Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:54 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:21 pm
you’re absolutely right

so, in what sane world would you want to allow such people unfettered access to assault style weapons?

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

Like I’ve said, you very obviously think that the present level of gun violence (at least!) is a completely acceptable price to pay for your freedom to play with loud and scary toys.

I think that’s a pretty sick outlook.

randy is yet to see his best friend or family member with bullet holes in their head and torso - like I did - and literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have.
I promise if/when he does, his tune will change.
What randy doesn't realize (or doesn't give a shit about - which would make him a complete asshole) is that EVERY SINGLE INNOCENT person shot by someone WITH A GUN could have been avoided if someone didn't have a gun and didn't pull the trigger.

Jfish you are ignorant as fuck for thinking that. I would love to reduce gun violence. But im not willing to begin restricting our second amendment rights to achieve that.

We have owned guns for centuries, but gun violence has spiked only recently. Which makes it obvious there is more going on than just guns, the guns has always been there

No level of gun violence is acceptable. But no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:21 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:05 am

People that feel the need to commit acts of violence on innocent strangers have mental health problems

you’re absolutely right

so, in what sane world would you want to allow such people unfettered access to assault style weapons?

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

some 70% of Americans want stricter gun laws

spare me 99.9% bs

and again, you’ve yet to justify the kinds of firearms we have today as being included under the 2nd amendment. you conveniently dodge the “well-regulated” portion of that language, and you’ve never given any opinion on where any line should be drawn for what kind of weapons might be acceptable

it seems you’re incapable of any good-faith discussion…because ultimately you are indeed ok with the level of gun violence (and more) that we see today. gtfo and go play GI Joe dress-up

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:24 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:54 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

Like I’ve said, you very obviously think that the present level of gun violence (at least!) is a completely acceptable price to pay for your freedom to play with loud and scary toys.

I think that’s a pretty sick outlook.

randy is yet to see his best friend or family member with bullet holes in their head and torso - like I did - and literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have.
I promise if/when he does, his tune will change.
What randy doesn't realize (or doesn't give a shit about - which would make him a complete asshole) is that EVERY SINGLE INNOCENT person shot by someone WITH A GUN could have been avoided if someone didn't have a gun and didn't pull the trigger.

So many parts of this aren't true. First of all I've had a family member get shot. They survived fortunately, but did flatline twice in the back of an ambulance. Luckily they were able to be revived though.

They were shot by a convicted felon who had lost their gunrights already and possessed an illegally owned unregistered firearm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:42 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:21 pm
you’re absolutely right

so, in what sane world would you want to allow such people unfettered access to assault style weapons?

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

some 70% of Americans want stricter gun laws

spare me 99.9% bs

and again, you’ve yet to justify the kinds of firearms we have today as being included under the 2nd amendment. you conveniently dodge the “well-regulated” portion of that language, and you’ve never given any opinion on where any line should be drawn for what kind of weapons might be acceptable

it seems you’re incapable of any good-faith discussion…because ultimately you are indeed ok with the level of gun violence (and more) that we see today. gtfo and go play GI Joe dress-up

Ignorant. I'm not ok with gun violence. I just know infringing on what kinds of guns law abiding citizens can own will not change this

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:44 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:24 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:54 pm

Like I’ve said, you very obviously think that the present level of gun violence (at least!) is a completely acceptable price to pay for your freedom to play with loud and scary toys.

I think that’s a pretty sick outlook.

randy is yet to see his best friend or family member with bullet holes in their head and torso - like I did - and literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have.
I promise if/when he does, his tune will change.
What randy doesn't realize (or doesn't give a shit about - which would make him a complete asshole) is that EVERY SINGLE INNOCENT person shot by someone WITH A GUN could have been avoided if someone didn't have a gun and didn't pull the trigger.

So many parts of this aren't true. First of all I've had a family member get shot. They survived fortunately, but did flatline twice in the back of an ambulance. Luckily they were able to be revived though.

