Friday Talking Points -- This Is Shameful
Last week, America experienced a racist extremist shooting up a grocery store, in an effort to kill as many Black people as he could. This week, America had to once again watch as innocent schoolchildren age 10 or under were massacred for no reason whatsoever. This is who we are, and it is shameful.
It is not, however, who we want to be. The public wants more and tighter gun safety laws, by an overwhelming margin. But even in the wake of the horrors of yet another slaughter of innocents, most people who follow politics don't expect much of anything to change. No new laws will pass the Senate, or if something does manage to be worked out, it will be weak and watered-down and likely ineffective at stopping such outrages from regularly happening.
The Senate and the House are already on vacation, showing that they too know that any efforts to do anything meaningful are quite likely futile. This is not just shameful, it is an absolute disgrace.
But we're going to save all of those pent-up feelings for the talking points section of the program today. We're going to channel all this rage we feel into a rant on how Democrats should really talk about and approach and campaign on the fact that a lobby of extremists has highjacked our federal lawmakers into refusing to do anything to stop this senseless and never-ending slaughter.
Before we get to that (and to this week's awards), let's take a quick look at the other big political stories of the week. We're going to do so in abbreviated fashion, for obvious reasons.
The biggest story of the week was the primary results from the South, but before we get to all of these, we have two updates on previous primaries to mention:
The Oregon House race from the previous week was finally called, after overcoming technical errors with the ballots that prevented a quick tally. Progressive challenger Jamie McLeod-Skinner emerged victorious over incumbent Representative Kurt Schrader, whom she attacked with the (entirely justified) label: "the Joe Manchin of the House."
In Pennsylvania, a recount has officially begun for the race for the Republican nominee for Senate. Mehmet "Dr." Oz prematurely began calling himself the "presumptive nominee," since he's ahead by roughly 900 votes before the recount began.
That's it for the old news, here's the news that was made in this week's primary cycle:
Donald Trump got badly spanked in Georgia (on what Chris Christie notably called Trump's "vendetta tour"), seeing the three statewide candidates he had endorsed over the Republican officeholders who refused to "find 11,780 votes" for him (and illegally throw the state for Trump) all go down in flames. Governor Brian Kemp, who has especially angered Trump, beat his challenger by a whopping 50-point margin. That's pretty embarrassing!
One Trump-backed candidate did win the Republican primary is ex-jock Herschel Walker. You can see why Trump likes him so much, just by reading his answer -- given a full two days after the slaughter happened -- of what the government's response should be:
What we need to do is look into how we can stop those things. You know, they talk about doing a disinformation, what about getting a department that could look at young men that's looking at women that [sic] looking at social media. What about doing that? Looking into things like that? If we can stop that that way?
Yeah, that's the ticket! We need a federal "Department Of Looking At Young Men That's Looking At Women That Looking At Social Media." Needless to say, the late-night comics had a field day with that one. No wonder his campaign has been keeping him away from the media!
One other Georgia race is worth mentioning, as Marjorie "Three Names" Taylor Greene easily won her primary, dashing the hopes of establishment Republicans to remove another embarrassment to the party (after successfully doing so with Madison Cawthorn).
Democratic news from the Georgia primaries: Stacey Abrams has secured her spot on the general election ticket, while in a member-versus-member Democratic race (made necessary due to redistricting), progressive Representative Lucy McBath beat the centrist Representative Carolyn Bourdeaux, chalking up another progressive win.
However, down in Texas, progressive candidate Jessica Cisneros may have fallen painfully just shy of successfully challenging another Blue Dog Democrat, Representative Henry Cuellar -- the only anti-abortion Democrat left in the House. As of this writing, Cuellar is only 175 votes ahead, so it may be a while before the official winner of this contest is announced.
Tuesday may have marked the end of the vaunted Bush dynasty, both in Texas and elsewhere, as George P. Bush (son of Jeb) lost badly in his attempt to secure the Republican nomination for Texas attorney general.
Amusing footnote: it seems that the new Texas laws designed to suppress the Democratic vote actually rejected more Republican votes than Democratic. Whoops!
Sarah Huckabee Sanders will continue her own family's dynasty, as she easily secured the GOP nomination for governor in Arkansas, meaning it is quite likely she'll be following in her own dad's footsteps.
In Alabama, the candidate Trump first endorsed and then unendorsed has forced a runoff election, meaning Mo Brooks may emerge from the shadow of Trump's rage after all. This isn't guaranteed, though, he's got a long way to go to win (he only pulled in roughly half the votes as the first-place finisher).
In future primary news, a bombshell landed in Michigan as the state board responsible for authenticating the signatures on candidate petitions discovered a massive elections fraud attempt and chucked out almost 70,000 signatures as a direct result. This will keep half of the Republican candidates -- five of them, including two frontrunners -- off the primary ballot.
Trumpian footnotes to the week: Trump lost his bogus case in federal court and his appeal in state court, so it's looking more and more like he's going to have to sit for a deposition in his New York tax fraud case, which should provide some amusing moments (if the past is any prologue, when it comes to Trump depositions).
Trump this week reposted a "Truth" on his laughably inferior Twitter-clone social media site which called for "Civil War," and it was revealed that on January 6th Trump spoke approvingly of the violent mob after they chanted: "Hang Mike Pence!" Nothing like some more proof of what a downright dangerous person Trump truly is, eh?
And finally, according to Michael Cohen, Trump had a crippling fear of being pied in the face. Which we suppose is understandable, seeing as what a delight it would be for tens of millions of Americans to see someone hit Trump in the face with a pie at some point.
Before we get to the Democrats, we have two individuals who aren't technically eligible for this award who deserve mentioning nonetheless.
The first is Representative Liz Cheney, for the speech she gave while accepting a "Profile In Courage" award. She refuses to back down from warning the country about the dangerous path the Republican Party is taking, which is why she won the award in the first place. And she absolutely lit into Donald Trump in her speech (which is well worth watching, it's only a little over 10 minutes long):
[W]e face a threat we have never faced before: a former president attempting to unravel our constitutional republic. At this moment, we must all summon the courage to stand against that.... This sacred obligation to defend the peaceful transfer of power has been honored by every American president -- except one. The question for every one of us is, in this time of testing, will we do our duty? Will we defend our Constitution? Will we stand for truth? Will we put duty to our oath above partisan politics? Or will we look away from danger, ignore the threat, embrace the lies, and enable the liar?
The second person worth noting favorably this week was Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr, who gave an emotional pre-game speech before a playoff game this week, right after the Uvalde shooting. Kerr's own father was killed by gunfire, so the issue is personal for him. Here's part of what he had to say:
When are we going to do something? I'm tired. I'm so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families that are out there. I'm tired of the moments of silence. Enough. There's 50 senators, right now, who refuse to vote on H.R. 8, which is a background check rule that the House passed.... There's a reason they won't vote on it: to hold on to power. I ask you, Mitch McConnell, and ask all of you senators who refuse to do anything about the violence, the school shootings, the supermarket shootings, I ask you: "Are you going to put your own desire for power ahead of the lives of our children, our elderly and our churchgoers?" Because that's what it looks like.
But this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week goes to two Democrats who did exactly the right thing in response to the massacre. They expressed their outrage in highly emotional terms. This is rare in Democrats, while being much more common in the Republican Party. But Democrats really should strive to do this sort of thing a lot more, because it is authentic and it resonates with the public in a way a well-reasoned white paper never can.
The first of these is Senator Chris Murphy, who was presiding over the Senate when the news broke. He turned over the gavel to someone else and took to the floor to make a heartfelt speech excoriating his fellow senators for their continued inaction:
Why do you spend all this time running for the United States Senate -- why do you go through all the hassle of getting this job, of putting yourself in a position of authority -- if your answer as the slaughter increases, as our kids run for their lives, [is that] we do nothing? What are we doing? Why are you here, if not to solve a problem as existential as this? I'm here on this floor to beg, to literally get down on my hands and knees and beg my colleagues: Find a path forward here. Work with us to find a way to pass laws that make this less likely.
When the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre happened in Newtown, Connecticut, Murphy was the sitting House member from that district, so this is an incredibly personal issue for him, and he has been championing gun control legislation ever since.
Our second MIDOTW goes to Beto O'Rourke, who is running to beat the current Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott. O'Rourke crashed a press conference (that all the sanctimonious Texas Republicans had thrown together to offer up all their meaningless "thoughts and prayers") in order to express his own heartfelt rage at their inaction. Here is part of what he said:
Governor Abbott, I have to say something. The time to stop the next shooting is right now and you are doing nothing. You said this was not predictable, this was totally predictable, and you choose not to do anything.
After security ejected O'Rourke from the press conference, he continued his remarks outside:
[Beto] O'Rourke continued his remarks outside of the event. He railed against Abbott for not funding mental health care services for Texans and for not expanding Medicaid, which could in turn expand mental health care access.
He further slammed the Republican for his opposition to red-flag laws, safe storage laws and bans on assault-style weapons.
"This 18-year-old, who just turned 18, bought an AR-15 and took it into an elementary school and shot kids in the face and killed them. Why are we letting this happen in this country? Why is this happening in this state, year after year, city after city?" O'Rourke shouted. "This is on all of us if we do not do something, and I am going to do something. I'm not alone."
This is what genuine emotion and outrage looks like, and sometimes that is exactly what is needed to break through -- some righteous and heartfelt emotion. If a politician can't get emotional and outraged after the needless slaughter of innocent schoolchildren, then something is very wrong, to put this another way. Both Murphy and O'Rourke captured what millions of Americans were feeling this week, which is why they are the winners of this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards.
[Beto O'Rourke is a private citizen and a political candidate, and our blanket policy is not to provide links to campaign websites, so you'll have to search his contact information for yourself. But you can congratulate Senator Chris Murphy on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]
Senator Joe Manchin deserves at least a (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week, for a pair of statements he made after the shooting. Here's the story of what he had to say:
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Tuesday he would do "anything I can" to help pass what he called "common sense" legislation to address gun violence in the wake of a horrific shooting in Texas, where at least 19 kids and two teachers died when a gunman opened fire at an elementary school.
"It makes no sense at all why we can't do common sense things and try to prevent some of this from happening. It's all just unbelievable how we've gotten as a society that someone could be that deranged and this sick," Manchin lamented.
But when asked if he would support eliminating the filibuster in order to overcome unified Republican opposition to such legislation, Manchin, a staunch filibuster advocate, reiterated that he would not go that far.
"The filibuster is the only thing that prevents us from total insanity," Manchin told reporters, repeating an argument he has made on other issues, including on voting rights. The senator has emphasized the importance of protecting the input of the minority in the Senate.
"You would think there would be enough common sense" in the Senate to pass gun control legislation without nuking the filibuster, Manchin added.
You would think... but you'd be wrong. And the "total insanity" is to believe such obvious nonsense in the first place.
But we have to look beyond the massacre of innocents this week for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Because we have yet another item for the "With Democrats Like These, Who Needs Republicans?" file:
Delaware Gov. John Carney on Tuesday vetoed a bill to legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults for recreational use.
In vetoing the measure, Carney reiterated his previously expressed concerns about legalizing recreational pot -- concerns that did not dissuade fellow Democrats from pushing the legislation through the General Assembly.
"I recognize the positive effect marijuana can have for people with certain health conditions, and for that reason, I continue to support the medical marijuana industry in Delaware," Carney said in returning the bill to the state House. "I supported decriminalization of marijuana because I agree that individuals should not be imprisoned solely for the possession and private use of a small amount of marijuana -- and today, thanks to Delaware's decriminalization law, they are not.
"That said, I do not believe that promoting or expanding the use of recreational marijuana is in the best interests of the state of Delaware, especially our young people. Questions about the long-term health and economic impacts of recreational marijuana use, as well as serious law enforcement concerns, remain unresolved."
It looks like overriding his veto isn't going to be possible, either, so the citizens of Delaware will just have to wait until they get a better governor before they can join the other states who have ended the War On Weed.
Thanks for nothing, Governor. You've more than earned this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.
[Contact Delaware Governor John Carney on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 664 (5/27/22)
It's another one of those weeks where we just have to vent our rage in a rant rather than provide enumerated talking points. Yesterday, we admitted that we feel rather powerless to change anything, since we've all become so used to seeing slaughter after massacre after mass killing. But this shouldn't be the "new normal," and we really should be able to change things, so today we had to let our own outrage flow.
How Democrats should talk about gun safety laws
I am sick and tired of seeing young children's lives sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment. I am sick and tired of hearing about parents who have lost their 10-year-old to gun violence. And I am more than sick and tired, I am outraged at the Republicans in Congress who refuse to consider changing anything because the extremist gun lobby pays them not to. This is an absolute outrage, it is shameful and indefensible, and the vast majority of the people of this country agree.
It's right there in the amendment, in the three words that somehow the extremist gun lobby always seems to skip over: "a well regulated Militia". The Founding Fathers put it right there in the text -- "well regulated". What does well-regulated mean? It means regulating -- passing rules. Passing laws. Laws which confine this right well within a militia. Why do all the extremists ignore this part of the amendment?
