seb146 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Ask the Jews, gypsies, gays, political opponents, Russians, and Chinese.

You might have a hard time finding a lot of those people because, you know, the government mandated extermination of them as a people and all.

But that's all water under the bridge and you can't really mention that anymore in any context because they've moved on as a society. Its all history now.

wingman wrote:

so long as any kid anywhere in this country can walk into any corner of their home or a Walmart and load up in 2-6 weapons and 100-1000 rounds of ammo. But only time will fix this problem. A day will come when our children or grandchildren will look back at all of us and wonder just how neanderthal stupid we really were. They'll fix this just like every other social ill gets fixed, with enlightenment , will power and votes. Until then the bodies will simply pile up, and up and up until the disgrace becomes too unbearable.

Except they can't in this country, unless you consider a legal adult still a "kid", and every house corner has an unrestricted cache of weapons.

I hope there isn't a day when we all look back at how stupid we were to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

MSPNWA wrote:

wingman wrote:

so long as any kid anywhere in this country can walk into any corner of their home or a Walmart and load up in 2-6 weapons and 100-1000 rounds of ammo. But only time will fix this problem. A day will come when our children or grandchildren will look back at all of us and wonder just how neanderthal stupid we really were. They'll fix this just like every other social ill gets fixed, with enlightenment , will power and votes. Until then the bodies will simply pile up, and up and up until the disgrace becomes too unbearable.

Except they can't in this country, unless you consider a legal adult still a "kid".

I hope there isn't a day when we all look back at how stupid we were to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So you are saying that children of responsible gun owners do not need gun safety classes or that you defend the shooter's right to keep guns laying around? If the father had been a responsible gun owner, the guns would have been locked up and the shooter would have proper gun safety training.

Just like the "good guy with a gun" myth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 9af095b742

There were armed guards and active shooter plans but, still, 10 kids were murdered. Shouldn't kids be going to school to learn math and science and reading and not how to avoid being a target during a mass shooting?

Hamas official: 50 of the 62 Gazans killed in border violence were Hamas members

Salah Bardawil's confirmation means number of acknowledged members of terror groups who died on Monday and Tuesday is now 53.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-off ... e-members/

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

stratosphere wrote:

I am not going to narrow this down to all you mentioned is why these shootings are happening. But I will say when I was a kid my mom didn't have to work and my father's modest salary as a diesel mechanic more than paid the mortgage and we were able to take nice vacations every year and my father retired with a nice pension. I do have to ask what the hell happened to this country. Now both parents have to work and that usually won't cover the bills as well as medical costs are insane and pensions are decimated there is virtually no companies now that offer defined benefit pensions anymore. Even the public sector employees like cops and fireman are facing the same fate to their pensions that the private sector has. I read the school resource officer that did nothing in the Florida shooting is going to receive like 8700 a month. Nice I wish I could say I am going to retire with anything close to that.

So, it wasn't that guns were available, you are saying that your parents have good salaries was what kept you from gunning down your school. huh.... if only we had good paying jobs here, I guess?

We have the highest average incomes in the world.

That is pathetic reasoning to justify what has happened here in the last thirty or forty years. I do believe our now President himself has mentioned the transfer of our wealth to China, I am not sure but he said , never before in history has so much wealth from one country to another such as happened with our sworn enemy China no less. If I am incorrect, who gives a shit, he should have. We are a nation of Morons these days.

WarRI1 wrote:

[ the transfer of our wealth to China, I am not sure but he said , never before in history has so much wealth from one country to another

You appear to think wealth is a zero sum game but I think you really do understand that it is not. One person can be a great butcher and another a hunter. If each is forced to only do everything on their own they may both struggle to survive, yet if they work together, trading for each others skill set, they end up each with much more than each alone.

It is why humans have been most successful when living in communities.

So the trade benefit between the USA and China is not one sided, nor zero sum. It may be imbalanced at different times to favor one or the other but it is not a "transfer" alone.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

[ the transfer of our wealth to China, I am not sure but he said , never before in history has so much wealth from one country to another

You appear to think wealth is a zero sum game but I think you really do understand that it is not. One person can be a great butcher and another a hunter. If each is forced to only do everything on their own they may both struggle to survive, yet if they work together, trading for each others skill set, they end up each with much more than each alone.