They were shot by a convicted felon who had lost their gunrights already and possessed an illegally owned unregistered firearm

A. If you truly did have a family member get shot - I am sincerely sorry to read it.
B. Have you ever mentioned that? If not, why not?
C. Did you actually see that family member with bullet holes in their body?
D. Thankfully your family member survived. My friend did not.
E. What was the felon convicted of?
F. How did the convicted felon obtain the "illegally owned unregistered firearm"?

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:36 pm No level of gun violence is acceptable. But no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns

Randy.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

This is morally, ethically and logically broken. It is sick.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:42 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:21 pm
you’re absolutely right

so, in what sane world would you want to allow such people unfettered access to assault style weapons?

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

some 70% of Americans want stricter gun laws

spare me 99.9% bs

and again, you’ve yet to justify the kinds of firearms we have today as being included under the 2nd amendment. you conveniently dodge the “well-regulated” portion of that language, and you’ve never given any opinion on where any line should be drawn for what kind of weapons might be acceptable

it seems you’re incapable of any good-faith discussion…because ultimately you are indeed ok with the level of gun violence (and more) that we see today. gtfo and go play GI Joe dress-up

Well, he said this:

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

That sort of absolutism means there will not be any good faith discussion. Because the obsession with loud and scary toys has overwhelmed him. Taken him over.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:10 pm LOL @ Chomsky because he may have met with Epstein - but isn't in his flight logs to his island or isn't in his "black book"?
Or am I missing something else that is (or isn't) worthy of a "lol"?

Maybe the fact that Chomsky is a piece of shit

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:10 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:10 pm LOL @ Chomsky because he may have met with Epstein - but isn't in his flight logs to his island or isn't in his "black book"?
Or am I missing something else that is (or isn't) worthy of a "lol"?

Maybe the fact that Chomsky is a piece of shit

Let me guess, you feel he's a piece of shit primarily because he's not "pro" Israel and you wrongly believe he is a Holocaust denier. Am I right?

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:52 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:44 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:24 pm

randy is yet to see his best friend or family member with bullet holes in their head and torso - like I did - and literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have.
I promise if/when he does, his tune will change.
What randy doesn't realize (or doesn't give a shit about - which would make him a complete asshole) is that EVERY SINGLE INNOCENT person shot by someone WITH A GUN could have been avoided if someone didn't have a gun and didn't pull the trigger.

So many parts of this aren't true. First of all I've had a family member get shot. They survived fortunately, but did flatline twice in the back of an ambulance. Luckily they were able to be revived though.

They were shot by a convicted felon who had lost their gunrights already and possessed an illegally owned unregistered firearm

A. If you truly did have a family member get shot - I am sincerely sorry to read it.
B. Have you ever mentioned that? If not, why not?
C. Did you actually see that family member with bullet holes in their body?
D. Thankfully your family member survived. My friend did not.
E. What was the felon convicted of?
F. How did the convicted felon obtain the "illegally owned unregistered firearm"?

Because one person's individual experience with gun violence should not be a deciding factor in the gun laws for an entire country

It happened in the late 80s, the felony was non violent, drug distribution. I dont recall how the person got the gun. But I dont think you realize what a ridiculous amount of unregistered guns there are in this country. I didnt see the family member actively get shot but saw the scars on their chest from surgery and all the muscle tissue that was removed to do it. And I don't know how they got the gun. But illegal items are pretty accessible in this country, there is a black market for just about anything

Making something "illegal" does not make it inaccessible. It just means it passes through less reputable hands and there are no taxes on it

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:55 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:36 pm No level of gun violence is acceptable. But no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns

Randy.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

This is morally, ethically and logically broken. It is sick.

Your brain is logically broken. You want to pass illogical gun restrictions to cater to your feelings.

Gun violence is already illegal lol. Murder is illegal. If a criminal isn't concerned about dying or serving life sentences, how will your new gun restrictions change anything for criminals?

Do you not understand what a ridiculously large amount of "illegal" or unregistered guns are already passed around in this country

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:42 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 1:38 pm

KUTradition wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:21 pm
you’re absolutely right

so, in what sane world would you want to allow such people unfettered access to assault style weapons?

Again you're focusing on the wrong side of the arguing. Its not about protecting the rights of the .001% of the population. Its about protecting the rights of the 99.999% of people that don't do shit like that

Liberals tend to do this. Look at all the stupid shit we went through during covid, because instead of protecting freedoms of the 99+% of people that would survive covid, you all demanded we change everything to supposedly save these outliers (didnt work)

Not doing that shit ever again

some 70% of Americans want stricter gun laws

spare me 99.9% bs

and again, you’ve yet to justify the kinds of firearms we have today as being included under the 2nd amendment. you conveniently dodge the “well-regulated” portion of that language, and you’ve never given any opinion on where any line should be drawn for what kind of weapons might be acceptable

it seems you’re incapable of any good-faith discussion…because ultimately you are indeed ok with the level of gun violence (and more) that we see today. gtfo and go play GI Joe dress-up

70 % of Americans don't think for themselves. And the other 30 % aren't going to play along with the sheeple. We tried that once with covid. And that was one of the dumbest episodes in American history where we saw severe government overreach and tyranny. Without guns it will only get more extreme

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:30 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:10 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:10 pm LOL @ Chomsky because he may have met with Epstein - but isn't in his flight logs to his island or isn't in his "black book"?
Or am I missing something else that is (or isn't) worthy of a "lol"?

Maybe the fact that Chomsky is a piece of shit

Let me guess, you feel he's a piece of shit primarily because he's not "pro" Israel and you wrongly believe he is a Holocaust denier. Am I right?

He's beyond just not being pro-Israel. He's for the destruction of the Jewish state that is keeping people like him safe. He can rot in hell. The fact that he's a pedo connected to Epstein makes sense.

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:54 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:52 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:44 pm

So many parts of this aren't true. First of all I've had a family member get shot. They survived fortunately, but did flatline twice in the back of an ambulance. Luckily they were able to be revived though.

They were shot by a convicted felon who had lost their gunrights already and possessed an illegally owned unregistered firearm

A. If you truly did have a family member get shot - I am sincerely sorry to read it.
B. Have you ever mentioned that? If not, why not?
C. Did you actually see that family member with bullet holes in their body?
D. Thankfully your family member survived. My friend did not.
E. What was the felon convicted of?
F. How did the convicted felon obtain the "illegally owned unregistered firearm"?

Because one person's individual experience with gun violence should not be a deciding factor in the gun laws for an entire country

It happened in the late 80s, the felony was non violent, drug distribution. I dont recall how the person got the gun. But I dont think you realize what a ridiculous amount of unregistered guns there are in this country. I didnt see the family member actively get shot but saw the scars on their chest from surgery and all the muscle tissue that was removed to do it. And I don't know how they got the gun. But illegal items are pretty accessible in this country, there is a black market for just about anything

"one person's individual experience"??????

Do you not get it? It's not one person. I am just one person but I am one of MANY people who have had an individual experience.
Did my words not register with you when I said, "literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have" - witnessed someone they care about have bullet holes in their body.

The reason why I asked about the felon was because of what you said - there are ridiculous amounts of UNregistered guns in this country. How did the felon obtain the gun? Was it stolen, was it given to him/her, how do all the "bad guys" obtain "illegal" and "unregistered" guns?
Don't you feel it would be beneficial to somehow figure a way to make it more difficult for it to happen?

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:11 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:54 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:52 pm

A. If you truly did have a family member get shot - I am sincerely sorry to read it.
B. Have you ever mentioned that? If not, why not?
C. Did you actually see that family member with bullet holes in their body?
D. Thankfully your family member survived. My friend did not.
E. What was the felon convicted of?
F. How did the convicted felon obtain the "illegally owned unregistered firearm"?