Republicans like to pretend that they are "originalists." This is supposed to mean that the Constitution can only be interpreted by considering what the original intent was at the time it was adopted. You know what? I am fine with that, I really am. Let's interpret the Second Amendment that way! Let's even ignore the "well regulated Militia" part, as the gun extremists want us to. Let's say that people are allowed to own guns without any exception or infringement. Great! What that means is that everyone in America should be free to own as many guns as they wish. Except, of course, we've got to only interpret that through the eyes of the authors of the Bill of Rights in the eighteenth century. You know what that means? Everyone is free to own as many flintlock rifles or muskets as they wish.
I don't have any problem with that at all. I bet nobody else would either. You know how long it takes to reload a flintlock? A long time -- several minutes, in some cases. It's a complicated process, with multiple steps. And there's no guarantee it will fire correctly after you get done, either -- look up the original meaning of "flash in the pan" for proof. Some muskets can be reloaded slightly faster, but even the fastest, most experienced shooter could only reload and fire maybe four or five times a minute, at best. An inexperienced user might get off only two shots per minute, if that.
That -- and only that -- is what the people who wrote the Second Amendment were talking about. That was their "original intent." So I'm fine with making such weapons available to all. Anyone using such a weapon can get their first shot off -- which will probably miss, these guns were astoundingly inaccurate -- and then they'll have to spend the time to manually reload it with powder and shot. While the person is in the midst of this complicated process, they will not be firing off 40 or 50 more shots. They can be tackled. They can be restrained. They can easily be killed by a law enforcement officer with a more-powerful modern weapon. So I'm fine with allowing people to own all the flintlocks they want.
That, again, was the original intent of the Second Amendment. Nothing more. But hewing to original intent means we cannot ignore the "well regulated Militia" phrase. Modern America does indeed have a well-regulated militia. It is called the National Guard. Everyone is free to join, if they measure up to the physical standards required. The right to do so has never been infringed by Congress. Want to exercise your right to bear arms? Join the Guard. They'll even pay you to do so!
The Second Amendment demands the militia to be well-regulated. This means any other group with delusions of grandeur calling themselves a "militia" are simply not constitutional, period. And the original intent of the authors of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with private citizens bearing arms outside a well-regulated militia. So Congress can regulate that too, since such a right isn't even mentioned.
This is what the American people so desperately want to see. The polling numbers on this stuff are just off the charts. In a country where the two political sides can't seem to agree on anything, the public agrees that new gun safety laws should be passed to try to prevent the mass slaughtering of children from being the "new normal."
A poll taken just after the senseless massacre of innocents in Uvalde, Texas proves this. You know what the American people want Congress to do?
They want background checks to be required on all gun sales, period -- with absolutely no loopholes. An unbelievable 88 percent of the public wants to see this happen.
They want to prevent people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by mental health professionals not to have access to guns -- again, over eight-in-ten Americans want to see this happen, because who could possibly be against such a commonsense rule?
Three-fourths of the public wants to see a national database of all gun sales created and maintained by the federal government.
Two-thirds of the public wants a ban on so-called "assault" weapons. These are weapons of war, not hunting rifles. Look at any advertisement the gun manufacturers run -- it is obvious what these weapons are designed and intended to do. The only ones who should have access to such weapons are those in the "well regulated Militia," period -- and they should not be able to take them home at the end of the day. Part of regulating the militia means such weapons need to be under the control of the militia.
The public gets all of this. And in politics today, those numbers are astounding. Eighty-eight percent of the public probably wouldn't even agree that the sky is blue if you told them one political party or the other swore that it wasn't. But that's precisely how many Americans want universal background checks with absolutely no loopholes.
Democrats need to stop being so frightened of this issue. With numbers like that, it is a wonder that they don't make it the centerpiece of every political campaign. The Republicans are bought and paid for by the extremist gun lobby. The Democrats, on the other hand, are terrified of the ads the extremist gun lobby might run against them -- which is almost even worse than the paid-off Republicans.
Republicans have absolutely fetishized guns, for their own political gain. They take Christmas photos with their entire family -- down to the smallest of their children -- brandishing semi-automatic rifles and other weapons of war. They pose with guns in their television ads. They feed the extremist gun fetishists by such propagandistic techniques. They proudly speak at the convention of the extremist gun lobby, mere days and a couple hundred miles from the most recent slaughter of innocents -- a slaughter this extremist group has fought so hard to make possible.
This is disgusting and shameful, and it is high time Democrats stood up and said so. It is high time for Democrats to point out that a photo of an eight-year-old pointing an AR-15 at the camera is not what Christmas is supposed to be all about. It is borderline child abuse, and Democrats need to start saying so. Photos like these are why we have to watch the funerals of other eight-year-olds, plain and simple. Republicans are -- quite obviously and quite publicly -- grooming their own young children to be extremist gun fetishists. There's really no other way to put it.
Republicans are fighting against all these commonsense measures. They are fighting hard to keep the loopholes in the background checks intact. They don't want background checks to be universal. Why? How does that make any sense? They want terrorists to have easy access to high-powered guns? That is precisely what these loopholes allow for. That is why I say the gun lobby is extremist, because that is an insanely extreme position to take.
And somehow they want the public to think of them as being "pro-life." That is absurd, when they fight for the right of people to kill as many innocent lives as technically possible.
Don't believe me? This week alone, the Republicans in the Senate filibustered a bill which would have tried to address the issue of domestic terrorists. Remember back when 9/11 happened, when Republicans would call anybody who didn't want to take any measure possible against terrorists "un-American" or "traitors" or even worse names? Yeah, all that has changed. Now Republicans refuse to vote for an anti-terrorism bill. This is shameful, and Democrats need to point it out at the tops of their lungs. How can the Republican Party get away with being pro-terrorist? Have they really sunk that low?
Republicans are fighting hard to allow mentally disturbed people -- people mental health professionals consider dangerous and report to the authorities -- to not only keep all the guns they've already amassed but also to be able to buy more of them if they wish. That is disgraceful. It is beyond dangerous. And yet, that is precisely what Republicans are fighting hard for.
Republicans counter with soporific feel-good suggestions to "improve mental health treatment" in this country. These are the same Republicans who gut their states' budget for mental health treatment and won't even allow Medicaid expansion in their states (which would bring in millions and millions of dollars in mental health aid). They are stone-cold hypocrites when they try to somehow be the champions of mental health treatment after slashing the budget for such treatment, and it is high time someone pointed this out.
Republicans are even against the sale of "ghost guns" -- kits to make guns that have no serial number and are not even able to be traced. This hamstrings law enforcement -- just ask any cop on the beat. And yet Republicans are fighting hard to keep the pipeline of untraceable weapons flowing to the public.
Nobody in their right mind would allow private individuals to possess or use hand grenades. Or missiles. Or nuclear weapons. Because that would be insane. Weapons of war should be limited to those trained in their use, and they should be controlled by the state, period. It's easy to see why, and the American public gets that. But for some reason the extremists want full access to the guns of war to all. They want everyone -- even a disturbed 18-year-old -- to be able to own and use the same weapon a soldier is issued. That is just as insane, and the public overwhelmingly agrees.
The only way any of this is going to change is if the public starts treating this issue as a prime consideration when they enter the ballot box. And the only way that is going to happen is if the Democratic Party makes it a honkin' big deal in every single political campaign. Vote out the extremists who are fighting hard for deranged terrorists to buy even more guns without any background check at all. Vote out the extremists who refuse to read the first part of the Second Amendment and refuse to understand what it meant to the people who actually wrote it. Vote out extremists who care more about profits for the sellers of death machines more than they care about the lives of innocent elementary school children.
I am sick and tired of the status quo. I am sick and tired of Congress being held hostage by the extremist gun lobby. I am sick and tired of seeing politicians unable to pass laws that 75-to-90 percent of the public wants to see passed. I am ashamed that more people in America have died from guns since 1975 than every soldier who died in every war America has ever fought in from the American Revolution forward. That is shameful. It is not right.
And you know what? I am not the only one. There are millions more Americans who feel exactly the same as I do.
This is a disgrace, it is shameful, and it only happens here in America. The rest of the world considers us barbarians, and rightly so. It has to stop. It has to end. Because I refuse to believe that this "new normal" where innocent children are offered up on the altar of a misreading of the Second Amendment is all that is politically possible.
We are better than this. Or we should be, at any rate.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Chris,
This is an absolute outrage, it is shameful and indefensible, and the vast majority of the people of this country agree.
That may be true. But, they don't agree so much that they want to make it a top priority voting issue, it seems ...
It seems like it's not enough that millions of Americans agree that there should be commonsense gun safety and control regulations ... not if they don't elevate ending gun violence to the top of their lists of issues they base their votes on.
Voters might make gun control a larger priority if the point was constantly hammered home to them and if they constantly saw candidates forced to confront the issue. Voters can change their mind if an issue is forcefully brought home to them.
@CW,
THANK YOU for FINALLY posting a true demonstration of how big an influence PIE is in the democratic process!
according to Michael Cohen, Trump had a crippling fear of being pied in the face. Which we suppose is understandable, seeing as what a delight it would be for tens of millions of Americans to see someone hit Trump in the face with a pie at some point.
See how easy it is to include a REAL issue in your talking points???
Vote with your PIE!
JL
Note to republicans: trump fears PIE, and so should YOU!!!
CW
Republicans are even against the sale of "ghost guns" -- kits to make guns that have no serial number and are not even able to be traced. This hamstrings law enforcement -- just ask any cop on the beat. And yet Republicans are fighting hard to keep the pipeline of untraceable weapons flowing to the public.
I think you meant to say Republicans are against BLOCKING the sale of “ghost guns. Can’t fault Republicans if they are AGAINST the sale of ghost guns, but I doubt they oppose any guns being restricted.
Last week, America experienced a racist extremist shooting up a grocery store, in an effort to kill as many Black people as he could. This week, America had to once again watch as innocent schoolchildren age 10 or under were massacred for no reason whatsoever. This is who we are, and it is shameful.
That is a bullshit claim and it is shameful.. :eyeroll:
The first of these is Senator Chris Murphy,
Ahh yes.. The moron who wants to blame an inanimate object while ignoring the real culprit in these tragedies..
Yep.. Typical Democrat.. :^/
You people really need to face reality..
Guns don't kill people.. People with mental health problems kill people..
Until Democrats realize this one factual statement, they will **ALWAYS** be on the losing end of this issue..
And innocent people will CONTINUE to die..
Liz,
It seems like it's not enough that millions of Americans agree that there should be commonsense gun safety and control regulations ...
We already have common sense gun laws..
But hay.. Prove me wrong..
Give me a "common sense" gun law that is not on the books already, is compatible with the 2nd Amendment and will actually prevent or help prevent these Crowd Based Mass Shootings.
You can't because no such law exists..
The problem is not guns. Australia proved that beyond ANY doubt..
The problem is mental health problems.
And we know how Democrats feel about that..
They feel that personal privacy is more important than saving innocent lives..
And innocent people will continue to die..
Ghost guns???
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Yea.. THAT's the problem.. :eyeroll:
What's the "scary" feature of a ghost gun??
It doesn't have a serial number stamp on it..
A "scary" feature that **ONLY** comes into play **AFTER** a mass shooting that it is committed with..
So, tell me.. HOW will eliminating ghost guns (even if ya'all could POSSIBLY do that) prevent or help prevent Crowd Base Mass Shootings??
Answer: It won't..
But thank you.. This is a PERFECT example of a WOULDN'T IT BE NICE law that while doing NOTHING to prevent or help prevent mass shootings, it will be a useless gesture that gives Democrats a warm fuzzy of "doing something"..
:epic eyeroll:
And innocent people will continue to die..
It's right there in the amendment, in the three words that somehow the extremist gun lobby always seems to skip over: "a well regulated Militia". The Founding Fathers put it right there in the text -- "well regulated". What does well-regulated mean? It means regulating -- passing rules. Passing laws. Laws which confine this right well within a militia. Why do all the extremists ignore this part of the amendment?
This claim is SOOO replete with factual inaccuracies, it's hard to know where to begin..
Why do all the "extremists" ignore this part of the amendment??
Well, for one thing, it's prefatory.. It means introductory...
In the context of the 2nd Amendment, it means it gives an EXAMPLE of WHY the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
A single example of MANY possible "prefatory" claims..
Here is another:
Being that self defence and defence of the innocent is an inalienable human right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is the 2nd Amendment in an alternate reality.. It has the exact same meaning as the 2nd in our reality.
As to your claim The Founding Fathers put it right there in the text -- "well regulated". What does well-regulated mean? It means regulating -- passing rules. Passing laws. Laws which confine this right well within a militia.
Allow me to stamp that with a HUGE NOT FACTUALLY ACCURATE stamp on this piece o' BS..
At the time that the US Constitution was written "well-regulated" meant "well-organized", well-disciplined".
It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now. It wasn't about regulating a militia with rules and/or laws...
At the time of the US Constitution "well regulated" meant the militia was in an effective condition to fight.
THIS is exactly why it's important to ignore the hysterical emotionalism and look at the FACTS..
Or innocent people will continue to die..
With all the "outrage" of the Talking Points, one FACT is completely ignored..