It is why humans have been most successful when living in communities.

So the trade benefit between the USA and China is not one sided, nor zero sum. It may be imbalanced at different times to favor one or the other but it is not a "transfer" alone.

Tugg

I do not know one year where we had a trade balance favorable to the US with China. If there was one, it was long ago. I will not get into the stolen technology, nor what I consider a dangerous enemy made all the more dangerous by our transfer of wealth to them along with our former well paying jobs. I think maybe you should start looking at labels of origin on products and think of all those products being made in China, while we have clerks selling them at hardware stores at minimum wage. Farm jobs, do not pay as well as factory jobs as far as I know. If this is so grand for us, why is our President raving on about it all. Trust me, his raving is a joke, while the imbalance continues to the detriment of US workers and our wealth as workers.

Tugger wrote:

WarRI1 wrote:

[ the transfer of our wealth to China, I am not sure but he said , never before in history has so much wealth from one country to another

You appear to think wealth is a zero sum game but I think you really do understand that it is not. One person can be a great butcher and another a hunter. If each is forced to only do everything on their own they may both struggle to survive, yet if they work together, trading for each others skill set, they end up each with much more than each alone.

It is why humans have been most successful when living in communities.

So the trade benefit between the USA and China is not one sided, nor zero sum. It may be imbalanced at different times to favor one or the other but it is not a "transfer" alone.

Tugg

What about them holding our debt for the Iraqi occupation and invasion? We still owe hundreds of billions for that. I know GWB put it "off the books" but we still owe for it. Remember that is why the first Obama budget was so outrageous.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Hamas official: 50 of the 62 Gazans killed in border violence were Hamas members

Salah Bardawil's confirmation means number of acknowledged members of terror groups who died on Monday and Tuesday is now 53.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-off ... e-members/

Is this the up-graded version from "but Clinton"? Form a school shooting to Hamas in 6 pages.

seb146 wrote:

BTW, you use "violent Americans" and something about WWII but, you do realize that Germany and Japan were violent as well. Ask the Jews, gypsies, gays, political opponents, Russians, and Chinese.

you are mixing military (mis)behaviour and what a civil society does or does not do.
( IMHO people in uniform often detach from being human independent of nationality.)

WIederling wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BTW, you use "violent Americans" and something about WWII but, you do realize that Germany and Japan were violent as well. Ask the Jews, gypsies, gays, political opponents, Russians, and Chinese.

( IMHO people in uniform often detach from being human independent of nationality.)

How convenient.

WIederling wrote:

( IMHO people in uniform often detach from being human independent of nationality.)

Not according to RuPaul.

WIederling wrote:

seb146 wrote:

BTW, you use "violent Americans" and something about WWII but, you do realize that Germany and Japan were violent as well. Ask the Jews, gypsies, gays, political opponents, Russians, and Chinese.

you are mixing military (mis)behaviour and what a civil society does or does not do.
( IMHO people in uniform often detach from being human independent of nationality.)

I was not the one who brought up WWII. And, no, people in the military do not detach from being human. They know that lives are ending. They know that families are being torn apart. The difference is how they see those people on the other side. As enablers of crime and evil.

That is how a "but both sides do it" argument truly works, in case you are taking notes.

Gun regulations and control and etc is all great and I'm all for it, but it won't help. Let's consider an extreme scenario, let's say tomorrow the 2nd amendment is repealed. No more guns of any kind can be bought. How do you propose we get rid of the hundreds of millions of existing guns? Will the kid that shot up this school fall under this ban? He stole his father's guns. The cat has been out of the bag for 240 years. Banning guns now will not do anything. Showing statistics of countries that don't allow guns is inherently skewed since they never allowed guns in the first place, so there isn't this huge stockpile spread around all the citizens. Like I said, I'm all for gun control but there is literally nothing that can be done shrot of the government going door to door and taking people's guns. That will not work at all, and will inevitably lead to some type of mass civil conflict/war between the law abiding gun owners and the government trying to take their guns. The country is too far deep into the 2nd amendment to make any changes now. We simply have to live with the fact that kids and people will be shot indiscriminately. Perhaps you should start sending your kids to school with a hidden gun in their backpack, just in case...

