I just don't have a deputy anywhere near that location." I tailed the vehicle for 17 minutes before a deputy intercepted and made an arrest.

So tmiddles, I'm thinking if we were defenseless, someone could easily kill me and my entire family AND clean up the crime scene, AND be a good distance down the road in 17 minutes.

Your thoughts?



The police wouldn't ask you to follow someone. If you could do that, you could give them the license plate number. Then they'd know where to find them.
Much simpler. Yet you couldn't get that information for them or a description of the car? No one it's not safe living in Iowa. Am hoping that corn cob didn't rear end you too hard.
11-05-2020 07:18
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I would argue you're more likely to get hurt confronting someone trying to take your property with a gun in your hand than if you simply called the police.


....and I would argue that you need to take a drive outside your city limits once in a while. There is this thing out there called America. It's a beautiful place.

You know, last time I "simply called the police" for a potentially deadly issue in my area, I was asked by the dispatch if I could "please continue to follow the vehicle in question. I just don't have a deputy anywhere near that location." I tailed the vehicle for 17 minutes before a deputy intercepted and made an arrest.

So tmiddles, I'm thinking if we were defenseless, someone could easily kill me and my entire family AND clean up the crime scene, AND be a good distance down the road in 17 minutes.

Your thoughts?



The police wouldn't ask you to follow someone. If you could do that, you could give them the license plate number. Then they'd know where to find them.
Much simpler. Yet you couldn't get that information for them or a description of the car? No one it's not safe living in Iowa. Am hoping that corn cob didn't rear end you too hard.


It was a habitual drunk driver. She did ask me to follow him, if I didn't mind, at a safe distance. I did give the plate number and the vehicle description. When they caught him he blew a 244. I was happy to help law enforcement get that idiot off the road.

The point is, police can't be everywhere all the time, nor do we want them to be.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 11-05-2020 07:24
11-05-2020 08:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
James__, there's a reason the subjunctive is never allowed in science, and typically sustained as "argumentative" in a court of law.

James___ wrote: The police wouldn't ask you to follow someone.

There is no "wouldn't" if they "did".

Are you asserting they "didn't"? Any evidence?

James___ wrote: If you could do that, you could give them the license plate number.

There is no "could" if he was in fact "unable."

Are you asserting that he was "able"? Any evidence?

James___ wrote: Then they'd know where to find them.

There is no "would" if they didn't.

Are you asserting they did? Any evidence?

James___ wrote: Yet you couldn't get that information for them or a description of the car?

If the answer is "Yes, that is correct" ... then the question is asked and answered.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2020 14:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Haven't been really following the thread I see GG
:
I just want to know why you figure me and my family are safer without guns, but the police and military are safer with guns. That's all. Seems pretty heartless.
I don't consider the job of the police and military to be "safe" at all. Fortunately people like IBD cannot pass the psych test for these important jobs and these outstanding professionals have both the necessary respect for weaponry and the appropriate fear of it. Any one in our civilization who is deciding if they are going to take the life of another person should be a highly trained professional.

Stupid fools run out to confront someone breaking into their shed, gun in hand.

Leave it for the police.

But again, pay attention GG, I've never said that guns should be illegal. Short range, single shot small arms, confined to the home are sensible. No one should be out there acting like George Zimmerman. We have real police for that.

IBdaMann wrote:
Oh, pick me! ...tmiddles is a gun craven ...
Meanwhile you dodge the debate as usual IBD.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:..population ... disarmed...to fight against the government...
...parsing your question.?
I took it that you were saying that the process of an authoritarian state dominating it's population began with taking away their guns. I get that wrong? The natural question for me then being do you think shotguns and Glocks would matter against an Abrams tank.
No answer.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...The answer is that the Constitution clearly specifies what powers the government has ...
Yes and when an eye witness says you've been banging 12 year olds and making illegal weapons the cops can go to a judge, get a search warrant and execute it prepared to find contraband that would be hidden if time allowed, and armed to protect themselves.