Schumer blocks Senate GOP school safety bill, angering Republicans
'You're a liar and a hack,' Sen. Rick Scott tweeted to Schumer after he blocked Luke and Alex School Safety Act
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-blocks-senate-gop-school-safety-bill-angering-republicans
Where is the "outrage" at Democrats?? Not a SINGLE mention of how DEMOCRATS blocked a School Safety/Security bill..
Which simply PROVES beyond ANY doubt that the "outrage"
that Democrats claim to feel is nothing but same ol same ol politicking..
If there is political blaa blaa blaa going on, it must be a day that ends in 'Y'.. :eyeroll:
No one is "outraged".. Not really...
It's nothing but same ol same ol political posturing...
:eyeroll:
@m,
The idea that there's no reasonable legislative action that might help prevent mass shootings is just not true. You've suggested some yourself. So instead of using this issue to bash Democrats for our blind spots, how about advocating for those aspects you do believe in?
Well one thing is certain..
Democrats are following Odumbo's edict hook line and sinker..
"We MUST politicize these tragedies"
-Barack Hussein Odumbo
And that is ALL Democrats do.. Politicize things.. Which means, in this case, that they will whine and cry and stamp their feet and spew faux "outrage" and then nothing will change..
Because Democrats refuse to address the REAL culprit in this mass shootings..
And innocent people will continue to die..
The idea that there's no reasonable legislative action that might help prevent mass shootings is just not true.
There is no reasonable and allowable legislative actions on guns that can be passed..
All the laws on guns that CAN be passed HAS been passed..
So instead of using this issue to bash Democrats for our blind spots, how about advocating for those aspects you do believe in?
I have.. And I will continue to do so..
But Democrats are in charge.. And they will do NOTHING to address the REAL problem in these cases with REAL solutions..
They will simply continue their ignorant and agenda based hysterical anti-gun agenda with NO regard to FACTS or reality...
The GOP bill contained provisions that most Americans don't support, what legislators refer to as poison pills. Why? Because they're not interested in actually getting anything real passed, it's all just sick political theater.
But Democrats are in charge.. And they will do NOTHING to address the REAL problem in these cases with REAL solutions..
As evidenced by Schumer and the Democrats blocking the School Safety/Security bill..
With Democrats like these who needs crazy mass shooters??
The GOP bill contained provisions that most Americans don't support, what legislators refer to as poison pills. Why? Because they're not interested in actually getting anything real passed, it's all just sick political theater.
So, Democrats would not pass a bill to SAVE CHILDREN because they didn't like some of the provisions??
And you accuse the GOP of being not interested??
Do you realize the inherent contradiction of your position??
So instead of using this issue to bash Democrats for our blind spots, how about advocating for those aspects you do believe in?
I mean, is there a reason why I cannot do both?? :D
@m,
Democrats have demonstrated willingness to negotiate on this issue, while Republicans have not. That's not an inherent contradiction, it's a fundamental difference between parties.
Mental health laws are the ONLY laws that are going to help prevent these mass shootings.
PERIOD...
There is simply NO ANTI GUN LAW that can be passed under the auspices of the 2nd that will have ANY impact on mass shootings..
NONE.. ZERO.. ZILCH... NADA...
Democrats who refuse to acknowledge this fact are simply politicizing these tragedies to further their anti-gun agenda..
Democrats have demonstrated willingness to negotiate on this issue,
I have to call bullshit on this.
The "most impressive" :eyeroll: Democrat Murphy wouldn't even HEAR about mental health issues..
THAT is the Democrat attitude on mental health laws..
And it's not just Democrat politicians..
By and large, Democrats think that their personal privacy is more important than saving innocent lives..
Michale,
I keep hearing about universal background checks and red flag laws so I don't think those are on the books yet.
Some types of firearms could be banned from sale to the public. I don't think those laws are back on the books yet. They have been so I guess they pass constitutional muster.
Also, teenagers shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms of any sort.
There are all kinds of firearms regulations that could be passed and, collectively, they could make a big impact on reducing gun violence.
But, I know, I know ... you know best and no one can tell you anything - you know everything - because you are SUCH an expert on this issue and any other you wish to post about here. Ahem.
Guess what I'm tired of, Don ... ;)
I keep hearing about universal background checks and red flag laws so I don't think those are on the books yet.
We already have near universal background checks.. The "gun show loophole" is a myth..
Red Flag laws are not the answer unless they are completely re-worked to prevent fraud..
Also, teenagers shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms of any sort.
Teenagers 18 and older are adults..
Change that law would be fine with me..
But then they can't vote... And Democrats won't do that..
There are all kinds of firearms regulations that could be passed and, collectively, they could make a big impact on reducing gun violenc
Not factually accurate...
But, I know, I know ... you know best and no one can tell you anything - you know everything - because you are SUCH an expert on this issue and any other you wish to post about here. Ahem.
I am more equipped then most.. Because I ignore the hysteria and emotionalism and concentrate on the facts..
Also, teenagers shouldn't be allowed to purchase firarms of any sort.
Let's explore this more in depth..
Do you think Democrats would be willing to trade teenage guns for teenage votes??
If you can't buy a gun because you are under 21 then you cannot vote if you are under 21..
Deal???
I keep hearing about universal background checks
But I will trade you "universal background checks" for National Reciprocity on Conceal/Carry permits..
Deal??
This is a representation of Democrats and their Gun Control..
https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/396a5363f5b0928069996a3709333fb604a1738b38641429546cbc451bc03447_1.jpg
Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
A disarmed society is a controllable society..
History is replete with examples..
A disarmed society is a controllable society..
History is replete with examples..
https://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/20130429__native_american_billboard_gun_rights_coloradop1-1.jpg
Democrats want to ban guns that "look scary"..
I mean, honestly..
THAT is Democrats ENTIRE anti-gun platform..
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/15410078529853-856x630.jpg
The top rifle would be banned by Democrats..
The bottom rifle is acceptable to Democrats..
Even though they are BOTH the exact same frakin' rifle!!
So, yea..
I am better equipped intellectually to discuss this issue because Democrats are so whacked in the head about the FACTS..
I am more equipped then most.. Because I ignore the hysteria and emotionalism and concentrate on the facts..
https://pics.me.me/gun-grabber-logic-ruger-mini-14-semi-automatic-223-ammunition-30-round-48124236.png
Where is the logic and rational thought here??
Every year, more people are killed with feet than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with fists than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with cars than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with bats and other blunt objects than are killed with rifles..
Let me know when Democrats push a ban on assault feet..
:eyeroll:
I don't have any problem with that at all. I bet nobody else would either. You know how long it takes to reload a flintlock? A long time -- several minutes, in some cases. It's a complicated process, with multiple steps. And there's no guarantee it will fire correctly after you get done, either -- look up the original meaning of "flash in the pan" for proof. Some muskets can be reloaded slightly faster, but even the fastest, most experienced shooter could only reload and fire maybe four or five times a minute, at best. An inexperienced user might get off only two shots per minute, if that.
That -- and only that -- is what the people who wrote the Second Amendment were talking about. That was their "original intent."
Again, NOT factually accurate...
At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, automatic firearms existed..
And you could own a CANNON at the time as well..
So, let's dispense with the non-factual hysterical BS, eh?
The Founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they wrote the 2nd Amendment..
They knew what weaponry would be available..
And they wanted to insure that every day Americans had access to the exact same kind of weaponry that the enemies and the criminals had..
The point is clear.. Democrats are NOT going to change the meaning of the 2nd..
All Democrats can do is wait until they get a majority in the SCOTUS..
Deal with it..
Further, ANYONE who supports 63 MILLION babies being killed has NO MORAL AUTHORITY to talk when 19 children are killed..
I have always stated that if Democrats could not accomplish anything after Sandy Hook when they were IN CHARGE....
Democrats are simply INCAPABLE of accomplishing ANYTHING when it comes to their anti gun agenda..
Nothing that has occurred since then puts lie to this claim...
You want to virtually GUARANTEE that there won't be another school shooting in the US??
Follow the Israeli model..
Of which PROFILING is a huge aspect...
But Democrats won't do that..
And so more innocent children will die..
But never fear, Weigantians..
There IS some good news on the horizon..
Once the GOP has Congress, they can expand mental health laws to prevent or help prevent Crowd Based Mass Shootings and DARE Biden's handlers not to sign them...
Plus we get the added bonus of monthly impeachments of Joe Biden..
So life will be good again...
Every year, more people are killed with feet than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with fists than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with cars than are killed with rifles..
Every year, more people are killed with bats and other blunt objects than are killed with rifles..
Let me know when Democrats push a ban on assault feet..
:eyeroll:
Maybe, but you don't know for sure...
Instead of some dumb meme where you likely got this pile of misinformation how about the actual table from the FBI.
first off, notice the hand, fist, feet, ect is a single classification under personal weapons. No differentiation, just a single number. Maybe most the deaths were fists and feet are rare, or vice versa, you don't know. But the real important number is "Firearms, type not stated" as that is in the thousands. There very well might be many more rifle deaths, but the FBI data does not show it.
Comparing rifles to cars is a non sequitur as motor vehicle fatalities are generally twice as high as the total murder rate. Almost three times last year...
first off, notice the hand, fist, feet, ect is a single classification under personal weapons.
OK, so you concede the point..
Comparing rifles to cars is a non sequitur as motor vehicle fatalities are generally twice as high as the total murder rate. Almost three times last year...
And yet, not a SINGLE call from hysterical Democrats to ban cars..
Which simply proves the anti-gun agenda here at work..
Thank you Bashi.. You are always a boon to my arguments. :D
Will you tackle this one next?? :D
https://pics.me.me/gun-grabber-logic-ruger-mini-14-semi-automatic-223-ammunition-30-round-48124236.png
Where is the logic and rational thought here??
OK, so you concede the point..
And what point would that be, you don't know what you are talking about?
I know your memory is fading but I disagree with both the left and the right when it comes to gun laws as do most the statistics...
Where is the logic and rational thought here??
Ones a carbine the other a rifle? Jokes aside, you do realize that neither of those guns would be legal to hunt deer in many states. You would have to buy a larger caliber version...
And what point would that be
The FACT that more people are killed with feet and hands than are killed with rifles..
Do try and keep up..
you do realize that neither of those guns would be legal to hunt deer in many states. You would have to buy a larger caliber version.
Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that YOUR Democrats want to ban ONE of those guns SOLELY because it LOOKS SCARY..
And here you are defending such idiocy...
:eyeroll:
The FACT that more people are killed with feet and hands than are killed with rifles..
Do try and keep up..
I find no need to "keep up" with goal post moving. You posted more people are killed by feet than rifles, then posted that more people are killed with fists than rifles. Two separate points. It's one number that you don't know the breakdown. You also don't know the total deaths by rifle due to the category "Firearms, type not stated".
As usual your use of the word FACT is inaccurate...
Which has NOTHING to do with the fact that YOUR Democrats want to ban ONE of those guns SOLELY because it LOOKS SCARY..
My democrats? Uh....wut?
As usual, Bashi refuses to address the FACTS..
1. More people are killed with feet and hands than with rifles.
2. Democrats want to ban rifles SOLELY because they "look scary"...
Once again, Bashi.. I accept your concession..
As usual, Bashi refuses to address the FACTS..
You mean disprove yours?
1. More people are killed with feet and hands than with rifles.
Then please post the breakdown of "Firearms, type not stated". Then post the breakdown of personal weapons. You can do that right? Or are you just talking out your ass?
2. Democrats want to ban rifles SOLELY because they "look scary"...
All the laws I have seen it's usually common magazine size that typically comes with the gun or if the gun is used for hunting. But if you can post a source of a democrat that described the guns they want limited or banned as "look scary" I'll read it...
"Assault Rifle"...
'nuff said..
Not really...
https://pics.me.me/gun-grabber-logic-ruger-mini-14-semi-automatic-223-ammunition-30-round-48124236.png
Democrats want to ban the bottom rifle..
The *ONLY* difference between the bottom rifle and the top rifle is that the bottom one looks "scary"...
Democrats are morons..
You can't defend their position..
All the laws I have seen it's usually common magazine size that typically comes with the gun or if the gun is used for hunting.
Than you haven't actually SEEN any laws... :eyeroll:
Democrats want to ban the bottom rifle..
The *ONLY* difference between the bottom rifle and the top rifle is that the bottom one looks "scary"...
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was never stuck down by the courts even though cases made it that far but sunsetted out banned both specifically. Just saying...
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban that was never stuck down by the courts even though cases made it that far but sunsetted out banned both specifically. Just saying...
Which has NOTHING to do with the here and now..
Why don't your Democrats pass another Assault Weapons Ban now??
Because they CAN'T... They couldn't even pass one after Sandy Hook..
What more info do you need to understand that you are on the LOSING end of this discussion??
What more info do you need to understand that you are on the LOSING end of this discussion??
Am I? What would it take for you to improve your reading comprehension?
My comprehension is not in question here..
How many anti gun laws have Democrats been able to pass???
NONE.. ZERO.. ZILCH... NADA...
You are on the losing end, Democrat.. :D
The the cherry on top is ya'all won't be able to kill any more babies in CIVILIZED states.. :D
My comprehension is not in question here..
Actually it is. I am not a democrat nor am I making the arguments you are trying to assign to me...