And just to add to my above comment. Look what happened when alcohol was banned in the 20s, mass bootlegging and consumption. I predict a gun ban will result in the same black market. Once people have had a taste, they will not let go of it.

sovietjet wrote:

Gun regulations and control and etc is all great and I'm all for it, but it won't help.

If it "won't help," then why are you "all for it"? Sounds pretty dumb.

sovietjet wrote:

Gun regulations and control and etc is all great and I'm all for it, but it won't help. Let's consider an extreme scenario, let's say tomorrow the 2nd amendment is repealed. No more guns of any kind can be bought. How do you propose we get rid of the hundreds of millions of existing guns?

sovietjet wrote:

And just to add to my above comment. Look what happened when alcohol was banned in the 20s, mass bootlegging and consumption. I predict a gun ban will result in the same black market. Once people have had a taste, they will not let go of it.

First what you are suggesting will never happen and if it did, as you note it would be resisted because it is an irrational response or change. So we can't use your example as it fails on its face.

Now if we address your questions based upon a change that was legal and followed both legal precedent and public will then it would just take:

Time.

Most people are law abiding, that is how any society works (or fails if people aren't), and they will turn in what is illegal and or report those that are defying the law or won;t protect illegal activities as law enforcement slowly does its job to stop or remove what is illegal from the populace.

Tugg

sovietjet wrote:

And just to add to my above comment. Look what happened when alcohol was banned in the 20s, mass bootlegging and consumption. I predict a gun ban will result in the same black market. Once people have had a taste, they will not let go of it.

To be clear, that vast majority of people the are being labeled 'anti-gun' are in fact not seeking an outright gun ban at all. There are variations on the theme, but most are advocating for things like gun registrations, banning or at least tracking private sales, moving state laws to the federal level and of course banning weapons that most consider not necessary for self defense, hunting or sport.

Registrations would allow the owner to be held at least partially liable for crimes committed using their weapons as guns would be legally connected to their owners.

Banning or tracking private sales goes along with that.

Ending the patchwork of state laws ends the problem of strict gun laws in one state meaning nothing at all when someone can go to another state to get around their own state laws.

And most people, including liberal democrats, understand if people want to defend themselves, hunt or shoot for sport. But there is a category of weapons (that is admittedly hard to classify) that does not serve any of these purposes. Offensive, non-sporting weapons like the AR-15 and such. No-one hunts with them, they are no more effective in home defense than a handgun or shotgun and there is no such thing and competitive machine-gunning (yes, I know they are not machine guns, but you get my point).

Anyway, my point is that it is useless to argue against a gun ban, because no-one is proposing a gun ban.

Tugger wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

Gun regulations and control and etc is all great and I'm all for it, but it won't help. Let's consider an extreme scenario, let's say tomorrow the 2nd amendment is repealed. No more guns of any kind can be bought. How do you propose we get rid of the hundreds of millions of existing guns?

sovietjet wrote:

And just to add to my above comment. Look what happened when alcohol was banned in the 20s, mass bootlegging and consumption. I predict a gun ban will result in the same black market. Once people have had a taste, they will not let go of it.

First what you are suggesting will never happen and if it did, as you note it would be resisted because it is an irrational response or change.

Well there's that, and the whole, "Over my dead body, cold dead hands" yadda yadda thing. Because we've been conditioned now to accept that half of the country, including some of this forum's resident whack-os, would kill us silly pink-o libtards if we touch their guns.

I have mentioned in these threads that a couple of times a month a group of us get together for breakfast, we discuss various things going on in our business, personal lives and the world, of course this subject came up, we have a good cross section in our group, some feel like some here, guns from my dead hands, some that all guns are evil, one of our group was actually at the recent shooting here, where an employee blew away two co-workers sitting next to him.

Anyways, the discussion became pretty heated on all sides as some of these discussions do, when we got a little surprise, a guy in jeans and plaid shirt gets up from his table, walks over to us, reaches into his pocket and pulls out.....His police ID.....There I am thinking the officer is about to tell us to STFU....But instead he thanked us....

To say I was baffled is an understatement, I asked him why he would thank us ?

He explained it this way.......You are a group of people who have different view points, you believe in those views, but, you are all sitting here discussing it, no threats, no talking down, but talking things through.......And why the hell can't our politicians do the same thing, find some middle ground the will keep both sides happy AND stop kids from dying.......

That really hit me hard, maybe, just maybe we should adult up a little and ALL figure out a way to stop the killing, it won't be eas, it wont be quick, but it sure as hell won't happen while both sides refuse to even think about compromise.

jetwet1 wrote:

I have mentioned in these threads that a couple of times a month a group of us get together for breakfast, we discuss various things going on in our business, personal lives and the world, of course this subject came up, we have a good cross section in our group, some feel like some here, guns from my dead hands, some that all guns are evil, one of our group was actually at the recent shooting here, where an employee blew away two co-workers sitting next to him.

Anyways, the discussion became pretty heated on all sides as some of these discussions do, when we got a little surprise, a guy in jeans and plaid shirt gets up from his table, walks over to us, reaches into his pocket and pulls out.....His police ID.....There I am thinking the officer is about to tell us to STFU....But instead he thanked us....

To say I was baffled is an understatement, I asked him why he would thank us ?

He explained it this way.......You are a group of people who have different view points, you believe in those views, but, you are all sitting here discussing it, no threats, no talking down, but talking things through.......And why the hell can't our politicians do the same thing, find some middle ground the will keep both sides happy AND stop kids from dying.......

That really hit me hard, maybe, just maybe we should adult up a little and ALL figure out a way to stop the killing, it won't be eas, it wont be quick, but it sure as hell won't happen while both sides refuse to even think about compromise.

Because its easy to do that with 6 friends around a table.

325 million people makes it a touch more difficult.

What sort of compromise did you all come up with by the way?

Dana Loesch proves once again to be such an inspiration.

Anyone interested in crowdfunding some Bridesmaids-type movie with her, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin?

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ ... 941749.php

Another school shooting

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/india ... index.html

At a middle school in Indiana. No one was killed and a student was taken into custody.

jetero wrote:

Dana Loesch proves once again to be such an inspiration.

Anyone interested in crowdfunding some Bridesmaids-type movie with her, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin?

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ ... 941749.php

I am sure Loesch will get an invite to the White House in short order by Trump. She and 'Oh no, WATER!' Tomi Lahren will have a grand old time with the p*ssy grabber in Chief. I can just hear it now - 'Melania, head on down to Mar-a-largo, I have some 'business' to tend to.' Such a dirt bag...

Though I suppose it is a good thing Lahren wasn't wearing her glory suit - water does take time to dry out of cotton.

Has James Shaw received his invite yet?

seb146 wrote:

Another school shooting

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/india ... index.html

At a middle school in Indiana. No one was killed and a student was taken into custody.

Not only is he a complete loser nerd who nobody likes he's also a lousy shot. What an idiot.

He can't even do that right.

skyservice_330 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Dana Loesch proves once again to be such an inspiration.

Anyone interested in crowdfunding some Bridesmaids-type movie with her, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin?

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ ... 941749.php

I am sure Loesch will get an invite to the White House in short order by Trump. She and 'Oh no, WATER!' Tomi Lahren will have a grand old time with the p*ssy grabber in Chief. I can just hear it now - 'Melania, head on down to Mar-a-largo, I have some 'business' to tend to.' Such a dirt bag...

Though I suppose it is a good thing Lahren wasn't wearing her glory suit - water does take time to dry out of cotton.

Has James Shaw received his invite yet?

So physical assault is ok for those you disagree with?

seb146 wrote:

Just like the "good guy with a gun" myth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 9af095b742

There were armed guards and active shooter plans but, still, 10 kids were murdered. Shouldn't kids be going to school to learn math and science and reading and not how to avoid being a target during a mass shooting?

Well sometimes it isn't a myth. But you will be hard pressed to find the main stream media report on it.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/civilian-shoo ... ories.html

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just like the "good guy with a gun" myth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 9af095b742

There were armed guards and active shooter plans but, still, 10 kids were murdered. Shouldn't kids be going to school to learn math and science and reading and not how to avoid being a target during a mass shooting?

Well sometimes it isn't a myth. But you will be hard pressed to find the main stream media report on it.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/civilian-shoo ... ories.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... bystanders

So the guy was outside the restaurant with a handgun firing in randomly, and you want to jump for joy because 2 guys had enough time to go back to their cars, open the trunks and shoot a guy that thought satan was following him?

I mean the guy hit 3 people? How long do you think it took to get the guns out of the trunk by the guys that shot him?

There is something very weird about this story.

But if it makes the Terrorist members of the NRA excited with their QUICK and threatening Tweets. So be it So different from their COWARDLY SILENCE after the school shootings.

CCGPV wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Dana Loesch proves once again to be such an inspiration.

Anyone interested in crowdfunding some Bridesmaids-type movie with her, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Kellyanne Conway, Michelle Bachman, and Sarah Palin?

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/ ... 941749.php

I am sure Loesch will get an invite to the White House in short order by Trump. She and 'Oh no, WATER!' Tomi Lahren will have a grand old time with the p*ssy grabber in Chief. I can just hear it now - 'Melania, head on down to Mar-a-largo, I have some 'business' to tend to.' Such a dirt bag...

Though I suppose it is a good thing Lahren wasn't wearing her glory suit - water does take time to dry out of cotton.

Has James Shaw received his invite yet?

So physical assault is ok for those you disagree with?

So you wanna show me where I said that?

skyservice_330 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

I am sure Loesch will get an invite to the White House in short order by Trump. She and 'Oh no, WATER!' Tomi Lahren will have a grand old time with the p*ssy grabber in Chief. I can just hear it now - 'Melania, head on down to Mar-a-largo, I have some 'business' to tend to.' Such a dirt bag...

Though I suppose it is a good thing Lahren wasn't wearing her glory suit - water does take time to dry out of cotton.

Has James Shaw received his invite yet?

So physical assault is ok for those you disagree with?

So you wanna show me where I said that?

You're making fun of and joking about someone being assaulted. Assault is assault.

CCGPV wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

So physical assault is ok for those you disagree with?

So you wanna show me where I said that?

You're making fun of and joking about someone being assaulted. Assault is assault.

She got some water thrown on her. Lets calm down with the "physical assault" business. Was it right to do? No, of course not. But Physical Assault? Really?

CCGPV wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

So physical assault is ok for those you disagree with?

So you wanna show me where I said that?

You're making fun of and joking about someone being assaulted. Assault is assault.

*sigh* #triggered

For the record, I don't disagree - assault is assault. Even when it involves dog-whistling racists or the President of the United States.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

So you wanna show me where I said that?

You're making fun of and joking about someone being assaulted. Assault is assault.

She got some water thrown on her. Lets calm down with the "physical assault" business. Was it right to do? No, of course not. But Physical Assault? Really?

Yes, that is assault. If you were minding your own business in a restaurant and someone threw a glass of water in your face and started insulting you you'd just sit there and do nothing? Or what if someone brushed their hand across your daughters chest? Its just a simple touch after all.

stratosphere wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just like the "good guy with a gun" myth

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 9af095b742

There were armed guards and active shooter plans but, still, 10 kids were murdered. Shouldn't kids be going to school to learn math and science and reading and not how to avoid being a target during a mass shooting?

Well sometimes it isn't a myth. But you will be hard pressed to find the main stream media report on it.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/civilian-shoo ... ories.html

In Indianapolis
The science teacher took out this 2 gun shooter by tackling him. Don't see the NRA congratulating him. Where is that on your psycho news network? Not even a headline stating that the teacher tackled the student and saved everyone. Yet they headline the two gun toters shooting someone.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

You're making fun of and joking about someone being assaulted. Assault is assault.

She got some water thrown on her. Lets calm down with the "physical assault" business. Was it right to do? No, of course not. But Physical Assault? Really?

Yes, that is assault. If you were minding your own business in a restaurant and someone threw a glass of water in your face and started insulting you you'd just sit there and do nothing? Or what if someone brushed their hand across your daughters chest? Its just a simple touch after all.

With the water, I probably would do nothing. Sounds like a situation not worth my time or effort. I'd be annoyed sure, but I'm not going to running to the nearest police station crying about assault, and I would be 100% comfortable with someone joking about it.

With your other example? I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like that came outta nowhere. Care to elaborate how that relates to this topic? Maybe I missed something.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

She got some water thrown on her. Lets calm down with the "physical assault" business. Was it right to do? No, of course not. But Physical Assault? Really?

Yes, that is assault. If you were minding your own business in a restaurant and someone threw a glass of water in your face and started insulting you you'd just sit there and do nothing? Or what if someone brushed their hand across your daughters chest? Its just a simple touch after all.

With the water, I probably would do nothing. Sounds like a situation not worth my time or effort. I'd be annoyed sure, but I'm not going to running to the nearest police station crying about assault, and I would be 100% comfortable with someone joking about it.

With your other example? I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like that came outta nowhere. Care to elaborate how that relates to this topic? Maybe I missed something.

Well you're just a saint of a person then I guess.

What is the acceptable level of physical touch before you take action? Is red wine acceptable? What about a plate of spaghetti?

And my other point was that if some physical acts are allowed why not a simple brush up against someone? Surely you'd be fine with that. A quick squeeze never actually hurt anyone.

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Yes, that is assault. If you were minding your own business in a restaurant and someone threw a glass of water in your face and started insulting you you'd just sit there and do nothing? Or what if someone brushed their hand across your daughters chest? Its just a simple touch after all.

With the water, I probably would do nothing. Sounds like a situation not worth my time or effort. I'd be annoyed sure, but I'm not going to running to the nearest police station crying about assault, and I would be 100% comfortable with someone joking about it.

With your other example? I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like that came outta nowhere. Care to elaborate how that relates to this topic? Maybe I missed something.

Well you're just a saint of a person then I guess.

What is the acceptable level of physical touch before you take action? Is red wine acceptable? What about a plate of spaghetti?

And my other point was that if some physical acts are allowed why not a simple brush up against someone? Surely you'd be fine with that. A quick squeeze never actually hurt anyone.

Sure you draw the line somewhere, but you went straight from water thrown on me to a stranger sexually touching my yet to be born daughter. That’s pretty F’ed up.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

With the water, I probably would do nothing. Sounds like a situation not worth my time or effort. I'd be annoyed sure, but I'm not going to running to the nearest police station crying about assault, and I would be 100% comfortable with someone joking about it.

With your other example? I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like that came outta nowhere. Care to elaborate how that relates to this topic? Maybe I missed something.

Well you're just a saint of a person then I guess.

What is the acceptable level of physical touch before you take action? Is red wine acceptable? What about a plate of spaghetti?

And my other point was that if some physical acts are allowed why not a simple brush up against someone? Surely you'd be fine with that. A quick squeeze never actually hurt anyone.

Sure you draw the line somewhere, but you went straight from water thrown on me to a stranger sexually touching my yet to be born daughter. That’s pretty F’ed up.

Yes, the line is touching or striking someone without their consent.

So many men think throwing a glass of water on a woman and yelling threatening insults is nothing to get upset about but that's typical.

I'm sure in the years to come you wont find if an ex-boyfriend of hers throws a glass of water in her face and insults her at a nice family dinner very funny. I doubt you'll just laugh it off.

casinterest wrote:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... bystanders

So the guy was outside the restaurant with a handgun firing in randomly, and you want to jump for joy because 2 guys had enough time to go back to their cars, open the trunks and shoot a guy that thought satan was following him?