Because one person's individual experience with gun violence should not be a deciding factor in the gun laws for an entire country

It happened in the late 80s, the felony was non violent, drug distribution. I dont recall how the person got the gun. But I dont think you realize what a ridiculous amount of unregistered guns there are in this country. I didnt see the family member actively get shot but saw the scars on their chest from surgery and all the muscle tissue that was removed to do it. And I don't know how they got the gun. But illegal items are pretty accessible in this country, there is a black market for just about anything

"one person's individual experience"??????

Do you not get it? It's not one person. I am just one person but I am one of MANY people who have had an individual experience.
Did my words not register with you when I said, "literally 100s of thousands of other Americans have" - witnessed someone they care about have bullet holes in their body.

The reason why I asked about the felon was because of what you said - there are ridiculous amounts of UNregistered guns in this country. How did the felon obtain the gun? Was it stolen, was it given to him/her, how do all the "bad guys" obtain "illegal" and "unregistered" guns?
Don't you feel it would be beneficial to somehow figure a way to make it more difficult for it to happen?

Sometimes you have to be realistic. Guns aren't going anywhere. Actions that make something harder to be legally done, won't affect illegal actions. And that is what murder is

You mean well, but you are trying to make it harder to legally obtain something to commit an illegal crime. There is no logic there. These people do not care about doing things legally

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:58 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:55 pm

randylahey wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 2:36 pm No level of gun violence is acceptable. But no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns

Randy.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

This is morally, ethically and logically broken. It is sick.

Your brain is logically broken. You want to pass illogical gun restrictions to cater to your feelings.

Gun violence is already illegal lol. Murder is illegal. If a criminal isn't concerned about dying or serving life sentences, how will your new gun restrictions change anything for criminals?

Do you not understand what a ridiculously large amount of "illegal" or unregistered guns are already passed around in this country

Please go back and read what you wrote.

“no level of gun violence justifies new gun laws for the 99.9+% that are not irresponsibly using guns”

You are saying - your words - that there simply is not an amount of gun violence that could possibly lead you to support new gun laws.

That's deranged, and culty.

It also illustrates (again) that you have problems with big numbers. Let's say, using your example, that 99.9% of the 260 million adults in the US are "not irresponsibly using guns."

That leaves two hundred sixty thousand (260,000) US adults who are "irresponsibly using guns." I would absolutely say that the minor imposition of going back to the assault weapons ban is WELL WORTH making it more difficult* for those two hundred sixty thousand people to murder my children in school, or my mother at church, or my wife at work, or me at a bank.

* You will note, because I'm an adult, that I do not claim that banning assault rifles will end all crime.

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 5:03 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:30 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Sun Apr 30, 2023 4:10 pm

Maybe the fact that Chomsky is a piece of shit

Let me guess, you feel he's a piece of shit primarily because he's not "pro" Israel and you wrongly believe he is a Holocaust denier. Am I right?

He's beyond just not being pro-Israel. He's for the destruction of the Jewish state that is keeping people like him safe. He can rot in hell. The fact that he's a pedo connected to Epstein makes sense.

I don't believe he's for the destruction of Israel but ok, I respect your disdain for him.
Unless you know something I don't I am unsure why you are calling him a "pedo". Maybe he is a pedo? Do you have a credible source that states he is?
No doubt Epstein was a piece of shit and I am not going to defend Chomsky meeting with him for whatever reason/s it was but.... I have a feeling if I dug hard enough I just might be able find a distant "connection" (indirect but still "connection") between you and Epstein.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a fan of Chomsky and I feel he has said and done numerous shameful things.
My initial response to DC was questioning what did he feel is/was "lol" in regards to Chomsky meeting with Epstein - which was what I assumed DC was referring to.