Babies by definition are post born. Period.
Actually it is. I am not a democrat nor am I making the arguments you are trying to assign to me...
Well, we can agree yer not making MUCH of an argument.. :D
Babies by definition are post born. Period.
Not scientifically or factually accurate..
This week, America had to once again watch as innocent schoolchildren age 10 or under were massacred for no reason whatsoever. This is who we are, and it is shameful.
Democrats have the blood of 63 MILLION children on their hands..
THAT is who Democrats are and it is indeed shameful..
At the time that the US Constitution was written "well-regulated" meant "well-organized", well-disciplined".
It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now. It wasn't about regulating a militia with rules and/or laws...
At the time of the US Constitution "well regulated" meant the militia was in an effective condition to fight.
THIS is exactly why it's important to ignore the hysterical emotionalism and look at the FACTS..
At the time that the US Constitution was written, “arms” consisted of muskets and single shot pistols. So if you want to go back to original meanings, our gun problems will disappear in an instant.
And while we are at it, communities should re-establish armories for guns to be stored within city limits. Feel free to come check your firearm out whenever you need it to go hunting or for target practice…just remember you have to return it before you are allowed back within the city limits!
Michale,
I am more equipped then most.. Because I ignore the hysteria and emotionalism and concentrate on the facts..
Ha! You said that with a straight face, didn't you. You're a real card - you ought to be dealt with! Heh.
The indisputable fact is that where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths.
This is true despite Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's attempt to explain away gun deaths at the elementary school in his state this week by comparing them to gun violence in Chicago.
"I hate to say this, but there are more people who were shot every weekend in Chicago than there are in schools in Texas," Abbott said on Wednesday, arguing stricter gun laws are not a solution.
There are indeed a horrific number of gun deaths in Chicago each year. CNN has covered the problem.
But there are more gun deaths in Texas, by far, than in any other state, according to data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Texas suffered 4,164 gun deaths in 2020, the most recent year for which the CDC has published data.
That's a rate of 14.2 deaths per 100,000 Texans.
California, by comparison, saw 3,449 deaths, a gun death rate of 8.5.
Texas does not have the highest gun death rate, however. Far from it.
The top states by gun death rates are:
Mississippi -- 28.6.
Louisiana -- 26.3.
Wyoming -- 25.9.
Missouri -- 23.9.
Alabama -- 23.6.
Alaska -- 23.5.
Here's where the lack of good federal data haunts us. It's hard to find solid gun ownership rates. The RAND Corporation, a non-profit research organization, has tried and published data on average gun ownership by state between 2007 and 2016.
All of those states with the highest gun death rates are among the ones with the highest gun ownership rates.
Mississippi -- 50% of adults live in a household with a gun.
Louisiana -- 48%.
Wyoming -- 59%.
Missouri -- 48%.
Alabama -- 50%.
Alaska -- 59%.
Where there are fewer guns, there are fewer gun deaths. The states with the lowest gun death rates in 2020, per the CDC (alongside the percentage of homes with a gun in 2007-2016, per RAND) were:
Hawaii -- 3.4 (8% of adults live in a household with a gun).
Massachusetts -- 3.7 (10%).
New Jersey -- 5 (8%).
Rhode Island -- 5.1 (11%).
New York -- 5.3 (14%).
The advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which endorses stronger gun laws, takes the CDC data on gun deaths per 100,000 residents and puts that alongside each state's gun laws. The states with lower gun violence rates are mostly among the states with the strongest gun laws.
Conversely, with the exception of Louisiana, the states with the highest gun death rates and highest gun ownership rates are among the states Everytown says have the most lax gun laws.
Obviously mass shootings can happen anywhere, as we saw earlier this month in Buffalo, New York, and this week in Uvalde, Texas.
But most gun deaths do not involve a mass shooting. Most gun deaths are suicides. In 2020, 54% of gun deaths in the US were suicides, which are far less likely to get sustained public attention, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of CDC data.
CNN wrote in 2019 about the rising suicide rate and a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open that found higher suicide rates in rural areas -- and, in cities, if there was a gun shop in the neighborhood.
Chicago does have a horrifically high murder rate, although the guns there often come from a neighboring state.
There are higher murder rates in other cities, and they're often in places with more lax gun laws, like Jackson, Mississippi.
According to Everytown's analysis of FBI data, the cities with the highest gun homicide rates in 2020 were all in states with lax gun laws:
Jackson, Mississippi -- 69 gun homicides per 100,000 people.
Gary, Indiana -- 64.
St. Louis -- 50.
New Orleans -- 48.
Memphis, Tennessee -- 47.
Baltimore, where the gun laws are relatively strict, was next.
[83]Whoops! Sorry about the length of this one, I was editing down the article’s info when I accidentally hit the Submit button. Good info… and it makes clear that where there are guns, there is gun violence. States with the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest rate of gun deaths!
Coincidence? Not a chance!
@russ,
i guess my follow-up question would be whether a lower rate of gun deaths correlates with a higher rate of knife deaths, blunt object deaths, being pushed off a rooftop deaths, etc... if there's a correlation which way does it tilt? if there's no correlation, what other potential confounding variables could be eliminated? causality on that scale is notoriously difficult to prove.
Russ,
At the time that the US Constitution was written, “arms” consisted of muskets and single shot pistols. So if you want to go back to original meanings, our gun problems will disappear in an instant.
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point.
And you are factually not accurate to begin with..
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/puckle-cropped1.1.png
An automatic rifle at the time of the US Constitution.
And while we are at it, communities should re-establish armories for guns to be stored within city limits. Feel free to come check your firearm out whenever you need it to go hunting or for target practice…just remember you have to return it before you are allowed back within the city limits!
Except for the fact that the SCOTUS has established that the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd is explanatory.. As I have already PROVEN as fact..
So, once again, you have NO FACTS.. Simply hysterical anti-gun emotionalism..
Liz,
Ha! You said that with a straight face, didn't you. You're a real card - you ought to be dealt with! Heh.
Haven't heard THAT one in a while.. :D
So DEAL with me.. Give me FACTS to refute my facts. :D
Russ,
And yet, in Australia 20 years prior to the Port Arthur shooting that prompted the AUS gun ban, there were 74 murders at mass murder incidents..
20 years AFTER the gun ban, there were 79 murders at mass murder incidents.
MORE murders AFTER a gun ban..
All yer hysterics are moot, my friend..
YOU DEMOCRATS CANNOT HAVE YOUR GUN BAN UNTIL YOU GET RID OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT...
How difficult is that for ya'all to understand???
I am sincerely shocked at ya'all's reaction to this..
I mean, it's sad that 19 children were brutally murdered..
But that's NOTHING compared to the 63 MILLION children that were brutally murdered under Democrats' baby killing policies...
I guess ya'all are following Stalin's creed that 19 deaths are tragic but TENS OF MILLIONs deaths are a statistic..
How very DEMOCRAT of ya... :eyeroll:
JL,
i guess my follow-up question would be whether a lower rate of gun deaths correlates with a higher rate of knife deaths, blunt object deaths, being pushed off a rooftop deaths, etc...
Ooops.. NOW ya have gone and done it.. Ya brought FACTS into the equation.. :D Yer in trouble now..
causality on that scale is notoriously difficult to prove.
But that doesn't stop the gun hating nuts from claiming to PROVE it..
Russ,
All yer fancy numbers are all well and good..
But we're not talking about gun deaths..
We're talking about mass shootings...
So, NONE of your stats have ANY BEARING on the topic at hand...
All of your stats are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion at hand.
Give me your stats on MASS SHOOTINGS and then we'll see if they have any bearing..
Of course, Democrats NEVER talk about gun violence until there IS a mass shooting..
Which simply proves that Democrats politicize these tragedies so as to never let a crisis go to waste..
:eyeroll:
EVERY argument ya'all have about what the 2nd REALLY means is moot..
YA'ALL don't get to decide what the 2nd REALLY means..
The SCOTUS does that...
And the SCOTUS has spoken..
So, please.. For ya'all's reputational sakes.. Quit spewing bullshit that ya'all KNOW won't pass the smell test..
The 2nd is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that states that owning and carrying a gun (KEEP and BEAR arms) is a god given right that the government cannot infringe on...
And, since the SCOTUS has ruled that SOME infringement is allowable in the interests of public safety, there CAN be restrictions that nibble at the sides..
Be happy ya'all got THAT much...
But if ya'all think yer going to get a wholesale BAN out of a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS?? Ya'all are just having a wet dream...
And, at least be adult enough to concede the reality..
A wholesale BAN is what Democrats are going for...
And it just WILL not happen... PERIOD...
If Democrats try it??? If Democrats TRY and take people's guns away???
Guess what the result will be?? :^/
And, since ya'all like statistics so much, here's one for you..
The vast majority of Crowd Based Mass Shootings are committed with handguns.. Even in the cases where scumbag shooters had BOTH a rifle and a handgun, the handgun was the predominant weapon used..
So, if the gun hating Democrats were REALLY trying to ban the "instruments of Crowd Based Mass Shootings", then Democrats SHOULD be going after handguns..
But Democrats IGNORE handguns... Why is that??
{{chhiiiirrrrpppp}}{{ccchhhiiiirrrrrppppp}}
Yea, that's what I figgered..
Democrats won't go after handguns because they KNOW they don't stand a chance in hell of making THAT stick...
So Democrats are simply going with political expediency..
Which simply PROVES beyond any doubt (as if any more proof is required) that it's NOTHING but a political agenda...
But, what Democrats are too STOOPID to realize, is that going after rifles is as impossible as going after handguns..
The SCOTUS has made it IMPOSSIBLE for Democrats to pass any of their gun-hating agenda...
If Democrats couldn't pass anything after Sandy Hook with a LOT more control of Congress, what makes ya'all think Democrats can pass anything now???
You people are simply dreaming... :eyeroll:
What follows is a VERY long comment by a guy named Andrew T. Post who is a gun owner, 2nd Amendment supporter and, obviously, a bit of a historian...
Mr Post's comment was in response to some moron Democrat asking "Why can't guns be banned in America"
Here is Mr Post's response...
Apologies for the length, but there was no way to link the original comment..
His name’s John Locke.
Born 1632, died 1704. English physician and political theorist. One of the most prominent thinkers of the Enlightenment. Considered “the founder of liberalism.”
America’s Founding Fathers, people like Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, cribbed heavily from Locke’s work when they were building the moral and philosophical basis for the United States of America and writing the Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers and the Constitution and whatnot. And so did the 1st United States Congress when they were ratifying the Bill of Rights.
Locke wrote extensively on the topics of natural rights, the balance of power, and the origin and purpose of government. His liberal ideas were used as building blocks by America’s Founding Fathers to craft their new nation—the freest, purest, and most just republic the world had ever seen.
How did Locke come into these revolutionary ideas?
He built upon the work of philosophers who had gone before him, of course. Hobbes and Machiavelli and the like.
But in addition, some interesting things happened during Locke’s lifetime.
One of these was the English Civil War (1642–1651).
This was a war between the king of England (Charles I) and his royalist supporters (“Cavaliers”) vs. the English Parliament and their supporters (“Roundheads”). Charlie wasn’t a very good king, you see, and Parliament became unhappy with his repeated abuses of his royal powers.
Back in those days, Parliament didn’t really have the powers it has now. It was basically a cabinet the king convened at his sole discretion. But it did have the power to levy taxes, which came in handy for a total spendthrift like Charles I.
But anyway, Charlie got to feeling a bit too free and easy for Parliament’s liking. He went and married a French (and Roman Catholic) princess named Henrietta Maria in 1625. Then Charlie decided to send an expeditionary force to France to relieve the French Huguenots besieged at La Rochelle in 1627. Parliament began to breathe easy—despite marrying a Catholic, the king was showing support for the Protestant Huguenots. Then Charlie went and ruined everything by giving command of the expedition to the hugely unpopular Duke of Buckingham. The expedition was a complete shambles. Parliament opened impeachment procedures against Buckingham. King Charles responded by dissolving Parliament—which was the king’s prerogative at the time.
But now Charlie was in a bind—Parliament was the only way he could raise taxes to support his extravagant lifestyle. So he went ahead and convened a new Parliament. This new bunch (which included Oliver Cromwell) drew up a Petition of Right, which was basically a list of rights the king was forbidden from infringing upon.
Sound familiar, my fellow Americans?
Parliament submitted the Petition of Right for Chuckie’s approval. Chuckie approved it, but only so Parliament would give him his royal subsidy. Then he dissolved Parliament.
Chaz avoided calling a Parliament for the next eleven years. He practically bent over backward to make sure he didn’t have to reconvene it, in fact. He went so far as to make peace with France and Spain so he wouldn’t have an expensive war on his hands. He also resorted to some fairly tricky means to raise money for himself. He started fining people who failed to show up at his coronation and receive a knighthood. “Ship money” was a tax traditionally levied against English citizens in coastal districts, and which funded the Royal Navy’s anti-piracy efforts. Chuck started charging inland English counties for anti-piracy and anti-privateering measures. Naturally, this illegal and arbitrary tax made a lot of people angry, and some of them refused to pay it.
Once again, my fellow Americans—doesn’t this sound familiar?
There was also some religious crap that went down, as usual, but neither you nor I care about that.
For these and various other reasons, those eleven Parliament-less years were called “the personal rule of Charles I” or more bluntly, the “Eleven Years’ Tyranny.”
An emergency in Scotland caused Charles to reconvene Parliament in 1640. A majority of this new body decided to use Charles I’s desperate need for money against him. They pressured him to redress Parliament’s grievances against him and to abandon the war in Scotland. Charles, outraged, again dissolved Parliament. It had lasted only a few weeks. It came to be known as “the Short Parliament.”
Without Parliament’s approval, Charles I attacked Scotland. He suffered an embarrassing defeat. The Scots turned right around and invaded England, eventually occupying almost the entire northern region. Charles was soon forced to pay the Scots £850 a day to keep them from advancing further.
Well, this put ol’ Chuckie back in desperate financial straits, so he had no choice but to reconvene Parliament. As you may imagine, this new Parliament—the Long Parliament, as it came to be known—was even more hostile to him than the Short Parliament had been. And this time, they really had him over a barrel. They forced the king to agree to all kinds of demands. A raft of new laws was passed. Henceforth, Parliament would convene at least once every three years—whether or not the king had summoned them. The king could no longer impose taxes without Parliament’s express consent. Parliament could now review and censure the conduct of the king’s ministers. Oh, and here’s the kicker: the king could no longer dissolve Parliament without its consent, even after the three years were up.
My fellow Americans, does this sound familiar yet?
(I’ll give you a hint: the phrase “checks and balances” should be running through your head right about now.)
Anyway, tensions between Charles I and Parliament eventually reached their breaking point. Charles resented all the concessions he’d been forced to make to Parliament, and the Long Parliament suspected Charles of wanting to shut Parliament down and rule by military force. (They were also worried that he wanted to reintroduce Catholicism—okay, more like episcopalian Anglicanism, but close enough—to England.)
So the English Civil War broke out.
The outcome was pretty interesting. The Parliamentarians won. King Charles was put on trial and executed and his son Charles II exiled. England ceased to be a monarchy and became the Commonwealth of England, and then the Protectorate (ruled over by Cromwell as “Lord Protector”—essentially a military dictator). Then, finally, the monarchy was restored in 1660 when Charles II returned from exile. But it was restored only with Parliament’s consent. Constitutionally, a new day had dawned for England. Monarchs could only rule if Parliament gave ’em the green light. Britain was now on course to become the constitutional monarchy it is today.
The English Civil War, its causes, and its outcome were all extremely interesting to John Locke, that gaunt and mournful-looking fellow whose image adorns the top of this increasingly long-winded Quora answer.
Locke’s most influential work, perhaps, was his First and Second Treatise of Civil Government. The treatises were written in 1689, in defense of the Glorious Revolution the year prior, during which Mary II and her Dutch husband William of Orange deposed Mary’s father King James II and VII of England, Scotland, and Ireland (that’s, uh, just one guy, by the way—yeah, I know it’s confusing). William and Mary then turned right around and accepted Parliament’s invitation to become joint sovereigns of England and gave their royal assent to the English Bill of Rights, which finally established the authority of Parliament over the Crown.
(If you’ve ever wondered why Queen Elizabeth II doesn’t actually rule the United Kingdom, and Parliament and the prime minister are the ones who make all the important decisions, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution are the reasons.)
Contained within the English Bill of Rights were a couple of things that Americans might find hauntingly familiar—the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, the banning of taxation without Parliament’s assent (taxation without representation, in other words), and the right of Protestants to keep and bear arms for their defense.
You’re beginning to see where I’m going with this, aren’t you?
In his defense of the Glorious Revolution, John Locke philosophized that men and women, back in the savage days, had the anarchistic freedom to pursue their own interests, which resulted in violent and brutal warfare. To put a stop to this chaos and protect people’s inalienable rights, governments were established to keep the peace. This peace was maintained by laws. This principle is something Locke referred to as the “social compact”—governments are established by mutual agreement of individuals for the purposes of protection and the security of their individual liberty.
The so-called first principle of the social compact is this: since governments are instituted by the people, governments necessarily derive their power from the consent of the governed. Since the government’s purpose is to protect people’s inalienable rights, a government has no power beyond what’s necessary to protect those rights. A just government is, therefore, a limited government.
Locke argued that the definition of liberty is freedom from restraint or violence by other people, and this cannot be accomplished without laws. Anarchy repulsed him. But tyranny repulsed him even more. A just government, in Locke’s view, was one with checks and balances—where the legislative branch of government had the power to check the executive, and the people were armed and ready to defend themselves against tyranny from either the legislative or executive branches. Or both.
I’m currently reading a book called The Philosopher’s Handbook (edited by Stanley Rosen). In his introduction to Part One (Social and Political Philosophy), Paul Rahe wrote something about Locke that I found rather interesting. (Emphasis mine.)
Locke was perfectly prepared to acknowledge the horrors of anarchy, but he doubted very much that they so exceeded those of tyranny that human beings could be persuaded to give up the right to organized self-defense. A well-ordered government would include a monarchical executive armed with a prerogative enabling him to execute the laws, defend the realm, and respond to emergencies; it would include a representative assembly empowered to lay taxes, make laws, and examine the conduct of the executive's ministers. But it would rest ultimately on an enlightened citizenry prepared, in the face of executive and legislative abuse, to take up arms in defense of the right to life, liberty, and property.
MY FELLOW AMERICANS, DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET?
Like I said, America’s Founding Fathers stole a hell of a lot of Locke’s ideas. They used Locke’s principles of the social compact, consent of the governed, and the right to keep and bear arms to form a near-perfect union—to shape (and philosophically defend) the fledgling United States of America. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” It also says that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
And the Second Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s not something the 1st United States Congress pulled out of thin air. It comes straight from Locke.
And at long last, ladies and gentlemen—that is why America “allows the general public to keep guns.” Because the right to keep and bear arms was seen as being necessary to the security of the free state envisioned by John Locke, and early American statesmen, heavily influenced by Locke’s writings and philosophy, saw fit to enshrine the inalienable right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.
QED.
This is EXACTLY why Democrats are so frak'ed in the head..
I honestly can't understand how ANYONE can vote Democrat...
His Name Was Seth Smith
“A white kid gets killed and the damn whole world stops… Fuck that white motherfucker," said Seth's killer, who pled down to manslaughter.
https://karlstack.substack.com/p/his-name-was-seth-smith?s=r
A hallmark of Democrat governance...
Democrat policies actually HURT the ones that Democrats claim to want to help...
Moronic.....
I mean, THIS is how Democrats think...
The think that black Americans cannot compete in a level playing field..
So Democrats choose to LOWER standards!!
JL... Yer a teacher.. Explain to me how LOWERING standards do anything but HURT children's education...
This is a PERFECT example of Democrats' racist think actually HARMS black Americans..
Democrat policies are the anti-thesis to good governance..
These FACTS prove this beyond ANY doubt..
Michale,
I honestly can't understand how ANYONE can vote Democrat...
I know you can't. That's why the only fall back is to claim election fraud. Heh.
Michale,
You have a fairly warped sense of Democratic politics, to put it mildly. That is what prevents you from understanding. Food for thought - take it for what it's worth.
@m,
Like so much of what happens in education,the intent of flexible standards was lost in translation between theory and practice. The idea as it was proposed by academics was not to eliminate high standards, but to include students who didn't receive adequate preparation but have the ability and drive to catch up.
The situation with phonics is the same - it's an antiquated and inefficient system of building letter-sound relationships, but when bureaucrats got ahold of the newer systems they removed letter-sound teaching entirely, which made things worse instead of better.
And of course the backlash from conservatives is equally silly. Because if there's lead in the aqueducts, the solution is obviously to go back to toting buckets from the river.
I know you can't. That's why the only fall back is to claim election fraud. Heh.
WELL DOCUMENTED election fraud..
Zucker Bucks.. WELL DOCUMENTED
Hunter Biden Laptop.. WELL DOCUMENTED
Either one of those by themselves, had they not be instigated by Democrats, would have swung the election against Joe Biden..
You have a fairly warped sense of Democratic politics, to put it mildly.
I agree that the policies are warped..
And their consequences are ALSO well documented..
If you have ANY facts that show these policies were GOOD for black Americans...???
"I'm all ears."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
That is what prevents you from understanding.
Oh, I understand perfectly..
As, I am sure, you do as well..
You simply don't have any facts that dispute the conclusions.. :D
And of course the backlash from conservatives is equally silly. Because if there's lead in the aqueducts, the solution is obviously to go back to toting buckets from the river.
Until such time as a better system can be devised...
Obviously lowering standards is NOT the solution..
Yet THAT is all we hear from Democrats..
Basically Democrats are saying that black Americans can't compete on a level playing field..
Which is completely and utterly RACIST...
Kamala Harris calls for 'assault weapons ban' in wake of Uvalde, Buffalo mass shootings
The vice president made the gun control remarks after speaking at the funeral of an 86-year-old woman killed in the Buffalo shooting
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-assault-weapons-ban-uvalde-buffalo-mass-shootings
Here's the funny in a sad way thing..
In the aftermath of Sandy Hook, Democrats had even BIGGER control of Congress.. And Democrats tried this.. DEMOCRATS stopped it...
Democrats couldn't do it then..
What makes them think that they can do it now??
What makes
In my view, Donald is just a massive sore loser, and claims of cheating but Biden is an equally massive double standard. There have been political shenanigans as long as there have been politics, and anyone who thinks Donald wasn't cheating harder and biglier than anyone else is just deluding themselves.
There have been political shenanigans as long as there have been politics, and anyone who thinks Donald wasn't cheating harder and biglier than anyone else is just deluding themselves.
Except there are NO FACTS to support the claim..
Whereas there are MASSIVE DOCUMENTED facts that support the fact that Democrats did, in fact, cheat..
In my view, Donald is just a massive sore loser,
And yet, when President Trump had a -D after his name, Democrats LOVED him.. HONORED him..
So your claim that he is a loser is a political-based opinion, not a factual based one...
And, as we have seen with Darth Cheney, if President Trump swung back around to having a -D after his name, Democrats would once again love and swoon over Trump...
It's ALL politics.. Nothing factual about it..
Facts don't lie, my friend.. :D
When a gun walks into a school or a crowd of it's own volition and makes a sentient decision to start shooting people...
Then... AND ONLY THEN...
Will Democrats have a serious and rational argument..
Claiming that guns are the problem is not a serious claim... It's nonsensical...
JL,
The mere fact that there is so much ANGST over President Trump to this day a year and a half after he temporarily left the Oval Office is proof positive that PTDS is alive and well..
your claim that he is a loser is a political-based opinion, not a factual based one...
Incorrect. Factually, Donald lost. Also factually, he was quite sore about it. And still is.
LGBTQABCXYZEIEIO Flash Cards used for preschoolers.. :eyeroll:
North Carolina preschool uses LGBT flashcards depicting a pregnant man to teach kids colors
State Rep. was alerted to LGBT themed flashcards for preschoolers by concerned parent
https://www.foxnews.com/us/north-carolina-preschool-pregnant-man
So much for the claim that gender bending mental health sickness = normal is NOT being taught to toddlers.. :^/
Incorrect. Factually, Donald lost.
Not factually accurate.. It was an unfair election..
Also factually, he was quite sore about it. And still is.
As is Stacey Abrams.. Is she a loser too??
As is Stacey Abrams.. Is she a loser too??
Depends. Is she still claiming that she won?
Yes..
"When I was 18 years old, I joined the United States Army. I’d like to wish everyone a happy and safe Memorial Day weekend as we reflect on and remember those who have served our country."
Los Angeles DA Democrat George Gascon
Apparently, this moron of a Democrat doesn't know the difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day..
:eyeroll:
Not surprising, since this Democrat moron doesn't know the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.. :^/
As is Stacey Abrams.. Is she a loser too??
Depends. Is she still claiming that she won?
Apparently, it doesn't take much in the way of character or integrity to be the president of United Earth..
"I weep for the future."
Maître' De, FERIS BUEHLER'S DAY OFF
At least with the Presidential election, there was LEGITIMATE fraud at work...
Apparently, it doesn't take much in the way of character or integrity to be the president of United Earth..
Which is simply ANOTHER moronic plot hole in the ABOMINATION that was ST Discovery S04... :^/
This is why listening to Democrats trying to talk INTELLIGENTLY about firearms is like fingernails scratching down a chalkboard..
After Texas shooting, New York Times publishes another inaccurate piece on semiautomatic firearms
Former Obama assistant Attorney General Mary McCord wrongly conflated the term 'semiautomatic' with 'assault' weapon
https://www.foxnews.com/media/texas-shooting-new-york-times-inaccurate-piece-semiautomatic-firearms?dicbo=v2-b256f6937c2d5a07ba5dba4cde24d873
It's actually PAINFUL for those of us who have been carrying guns for over 43 years...
Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
Banning guns because criminals commit crimes with them is like banning cars because drunk/careless drivers kill tens of thousands of people every year..
Why punish the law-abiding ones in hopes that criminals will turn over a new leaf?? :eyeroll:
Speaking of Democrats with absolutely ZERO credibility.. :D
Jussie Smollett attempts career comeback with LGBT film on BET+ streaming service
Jussie Smollett's BET+ project comes just months after he was released from jail pending his appeal for lying to the police in 2019 that he was the victim of hate crime
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-attempts-career-comeback-lgbt-film-bet
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AAXQc8J.img?w=768&h=432&m=6&x=602&y=174&s=72&d=72
Wuupp... Someone is "triggered"... :^/
Why are Democrats so violent and hateful and angry???
Most normal intelligent people would have the infrastructure READY BEFORE pushing the EV..
Gas prices are rising. So where are the electric cars?
Democrats see electric vehicles as an answer to climate change, and high fuel costs mean more Americans are interested. But inflation and a shortage of new cars are making that transition painful.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/28/gas-prices-rising-electric-cars-00035425
Democrats are incompetent..
@m,
Upon further review i must agree. Just like trump, Stacy Abrams is in fact a sore loser. Both of them should get over it and focus on the next cycle.
Upon further review i must agree. Just like trump, Stacy Abrams is in fact a sore loser. Both of them should get over it and focus on the next cycle.
You might find this hard to believe, but I agree..
President Trump should focus on winning 2024 and quit re-fighting 2020..
He's as bad as Hillary with her 2016 Russia Collusion Delusion..
But we're not talking about gun deaths..
We're talking about mass shootings...
Mass shootings are just 3 or more gun deaths in a single event. If assault rifles are not the issue, why do they always seem to be the weapons used in mass shootings with more than 9 victims?
(salivating)
[85] JL,
I don’t know how those factors could be measured comparatively. Children are much more likely to be killed by a gun if there is a gun in the home. I do not think that children that live in homes without a gun present are more likely to be killed by knives as a result. Yes, data and statistics can be twisted into whatever someone wants it be to support their argument…but states with higher rates of gun ownership having higher rates of gun deaths is pretty straightforward.
WELL DOCUMENTED election fraud..
You are correct! There has been plenty of well documented election fraud being carried out by Republican operatives. Classic idiot criminal behavior — as a distraction, scream about someone committing the crime that you are attempting to commit
Michale,
So DEAL with me.. Give me FACTS to refute my facts. :D
Well, that right there kinda proves that you don't really know what facts are. ;)
Mass shootings are just 3 or more gun deaths in a single event. If assault rifles are not the issue, why do they always seem to be the weapons used in mass shootings with more than 9 victims?
Because they are not..
Handguns are the most prevalent weapon used in mass shootings..
Now, why do we only hear Democrats whine and cry about gun violence when there is a mass shooting??
Democrat run Chicago has WEEKLY incidents of shootings and Democrats are SILENT on the issue..
You are correct! There has been plenty of well documented election fraud being carried out by Republican operatives. Classic idiot criminal behavior — as a distraction, scream about someone committing the crime that you are attempting to commit
Even if that were factually accurate, there is NO DOCUMENTED incident where that fraud swung an election..
The 2020 Election fraud by Democrats actually swung the election ..
Factually bogus!
Say, we don't have a theme for the festivites this evening... so, how about your favourite summertime songs. Songs that scream summer fun!
Welcome, one and all, to the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party, where we leave all political chatter aside and bask in the glory of the music for a few wonderful hours. The tunes, of course, may be as political as anyone of us sees fit. Ahem. :-)
Anyways, I'll go first, this is my all-time favourite summer song. I love it when it starts to play on one of my favourite radio stations (I should really see about getting this album) while I'm sunbathing outside and lounging poolside in the back of my building! It makes me feel like everything is perfect with my world ...
Sunny Days - Lighthouse
Sunshine On My Shoulders - John Denver
Sunshine makes everything better, no? :)
https://youtube.com/shorts/8SxAd5ZfVo4?feature=share
But for real...
https://youtu.be/P7Cof3vyx1Q
And also
https://youtu.be/UMVjToYOjbM
One more, and make sure to listen for the back story if you don't know it
https://youtu.be/lGfz7clIDNw
More, more ... I want more!
Beast of Burden - the Rolling Stones
Hey, if this doesn't scream summer fun, then I don't know what does. Aw-yeah, baby ...
Lawful gun owners commit less than a fifth of all gun crimes, according to a novel analysis released this week by the University of Pittsburgh.
Define “lawful gun owner” if you are calling someone who commits gun crimes that? Every gun owner is law abiding until they aren’t!
Whoops, my bad
Joshua,
The Dutchman is a beautiful song! Thanks for posting it - and, yes, a wonderful back story.
Then, speaking of 'shellshocked', I came across this
The songwriter doesn't get any mention here but I do hope he received his fair share of royalties ... I wonder if Liam Clancy ever tells the back story of how he came to know this song when a young songwriter came backstage at one of his concerts and asked if he could play a couple of songs he might want to record!
Whoops, my bad
Seriously? I mean, are you kidding me!!!
What's your favourite summer fun tune?
Is there a delete button thingy around here ... Chris! :-)
California Dreamin' - the Mamas & the Papas
Russ ... you're just like clockwork! Heh.
Can we dig some more acoustic guitar ...
Jimi Hendrix - Hear My Train Comin' and Hound Dog
And, here is the companion analysis video of Jimi Hendrix on acoustic guitar by none other than Fil from Wings of Pegasus.
Play it, Don.
Bryan Adams - Summer of '69
Bryan co-wrote this (and many others) with Jim Vallance (Sunshyne, PRiSM) and they will both be honoured on September 24th when they will be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame during a ceremony at Massey Hall in Toronto. Won't be getting tickets for it, unfortunately...
...however, BA is coming to town and will be performing this October at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium where the Kitchener Rangers hockey team plays (believe they are still the farm team for the New York Rangers??) and guess who is lucky enough to be going? Can't freakin' wait! :)
Oh, and here is the back story!
I trust Bryan will be doing this one in Kitchener on his So Happy It Hurts tour...
Cuts Like A Knife
And, more back story!
Don,
You make a good point. No, you make a very good point!
What's your favourite summertime campfire song to play and sing?
Bonus points if you have video!!!
What?
No "Dancing"?
Martha & the Vandellas
David Bowie & Mick Jagger
The Struts
England Dan and John Ford Coley - I'd Really Love To See You Tonight
Hey, Kick! Glad you're here - love that Bowie/Jagger one, gets me dancin' around the living room every time.
Speaking of dancin' around the living room ... here I go!
Billy Ocean - Caribbean Queen
This takes me back to Hawai'i, of all places - my all-time favourite summer dance tune!
Kick,
Did you see the tunes from last week - Queen at Live Aid 1985 with companion analyis video by Fil from Wings of Pegasus?
Love this guy!
Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up
Seals and Crofts - Summer Breeze
Santana with Rob Thomas - Smooth (LIVE)
A great live performance ...
Eagles - Hotel California
That was fun!
And, it's still early evening on the Left Coast, so ... take it away Caddy and Chris! :)
Define “lawful gun owner” if you are calling someone who commits gun crimes that? Every gun owner is law abiding until they aren’t!
Exactly the point..
Thank you for conceding that, Russ.. :D
Liz,
It's well documented that if the Hunter Biden laptop story had been reported legitimately, President Trump would have been re-elected..
Denying the facts is non-serious..
Deadly Nebraska crash: At least 2 dead, 19 injured after cars slam into pedestrian crowd
Lincoln Fire & Rescue officials were on the scene clearing the fire and assisting victims after two cars slammed into a crowd near the Americruise event
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lincoln-nebraska-car-crashes-into-crowd
BAN CARS!!!! BAN ASSAULT CARS!!!!
:eyeroll:
So, Weigantians..
What happened to all the Voter Suppression in Georgia ya'all claimed was going to happen??
Record voter turnout.. Record low vote rejection rates..
Where is all the voter suppression in Georgia??
As usual, the hysterical fear-mongering of the hysterical Democrat Party never occurred...
Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!??
Oh... Wait.. :D
Once again.. Democrats are defeated by FACTS...
Elizabeth Miller
173
Did you see the tunes from last week - Queen at Live Aid 1985 with companion analyis video by Fil from Wings of Pegasus?
Yes. Fil did a pretty good job of breaking that down, but he mentioned that Freddie "could play guitar"... but seriously, Freddie wasn't so much a guitar player but a piano player frenetically playing a limited number of chords using only downstrokes; watch any of his performances on guitar, including Live Aid, it's hard to miss Freddie frantically pounding out only downstrokes... so not an accomplished guitar player by any stretch of the musical imagination.
Fil also mentions while Freddie plays guitar a piano can be heard and "somebody playing just offstage"... but that somebody was the fabulous Spike Edney -- who wasn't offstage but definitely onstage yet behind the piano -- and who still plays piano for Queen to this very day.
Of course, there's more that Fil could have mentioned -- like Roger Taylor's drums that cue Freddie for "Hammer to Fall" after the back-and-forth with the crowd to stay within their time allotted. Freddie would usually say "eff you" to the crowd when they managed to (mostly) match his chants sound-for-sound, but he was told to keep it clean for television so ended the chanting at Live Aid with, "Alright!" instead of "eff you."
So, to recap: Fun to watch, thanks EM, and I will give Fil an "E" for effort. Heh. ;)
Michale
11
Guns don't kill people.. People with mental health problems kill people..
So the Idaho toddler who killed his mother was mentally ill? Rhetorical question.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/index.html
Allow me to explain something (obvious). All the mentally ill people in the world could throw (really fast) thousands of bullets in a grocery store, a place of worship, or a school and not kill a single person (all day long). Technically speaking, it isn't the gun that kills you or the alleged "mentally ill" person firing it, it's the ammunition that pierces your flesh and bone that kills you. Of course, the ammunition can't exactly pierce your flesh and/or bone without the gun; no matter how fast you throw it.
If guns didn't kill and/or maim people, there wouldn't be a single person who definitely needed one in order to defend himself, his property, or his country... unless he wished to prove he was mentally ill, right? Heh.
Which reminds me that you personally have also admitted to killing people on multiple occasions in the comments section of this blog... so according to your newest own "Mike Metric," you're now confessing to mental illness? Honest question.
Until Democrats realize this one factual statement, they will **ALWAYS** be on the losing end of this issue..
Okay, okay then... you've definitely successfully made your point multiple times now. I wonder if there are any Democrats here in the comments section who agree with your "one factual statement" that defines even yourself as a person "with mental health problems"?
Speak up, people. :D
Kick,
Sorry I asked.
I thought you like Freddy.
Oh, well, and to recap ... nevermind.
;)
One know-it-all around here is more than enough. Heh.
It takes me a while to get it, sometmes ... but, I catch on, eventually. The memory ain't what it used to be and so I forget, when people aren't here all the time to remind me, how mean-spirited they can tend to be... :(
Kick,
Yer back!!! :D
Thanx for your input!! It's so much appreciated..
WOW.. Way to get pedantic..
Of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an accidental shooting and an intentional murder of 21, right?? :D
I love your pedantic-ness.. It's so... so.. YOU.. :D Don't ever change, my friend.. :D
Okay, okay then... you've definitely successfully made your point multiple times now.
Thanx.. I really appreciate your concession on this point.. It really makes my heart sing to know you acknowledge the factual nature of my comments. :D
Weigantians, you can take a lesson from the lovely Kick... :D
Thanx again for your comments, Kick.. It's always nice to have you back.. :D
Liz,
The memory ain't what it used to be and so I forget, when people aren't here all the time to remind me, how mean-spirited they can tend to be... :(
Awww, don't let Kick get ya done.. I am sure she meant nothing by it.. :D
You always have me.. :D
Which reminds me that you personally have also admitted to killing people on multiple occasions in the comments section of this blog...
Yes I have.. On many occasions..
I never thought I would have to explain this to someone of your intelligence, but I guess you are having a lapse..
A person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill..
But not all people who kill multiple people are mentally ill.. Combat soldiers (of which I am one) is an example of a person who can kill multiple people and not be mentally ill..
Simply because a person kills does not make them mentally ill.. I stand as an example of this..
But that fact doesn't negate the fact that those who commit mass murder in the context of Crowd Base Mass Shootings ARE mentally ill, by definition..
As I said, I am somewhat surprised I have to explain the distinction to you..
But, given you have never worn the uniform of the United States Armed Forces, your ignorance is somewhat understandable..
But once again.. Thanx so much for allowing me to educate you... It's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you... :D
RAZE AND REBUILD
President Biden considering demolishing Texas elementary school after deadly massacre
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/uvalde-texas-school-shooting
I may be wrong here, but I don't think Biden's handlers have the authority to make that decision..
It's not their call to make..
And this going after the cops for their response is so... so.. DEMOCRAT...
Yes, the on scene commander made a bad call..
But in all the hysterical finger pointing from Democrats, not one of them considered WHY the OSC made the call..
If he did it for legitimate reasons and just turned out to be wrong, that is one thing..
On the other hand, this IS a School District PD... It's not outside the realm of possibility that the department is rife with Democrat-Think.. Which would explain the shitty decision-making..
It all hinges on WHY the OSC made the decision he made..
Awww, don't let Kick get ya done..
That, of course, should read:
Awww, don't let Kick get ya DOWN..
My bust...
So, to recap..
The SCOTUS has determined that the US Constitution explicitly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That the 'Militia' aspect mentioned in the 2nd is simply prefatory, which means in this context as providing an example of WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Once Democrats can regain the majority in the SCOTUS, they will have an opportunity to change that..
Until then, suck it up...
Further, crowd based mass shootings and school shootings of this nature, the defining culprit is MENTAL ILLNESS.. Not guns..
The majority of CBMSs are done with handguns, not rifles.. "Assault Rifle" is a media/political creation that has nothing to do with actual firearm nomenclature. It's the media/Democrats' attempt to make rifles sound "scary" and thereby invoking more emotionalism into the issue...
Emotionalism is the enemy of clear and rational thought...
Finally, Democrats are simply using a CBSM or School Shooting to further their own hysterical anti-gun agenda. This is supported by the FACT that multiple people get shot in Chicago or New York City or LA in any given week and Democrats are silent on the issue..
Democrats are always in NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE mode with these shootings and don't really care about the kids being killed... I have 63 MILLION facts to prove that THAT is factually accurate...
Friday Talking Points -- This Is Shameful
What??
That Democrats are always in NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE mode with these shootings and don't really care about the kids being killed...
Yes, I agree.. It's shameful...
Facts and logic overcomes hysterical fear mongering every time..
Democrats need to get off their useless and irrelevant hysterical anti gun kick and address the problem with FACTS and logic...
Hay Bashi,
I have an opportunity to get another Oculus Quest 2..
Would I be able to share a VR setting/game with another person??
Like maybe a tennis game or something like that with another player??
Someone here once said that if one REALLY wants to get a good assessment of a coming election...
Look at the betting markets..
Trump at ‘all-time high’ in 2024 betting, swamps Biden
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/trump-at-all-time-high-in-2024-betting-swamps-biden
Biden's toast...
And no amount of cheating or fraud will save him..
Michale
44
Again, NOT factually accurate...
At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, automatic firearms existed..
There are a plethora of seriously misinformed right-wing gun nuts trying to pass off a manually operated flintlock revolver as some kind of "automatic firearm." It isn't and wasn't. Anyone wanting to learn about that actual patent and flintlock and how it shot round bullets for Christians and square bullets for Muslims, be my guest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC7KiYDshw
Furthermore, anyone who claims that automatic firearms existed before the invention of centerfire cartridges with solid-drawn metallic cases containing their own means of ignition is someone who belongs in the category of seriously misinformed... somebody comparing a safety match to a blowtorch.
And you could own a CANNON at the time as well..
At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, 1791, there was absolutely nothing that prevented the United States government or any state from regulating arms. Sir William Blackstone (born 1723, died 1780) expressly stated this very principle in his Commentaries, and none other than Justice Antonin Scalia noted Blackstone in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller:
*
So, let's dispense with the non-factual hysterical BS, eh?
It really is "hysterical BS" to hear the right-wingnut gun nuts that keep inferring that because there was no law against a particular firearm (including a cannon) in the past that it therefore established a right to own a particular firearm (including a cannon) circa the 1790s. It most certainly did not, and that's actually laughable on its face. If everybody started dragging around cannons circa that time period, who here actually believes a law couldn't have been written by the state or federal government that outlawed all that cannon dragging? Duh. A law wasn't written outlawing it at that time because people weren't dragging around cannons. Some of this is common sense and a simple matter of connecting dots and reading the Heller decision that the gun nuts claim gives them rights that aren't actually bestowed... and quite the contrary, in fact.
There are no unlimited rights. Full stop. It's asinine and laughable on its face to claim that a right magically existed in 1791 merely because there was no law against it. Had a law been necessary, you can bet your cannon balls there'd have been one. :)
Kick-
Thanks for your rebuttal of the ridiculous attempt to describe the Puckle gun as a Colonial-era automatic weapon. It was not only a flintlock it fired at a rate of around 8-9 rounds a minute. It was never manufactured and only a couple of prototypes were ever made.
Your other observation about the need for a self-contained cartridge is also correct though early Gatling guns used paper casings. The Gatling was introduced during the Civil War but was not technically automatic because it used a hand crank. The Maxim gun was the first true automatic weapon to appear on the battlefield and was patented in 1883.
The trollish attempt to mislead is typical and akin to showing Da Vinci's early drawings of tanks and helicopters when it took 400 years for them to actually be created.
Keep up the good work.
Elizabeth Miller
186
Kick,
Sorry I asked.
I guess me proving that I actually watched it, understood it, and appreciated it got lost in there, eh Canada?
I thought you like Freddy.
Who is Freddy? Freddie Mercury was a genius; I adore him... warts and all... but Fil referring to Freddie as a pianist who "played guitar" -- I'm just saying -- is quite a stretch.
So, to recap:
(1) Freddie was no Eddie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkhteMQwjpQ
(2) You still can't tell when I'm teasing around!?
;)
^^ Okay, maybe you can.
Elizabeth Miller
188
It takes me a while to get it, sometmes ... but, I catch on, eventually. The memory ain't what it used to be and so I forget, when people aren't here all the time to remind me, how mean-spirited they can tend to be... :(
If you believe you've caught on to me being mean-spirited, then you haven't caught on even the tiniest bit. I said nothing meant to be mean spirited toward you or anyone else. Thought provoking? Yes. Mean spirited? Nope! :)
Kick,
What an awesome response!!! Thank you SOOOO much for sharing it..
There are no unlimited rights.
That was a helluva rebuttal to an argument that NO ONE is making.. But you gave it your all.. So awesome!! :D
"So knarly"
-Seaplane McDonough, JUMANJI WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.
The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..
Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..
But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D
Thanx for your response..
And again.. Welcome back!! :D
Steedo,
The trollish attempt to mislead is typical and akin to showing Da Vinci's early drawings of tanks and helicopters when it took 400 years for them to actually be created.
What the Weigantian Administration was arguing was that the authors of the 2nd had NO IDEA about automatic weapons..
This is factually FALSE, as I have proven beyond any doubt..
Your trollish attempts to actually make an argument are moot..
The 2nd HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms..
The SCOTUS has established this..
So your weak and feeble arguments are completely irrelevant..
You lose.. AGAIN.. :D
But hay.. Like Kick, you gave it a valiant, albeit futile try.. :D
Don't be too discouraged that you always concede my facts with your silence.. :D
Biden says US won’t send Ukraine rocket systems that can reach Russia
There had been concerns that sending system to Ukraine could be seen as escalatory by Russia
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-us-ukraine-rocket-systems-reach-russia
Once again, Biden's handlers give the finger to Ukraine whilst dropping to their knees and fellating Putin...
How do you like your Biden now, MC???
And Biden's Handlers fell all over themselves to comply with the Russia Ambassador's demand..
:eyeroll:
Michale
189
Yer back!!! :D
I'm back to responding; I never left from reading because I am never not here. I laugh a lot about some of the ridiculous drivel I see posted on here coming almost entirely from the right-wing misinformation propaganda wing of Weigantia and Don Harris's sad attempts to change the subject to... Don Harris's sad attempts. Heh.
I am never not here. :)
Love you, Russ!
Thanx for your input!! It's so much appreciated..
And a Merry Xmas to you too.
WOW.. Way to get pedantic..
The devil's in the details, you know, and it wasn't me who made the ridiculous statement; I just quoted it and proved how totally nonfactual it was and still is.
Of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an accidental shooting and an intentional murder of 21, right?? :D
So you concede the point; good for you! Because otherwise you'd be claiming that American soldiers were mentally ill for their intentional multiple murders and that you were mentally ill yourself.
I love your pedantic-ness.. It's so... so.. YOU.. :D Don't ever change, my friend.. :D
You needn't ask.
Thanx.. I really appreciate your concession on this point..
My actual point was that the Mike Metric you presented (that I quoted) defined yourself as mentally ill multiple times in the same comment. I am not at all constrained to point out that you thanking me for pointing out that you defined yourself as mentally ill multiple times has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to disprove my point... on the contrary, you seem eager to add more proof of my point to the evidence pile you've built for yourself.
It really makes my heart sing to know you acknowledge the factual nature of my comments. :D
If you believe I made your "heart sing," I'd say we're at the "case closed" stage regarding the substance of my actual point. Heh.
Weigantians, you can take a lesson from the lovely Kick... :D
You hear that, Weigantians? I am definitely lovely, and Mike is finally correct... even if it did fly right over his head as to why he is this time... bless his singing little heart! :D
Yes, I tease, but the claim that mass shooters are always mentally ill is ridiculous on its face. Some of them are definitely hateful scumbags who know exactly why they are committing/attempting to commit mass shootings.
If Michale had a memory like mine and others on this blog, he would naturally possess the 20/20 hindsight to not come along in 2022 and refute his own arguments from the past and thereby and therefore and thusly refute himself from 2016. It was in 2016 that Mike insisted it was Islamic terrorism that caused the mass killings back then, and if I recall correctly (and I usually do), Mike blamed Barack Obama for not calling the guy who killed 49 people a terrorist for causing their deaths. No mention of mental illness of the terrorist, though, at least not by Mike, just a lot of blaming Obama for not calling a terrorist a terrorist.
So, to recap: We here in Weigantia already know -- even if Mike can't remember it -- that he emphatically believes that mass shooters can definitely be scumbag terrorists so it's rather pointless and a waste of Mike's time to now rely heavily on the mental illness factor and insist that "a person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill." It's not only pointless, it's laughable on its face since this blog is archived.
*
That about sums it up perfectly, Chris. Pay attention, Mike, Chris is making your terrorist argument from 2016. :)
I'm back to responding; I never left from reading because I am never not here.
Oh I am sure you actually believe that.. :D
Facts say otherwise.. :D
Yes, I tease, but the claim that mass shooters are always mentally ill is ridiculous on its face.
And that pedantic-ness shines thru again!! :D
I love it..
Mass MURDERERS are always mentally ill..
I understand that you have never served in uniform in the US Armed Forces, so I should have realized I needed to make that distinction for you..
Last week, America experienced a racist extremist shooting up a grocery store, in an effort to kill as many Black people as he could.
And black shooters have tried to kill as many WHITE people as they could..
So, what EXACTLY is your point, Kick??
But thanx for your response.. It is VERY much appreciated..
And welcome back!! :D
It's always good to see you.. :D
And black shooters have tried to kill as many WHITE people as they could..
And black shooters have tried to kill as many COPS as they could...
So, really.. What is your point, Kick??
"Perhaps he doesn't trust Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in using the systems judiciously because Zelenskyy has been very clear that he doesn't want to cede any land to Russia, he doesn't want to compromise at all, and he even wants to take Crimea back, which is pretty unlikely. And probably the concern is that Ukraine might misuse it, causing uncontrollable escalation and would potentially drag the United States into the conflict and would potentially trigger Russian cyberattacks on the U.S. homeland in order to deter us, and things can just go out of control pretty quickly."
-Russia Expert Rebekah Koffler
So, Biden's Handlers don't trust Zelensky..
Hmmm Interesting..
MC, yer POTUS pick seems to be falling down on the job here...
Kick??? Did you disappear again!!?? Say it ain't so!!! :D
I miss my lil' buddy...
I mean, since you claim yer "ALWAYS HERE", Kick, I have to wonder why you are afraid to respond... :D
I understand, though.. It's hard to get such a beat down on the facts..
I'll try and go easy on you.. :D
Awwww.. :(
I guess I scared Kick away..
Bummer dood..
Oh, Kick, Kick ...
...he mentioned that Freddie "could play guitar"... but seriously, Freddie wasn't so much a guitar player but a piano player frenetically playing a limited number of chords using only downstrokes ... so not an accomplished guitar player by any stretch of the musical imagination.
Well, Freddie "could play guitar". Not a focus of Fil's analysis, at all. So ... nit-picky analysis on your part.
Fil also mentions while Freddie plays guitar a piano can be heard and "somebody playing just offstage"... but that somebody was the fabulous Spike Edney -- who wasn't offstage but definitely onstage yet behind the piano -- and who still plays piano for Queen to this very day.
Yeah? Well, Fil's focus is on Queen, not the background, which is where the piano player was. More nit-picking!
Of course, there's more that Fil could have mentioned -- like Roger Taylor's drums that cue Freddie for "Hammer to Fall" after the back-and-forth with the crowd to stay within their time allotted
Actually, Fil spent a lot of time on this. Because, it was kinda the whole point of this particular video analysis. Are you sure you watched it? ;)
I will give Fil an "E" for effort. Heh. ;)
Right. I will admit that I am partial to Fil's analyses, generally speaking, and so your nit-picking and otherwise baseless critique hit a nerve. I'm sensitive, that way.
So, to Recap ... this analysis video which focused on why and how Queen's performance at Live Aid 1985 was so good was meant to be enjoyed and soaked in, not critiqued with pedantic fault-finding. Ahem.
i doubt it :)
whoops i meant that for m[217].
sorry liz.
JL,
hehehehe
So, how did ya like it??
Better, eh?? :D
still haven't managed to get a moment to myself to see it! there are days when i get more rest at work than at home...
Hehehe... How well I know that!! :D
Jes lemme know..