Why don't you actually specify what they did wrong?
No answer
11-05-2020 16:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7451)
tmiddles wrote: Stupid fools run out to confront someone breaking into their shed, gun in hand. Leave it for the police.

You are a gun-craven moron who hates humanity. You pretend to dictate how others must live ... and that includes just how defenseless they must remain before violent crime just to ensure the convenience of the government to be able to arrest and/or murder political prisoners and to reign in tyranny.

tmiddles wrote:But again, pay attention GG, I've never said that guns should be illegal. Short range, single shot small arms, confined to the home are sensible.

All firearms are sensible, regardless of where they are, your gun craven panic notwithstanding.

tmiddles wrote: No one should be out there acting like George Zimmerman. We have real police for that.

Everyone should be able to defend himself like George Zimmerman. The one thing we do not want is a world in which violent criminals like Treyvon Martin reign with impunity. George Zimmerman, in defending himself from the brutal attempt on his life, took one for the team and rid the world of a violent piece of shit. The police obviously were irrelevant and unhelpful ... except as I have indicated, to come in well after everything has already transpired to fill out the paperwork.

tmiddles wrote: Meanwhile you dodge the debate as usual IBD.

This is all you've got: 1) render We the People defenseless and 2) classify dissent as a "dodge." If only dishonesty were an olympic event then you would be a gold medal champ.

tmiddles wrote: The natural question for me then being do you think shotguns and Glocks would matter against an Abrams tank.

That's not really a natural question so much as it is a stupid question. Go ahead and start explaining the relevance.

tmiddles wrote: Yes and when an eye witness says you've been banging 12 year olds and making illegal weapons the cops can go to a judge, get a search warrant and execute it prepared to find contraband that would be hidden if time allowed, and armed to protect themselves.

Incorrect.

1) She claimed to be an eye witness. She likely was a disgruntled reject from the church who was paid by the FBI to help secure an unjust warrant. The FBI operates that way when convenient. The FBI lies when convenient. The FBI uses our taxpayer dollars to help pursue their corner-cutting convenience. The FBI does not exist to serve We the People; they exist to build cases against We the People at the pleasure of the DoJ.

2) She was the FBI's "witness." It was the ATF that sparked the shootout.

--------

The reason you are completely EVADING every substantive point of the debate is because you have no intention of ever debating any of these points. Your problem with firearms is their mere existence. You are a hoplophobe. You actively want an iron-fisted authoritarian government lording over We the People and you want We the People to be helpless to resist, even if (or especially if) that means rendering all law-abiding citizens totally defenseless before violent crime.

Until you stop EVADING these points, there really is nothing more to discuss.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2020 18:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
tmiddles wrote: ......these outstanding professionals have both the necessary respect for weaponry and the appropriate fear of it.

Wrong. These outstanding professionals have respect for the weapons and the COURAGE to use them when needed. The fear is yours.

tmiddles wrote: Any one in our civilization who is deciding if they are going to take the life of another person should be a highly trained professional.

I'm taking fire from an intruder. Two bullets whiz past my head. I lay down my gun and don't return fire because I'm not a highly trained professional. You are a moron.

tmiddles wrote: fools run out to confront someone breaking into their shed, gun in hand.

What if my kid is working in that shed? Is it okay then?

tmiddles wrote:Leave it for the police
.
How many minutes should I wait for them to show up? What is your threshold?

tmiddles wrote:But again, pay attention GG, I've never said that guns should be illegal.

Lie. You have mentioned several guns that you think should be illegal.

tmiddles wrote:Short range, single shot small arms, confined to the home are sensible
.
So what are you going to give me to protect my family, a single shot BB gun? .... And no shots outside the home? Do I have this correct? You are a moron.

tmiddles wrote:We have real police for that.

You know damn well that a huge percentage of the time police are there to figure out what happened, not intervening or descalating a situation. You are a moron. Quit trying to take my guns.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 11-05-2020 18:40
Page 6 of 20<<<45678>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact