If the SC overturns Roe.. we'll see the full scope and scale of leftist destruction and violence.

[ObamacareForever]

Don't know. Why don't you give me the lowdown

Senate candidate/domestic abuser/all around scumbag makes a video threatening gun violence against RINO's.
Red-flag this nutter and take away his guns.

 

[PhilFish]

Senate candidate/domestic abuser/all around scumbag makes a video threatening gun violence against RINO's.
Red-flag this nutter and take away his guns.

That does seem odd. I would be for prohibiting his access to guns until it is determined that he is mentally stable. Good luck with it

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes. Are we agreed that guns that are sitting inert are not of their own accord slaughtering people?

I already answered that rhetorical question above.

Meanwhile, the illegally stacked SCOTUS flung the door open today to much more gun carnage.

 

[PhilFish]

I already answered that rhetorical question above.

Meanwhile, the illegally stacked SCOTUS flung the door open today to much more gun carnage.

I'm not understanding your line of reasoning. There is no door flung open to an increase in gun Carnage conducted by inert guns.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That does seem odd. I would be for prohibiting his access to guns until it is determined that he is mentally stable. Good luck with it

Mental stability is sometimes a transitory thing. It's there for a moment, then it's gone, then it's back, then it's gone.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

I'm not understanding your line of reasoning. There is no door flung open to an increase in gun Carnage conducted by inert guns.

Of course not. The increased gun carnage will be caused by the people using them for the purpose for which they were designed - slaughtering people.

 

[PhilFish]

Mental stability is sometimes a transitory thing. It's there for a moment, then it's gone, then it's back, then it's gone.

That's great. Such people with transitory freakouts need not have guns

 

[PhilFish]

Of course not. The increased gun carnage will be caused by the people using them for the purpose for which they were designed - slaughtering people.

Yes. So I'm still not sure that we agreed. We should work on addressing those people who cause gun Carnage... yes?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes. So I'm still not sure that we agreed. We should work on addressing those people who cause gun Carnage... yes?

Of course. Along with controlling the sale of guns so there is less gun carnage. And I’m sure you agree that we usually cannot identify in advance those who cause gun carnage. We find out afterward, when people have been slaughtered.

 

[PhilFish]

Of course. Along with controlling the sale of guns so there is less gun carnage. And I’m sure you agree that we usually cannot identify in advance those who cause gun carnage. We find out afterward, when people have been slaughtered.

That's why it's such a complicated thing. At its core however I'm glad that we are agreed, in that guns themselves are entirely inanimate and it's the people that we need to address. So we'll have to figure out a way to restrict the crazy evil people among us from their access to guns. I'm all for that. But I'm not for a demonizing inanimate things that are by their nature unable to do a thing without external influence.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

That's why it's such a complicated thing. At its core however I'm glad that we are agreed, in that guns themselves are entirely inanimate and it's the people that we need to address. So we'll have to figure out a way to restrict the crazy evil people among us from their access to guns. I'm all for that. But I'm not for a demonizing inanimate things that are by their nature unable to do a thing without external influence.

We agree as to the crazy people. We seem to disagree when it comes to gun control measures. We don’t make products designed to kill people freely available simply because they are inanimate. Except for guns.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That's why it's such a complicated thing. At its core however I'm glad that we are agreed, in that guns themselves are entirely inanimate and it's the people that we need to address. So we'll have to figure out a way to restrict the crazy evil people among us from their access to guns. I'm all for that. But I'm not for a demonizing inanimate things that are by their nature unable to do a thing without external influence.

You need to lessen the damage crazy people can do, but denying the 2nd amendment to crazy people.

 

[PhilFish]

We agree as to the crazy people. We seem to disagree when it comes to gun control measures. We don’t make products designed to kill people freely available simply because they are inanimate. Except for guns.

No, I think again you are a misunderstanding. I think at times deliberately so because you seem to want to cast me in with the GOP over and over again. I am entirely for gun control measures, in other words screening, background checks, restrictions for crazy people and so on. But I see there at the end you went back to your falsehoods, namely pretending the guns are freely available. Guns are not freely available. Perhaps the validation and background check processes are a little too LAX and can be stricter. But they're not simply freely available. That is false

 

[PhilFish]

You need to lessen the damage crazy people can do, but denying the 2nd amendment to crazy people.

Yes. We need to double down our efforts to identify crazy people and restrict their access to guns.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

No, I think again you are a misunderstanding. I think at times deliberately so because you seem to want to cast me in with the GOP over and over again. I am entirely for gun control measures, in other words screening, background checks, restrictions for crazy people and so on. But I see there at the end you went back to your falsehoods, namely pretending the guns are freely available. Guns are not freely available. Perhaps the validation and background check processes are a little too LAX and can be stricter. But they're not simply freely available. That is false

You should resist the urge to “rewrite” what I say.

On the plus side, I’m glad to see you on the side of those who want to more intensively control the sale of guns.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Yes. We need to double down our efforts to identify crazy people and restrict their access to guns.

Pretty sure crazy people have 2nd amendment rights too.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Yes. We need to double down our efforts to identify crazy people and restrict their access to guns.

How about people who are not crazy, but who are apt to use guns to slaughter people?

Is that in the “tough noogies” category?

 

[as seen on tv]

Time will tell..

"Buy on rumor. Sell on fact". This is a well known investment aphorism. But i doubt its from buffet.

In the case of the roe rumors, it seems unlikely that anyone will be surprised when the announcement is made.

Additional violent threats against SCOTUS justices could make democrats' midterm results even worse, by validating the party of law and order in the minds of centrists.

Spree shootings tend to be triggered by mental illness, not legal opinions.

 

[PhilFish]

You should resist the urge to “rewrite” what I say.

On the plus side, I’m glad to see you on the side of those who want to more intensively control the sale of guns.

I'm not rewriting what you say I'm trying to decipher it. Struggling I'll admit cuz you're really hard to understand the times. I have always been on the side of intensive control of the sale of guns. Have a good one

 

[PhilFish]

Pretty sure crazy people have 2nd amendment rights too.

This has become circular again. What do we do about it?