Further, ANYONE who supports 63 MILLION babies being killed has NO MORAL AUTHORITY to talk when 19 children are killed..
As someone who has said that they support abortion with restrictions, should we expect that you will take your own advice and shut the fuk up!?!? Of course not!
An automatic rifle at the time of the US Constitution.
By that thinking, we’ve had helicopters since the 1500’s. Concepts and prototypes do not mean the item is available to the masses. There is nothing that indicates Madison knew of the “weapon” when penning the 2nd.
And just because Heller says the militia lines at the beginning of the 2nd are “explanatory” (which is strange for you to say militias cannot be required since that is exactly the example that is given) that doesn’t mean that there cannot be armories in communities where guns must be stored.
Also, a national gun registry does not mean the government is going to come for your guns…unless you have reason why you should not be armed. The only way we can hope to stop those with mental illnesses from committing these mass shootings is if we know that they have the guns. If you are so worried, maybe that is a sign of your mental illness making you paranoid?
Kick!
Love you, sweet friend! Thank you.
- Russ
Michale
191
Yes I have.. On many occasions..
Point conceded by Mike. Good form.
I never thought I would have to explain this to someone of your intelligence, but I guess you are having a lapse..
Based on your prior posts regarding scumbags and terrorists, I will assume you are gazing into a mirror here... also because "a lapse" isn't something I generally have... whereas there are several such instances archived herein on your part. Heh.
A person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill..
Or a paid mercenary, officer/enlisted soldier, religious bigot, scumbag terrorist, or any number of other things not indicative whatsoever of being necessarily mentally ill.
But not all people who kill multiple people are mentally ill..
You should really pick a lane unless you enjoy the state of appearing to speak out of both sides of your ass. :D
Simply because a person kills does not make them mentally ill.. I stand as an example of this..
Heh. I reiterate my "both-sides-of-ass comment" above.
But that fact doesn't negate the fact that those who commit mass murder in the context of Crowd Base Mass Shootings ARE mentally ill, by definition..
Whose definition? Your definition!? Both sides... ass!
As I said, I am somewhat surprised I have to explain the distinction to you..
You haven't made a distinction between "people" and "people" yet... but rather keep claiming people who kill multiple other people are by definition mentally ill.
Some of them are just extremists, terrorists, or all manner of things that aren't indicative of mental illness at all.
But, given you have never worn the uniform of the United States Armed Forces, your ignorance is somewhat understandable..
I deduce that I'm dealing (again) with yet another unintelligent dipshit halfwit so-called soldier who claims to have worn "the uniform of the United States Armed Forces." I got some really bad news to inform your ignorance, that no such "uniform of the United States Armed Forces" exists. While I concede that there are indeed multiple unforms of various different military branches of the United States, there definitely is NOT a "uniform of the United States Armed Forces."
Also, I am not at all constrained to point out that any dipshit halfwit can buy one of the various assorted uniforms of one of the multiple different branches of the United States Armed Forces and wear that shit every day and 24/7/365 and that doesn't mean anything other than he/she has shitty taste in wearing apparel!
Most of that shit sucks, but I loved my IPFUs and still do. :)
Please continue to spew absolute bullshit and falsehoods about something and someone you know nothing about; it's actually the reason you're seen as a fabricator who prattles on and on out of both sides of his ass and the primary reason no one here is likely to ever take your drivel and spew seriously. :)
But once again.. Thanx so much for allowing me to educate you... It's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you... :D
Anytime I need an education in fabrication and prattling on and on about absolute certifiable right-wing propaganda, talking points, bullshit, drivel and invented spew, I definitely know which comments to read: Michale. :D
...Kumbaya, my Lord,
Kumbaya...
Elizabeth Miller
218
Well, Freddie "could play guitar". Not a focus of Fil's analysis, at all. So ... nit-picky analysis on your part.
You must have missed (or forgot) the part where Fil stops the recording to focus on the fact that Freddie's guitar was (according to Fil) at a lower limit and Fil assumes it's a volume issue and then further assumes/guesses that Freddie turns around in order to cue Roger and the other band members he's playing the guitar. I just disagree with Fil here since Queen had been playing that song live in concert for about 5-going-on-6 years by the time of Live Aid in 1985 and could do that thing in their sleep. I will say that if Fil is correct and Freddie turning around had anything whatsoever to do with a cue, it was likely Freddie needing a tempo cue from Roger and not other members needing a cue from Freddie. Freddie's part is a few chords and all the usual frenetic downstroking. But it works great for that song.
Yeah? Well, Fil's focus is on Queen, not the background, which is where the piano player was. More nit-picking!
You must have missed the part where Fil specifically mentions there was a piano player offstage and how great that it was for Queen to have "somebody" playing offstage. Fil was just wholly incorrect that Spike Edney was offstage. You can see Spike at 32:22 of the link you actually posted. If Fil is going to purport to give expert commentary regarding Queen and what make them so great, it would behoove him to learn who Spike Edney is because Spike is freaking awesome:
Freddie and Spike Edney
Freddie would stop playing guitar altogether on stage and go over to Spike and blindfold him and just let the guitar hang around his neck doing absolutely nothing. However did those guys play without Freddie's guitar cues? Easily and often.
Actually, Fil spent a lot of time on this. Because, it was kinda the whole point of this particular video analysis. Are you sure you watched it? ;)
Heh. Yes, Spunky, I'm quite sure I watched it. Say that I did want to prove to you that I took it seriously and did watch it, how exactly would I go about proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I could definitely blow smoke up your ass and tell you how great Fil did and not even watch the dang video at all... or I could give you my honest assessment and stick it to Fil when he deserved it. Mind you, I went easy on Fil too, you know. ;)
So, yes, I'm absolutely sure he missed Roger's drum cue because he said not even a single syllable word about it. An right honorable and thoroughly enjoyable video on the whole of it, though, I would definitely say.
Now, as for Bohemian Catsody, I have laughed my ass off about that thing for quite a while now. I still can't watch it without laughing... the wet kind of laughter where multiple senses are involved. I loved it; thank you for posting it. Cat videos get me every time.
Although, I will say, I can't for the life of me figure out why two of the cats seemed placed incorrectly. I just kept wanting to have the dark-haired cat at the top of the screen to trade places with the brown-haired cat... The other two cats were obviously cast perfectly., though.
You think I'm kidding? See if you don't just want to grab the dark-haired cat and the cat who's singing and switch them round:
Bohemian Catsody
See there; I told you! ;)
[229]
Yessiree, we have a KEEPER!
Reminds me of my rollercoaster of emotions when I got my very first dog, after years of being abused by cats. Never never never going back!
[229]
Naw, dark haired cat was clearly providing the bottom (the Bass, er, voice) and did fine.
I really dug the harmonies myself, but Simon and Garfunkel have always been my Number One, so it figures.
I still like the muppets' version better
Steedo
204
Somebody has to inform the seriously misinformed, wouldn't you say? I cannot fathom why anyone would post a link to a patent for the Puckle gun (with the date 1718 clearly written on its face) and then make the laughable claim that it was, and I quote: "An automatic rifle at the time of the US Constitution."
In point of fact:
(1) It wasn't automatic.
(2) It wasn't a rifle.
(3) The patent obviously predated the ratification of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the Second Amendment to the Constitution by near three quarters of a century and the not automatic not rifle primarily existed only on paper and a few prototypes.
It's not as if it didn't have a shit-ton of decades to get distributed. It isn't remotely as it's been described repeatedly by Michale... no surprise there.
I didn't forget about your question regarding the Cuellar and Cisneros race. Unfortunately, I phoned my (Republican) friend to pick his brain, and he said he didn't have a clue which way that would go but was (obviously) hoping for a Cisneros victory because (he thought) she'd be easier for Republicans to defeat.
The latest count I saw was only 177 votes difference with Cuellar leading and counting (hopefully) to resume after the holiday. A real nail-biter in TX-28. :)
Kick,
In future, I trust you will try to be nicer to Fil.
:-)
Michale
207
What an awesome response!!! Thank you SOOOO much for sharing it..
You're wasting your time and mine with this prattling repetitive obsequious drivel.
That was a helluva rebuttal to an argument that NO ONE is making.. But you gave it your all.. So awesome!! :D
If you're under the mistaken impression that that response was my "all," then you really haven't got a clue about either the history of firearms and damn sure have proven you'll just make up bullshit about others. In fact, you seem totally bereft of any gray matter if you can't recognize a rebuttal to your asinine claim, and I quote: "And you could own a CANNON at the time as well.." That's a statement that is directly refuted by Justice Scalia in Heller. If the relevance to your ridiculous claim managed to sail right over your head, I would wager it surprises no one on this forum.
"So knarly"
-Seaplane McDonough, JUMANJI WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
Gnarly isn't exactly spelled with a "k," but you gave it your all and sucked at simple English words. Heh. :D
But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.
As if you actually could post anything to prove that Madison and those who wrote the 2nd Amendment could envision "today's weapons" circa 2022! Talk about a bullshit claimAs if that stupid Pucle gun patent from 1718 could somehow prove that!could somehow provewas some kind of et alia what weapons Madison et alia had a clue about circa the 1790s!
Chris did NOT make that claim anywhere above (or below or inside) the comments section. Also, he prefaced his opinions regarding gun safety/gun control under the heading: "How Democrats should talk about gun safety laws which is (obviously) under the "Friday Talking Points" heading.
I will assume you understand what "Friday" means, and I will make myself available to explain other simple concepts like "Talking Points" to people of your ilk who are obviously confused about simple English words.
The craziest part that defies the existence of common sense being in any way involved in your "thinking" is your repeated ridiculous assertions that the patent you posted for the Puckle gun (which you posted a link at [86] for Russ as if it constitutes proof that automatic weapons existed the Framers of the Constitution from 230 years ago were were and keep insisting is some kind of proof that the authors of the Second Amendment were somdid have a clue about today's weapons? You've lost your mind if you believe that the patent of the NOT automatic NOT a rifle is proof nd you're basing it on that glorified They had no clue whatsoever about today's weapons, but you're certifiably stone cold crazy if you're
The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..
Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..
But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D
Thanx for your response..
And again.. Welcome back!! :D
^^^ EDIT ^^^
Not sure how that posted before I finished the response so I'm cleaning it up below.
__________________________
But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.
As if you actually could post anything to prove that Madison and those who wrote the 2nd Amendment could envision "today's weapons" circa 2022! "Today's weapons" covers a lot of territory, you know. Talk about a bullshit claim! As if that stupid Pucle gun patent from 1718 could somehow prove what Madison et alia knew. It's laughable on its face.
Also, Chris did NOT make that claim anywhere above (or below or inside) the comments section. Also, he prefaced his opinions regarding gun safety/gun control under the heading: "How Democrats should talk about gun safety laws which is (obviously) under the "Friday Talking Points" heading.
I will assume you understand what "Friday" means, and I will make myself available to explain other simple concepts like "Talking Points" to people of your ilk who are obviously confused about simple English words.
The craziest part that defies the existence of common sense being in any way involved in your "thinking" is your repeated ridiculous assertions that the patent you posted for the failed Puckle gun (which you posted a link at [86] for Russ) is proof that automatic weapons existed! It isn't automatic and isn't a rifle. It's a dang rotating flintlock that had to be operated manually!
The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..
That freaking rotating flintlock failed disaster is no more proof of "today's weapons" than Da Vinci's drawings of a flying machine are proof of today's B-2 Spirit.
Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..
The idea that words that are literally written into the Second Amendment had anything to do with regulations at the time of the Second Amendment is ludicrous!? Are you seriously this damn clueless?
*
Your ignorance is on full display and archived.
You making the asinine claim that the words that are literally included in the Second Amendment had nothing to do with laws at the time of the Second Amendment is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on this forum! You need your nose rubbed in this!
But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D
And you don't know what a staw man argument is! It's like you're quite content to keep displaying your ignorance with every response.
So, to recap:
(1) A talking point is a "talking point."
(2) It's effing moronic to claim that "well regulated" had nothing to do with laws at the time of the Second Amendment when the damn words are literally included in the Second Amendment!
MtnCaddy
Naw, dark haired cat was clearly providing the bottom (the Bass, er, voice) and did fine.
My point was that it was a spoof of Queen's iconic BoRap video and the dark-haired cat should have been the lead singer who occupied the bottom slot... just switch those two cats around and it would have been dead-on accurate. Otherwise, it was perfect. I loved it.
Full disclosure: Elizabeth Miller was the first to show me this, but since she did, I've also had a load of others also send it, knowing all to well that I would love it, and I watch it every single time and laugh my ass off. But I can't stop wanting to "transpose" those two cats!
I really dug the harmonies myself, but Simon and Garfunkel have always been my Number One, so it figures.
I've got something for you, dearest:
https://twitter.com/Jess_deladono/status/1378503025506009091/photo/1
nypoet22
I still like the muppets' version better
That one is awesome too. :)
Elizabeth Miller
In future, I trust you will try to be nicer to Fil.
Nicer to Fil!? Heh. Fil is awesome; he can handle the truth. :)
As he said, the video would have been hours longer if he mentioned EVERYTHING!
Yeah, I think he's pretty awesome, too. :)