I mean the guy hit 3 people? How long do you think it took to get the guns out of the trunk by the guys that shot him?

There is something very weird about this story.

But if it makes the Terrorist members of the NRA excited with their QUICK and threatening Tweets. So be it So different from their COWARDLY SILENCE after the school shootings.

Would the situation have ended better if the two guys didn't have their guns?

MSPNWA wrote:

casinterest wrote:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... bystanders

So the guy was outside the restaurant with a handgun firing in randomly, and you want to jump for joy because 2 guys had enough time to go back to their cars, open the trunks and shoot a guy that thought satan was following him?

I mean the guy hit 3 people? How long do you think it took to get the guns out of the trunk by the guys that shot him?

There is something very weird about this story.

But if it makes the Terrorist members of the NRA excited with their QUICK and threatening Tweets. So be it So different from their COWARDLY SILENCE after the school shootings.

Would the situation have ended better if the two guys didn't have their guns?

Would there have been a situation if the other guy didn’t have his gun?

(See how that was done?)

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Well you're just a saint of a person then I guess.

What is the acceptable level of physical touch before you take action? Is red wine acceptable? What about a plate of spaghetti?

And my other point was that if some physical acts are allowed why not a simple brush up against someone? Surely you'd be fine with that. A quick squeeze never actually hurt anyone.

Sure you draw the line somewhere, but you went straight from water thrown on me to a stranger sexually touching my yet to be born daughter. That’s pretty F’ed up.

Yes, the line is touching or striking someone without their consent.

So many men think throwing a glass of water on a woman and yelling threatening insults is nothing to get upset about but that's typical.

I'm sure in the years to come you wont find if an ex-boyfriend of hers throws a glass of water in her face and insults her at a nice family dinner very funny. I doubt you'll just laugh it off.

IT won’t be funny at the time, but probably in the future we would laugh at what a sad loser he was. I dunno though, I guess I would draw the line if there was intent to injure, but water thrown and someone? Not assault in my book (or the police’s apparently as there have been no charges or investigations on this matter).

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

Sure you draw the line somewhere, but you went straight from water thrown on me to a stranger sexually touching my yet to be born daughter. That’s pretty F’ed up.

Yes, the line is touching or striking someone without their consent.

So many men think throwing a glass of water on a woman and yelling threatening insults is nothing to get upset about but that's typical.

I'm sure in the years to come you wont find if an ex-boyfriend of hers throws a glass of water in her face and insults her at a nice family dinner very funny. I doubt you'll just laugh it off.

IT won’t be funny at the time, but probably in the future we would laugh at what a sad loser he was. I dunno though, I guess I would draw the line if there was intent to injure, but water thrown and someone? Not assault in my book (or the police’s apparently as there have been no charges or investigations on this matter).

Some violence towards complete strangers is acceptable as long as its not too aggressive. Good to know.

jetero wrote:

Would there have been a situation if the other guy didn’t have his gun?

(See how that was done?)

Obviously your answer must be "no" due to the subsequent red herring. Amazing how hard it is for you to answer a simple question!

I have no problem answering your question if it wasn't a fallacy, so better luck next time. Ask it again after you answer mine, and I'll give you my answer.

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Yes, the line is touching or striking someone without their consent.

So many men think throwing a glass of water on a woman and yelling threatening insults is nothing to get upset about but that's typical.

I'm sure in the years to come you wont find if an ex-boyfriend of hers throws a glass of water in her face and insults her at a nice family dinner very funny. I doubt you'll just laugh it off.

IT won’t be funny at the time, but probably in the future we would laugh at what a sad loser he was. I dunno though, I guess I would draw the line if there was intent to injure, but water thrown and someone? Not assault in my book (or the police’s apparently as there have been no charges or investigations on this matter).

Some violence towards complete strangers is acceptable as long as its not too aggressive. Good to know.

Again with the violence. What is your definition of violence? Getting wet? The water park must be a horror scene to you.

Again, I’m not defending them actions of the, as you might call them, “Aqua Terrorists” because it was immature and unnecessary. But if getting water thrown on you is a violent assault, you must be the most sensitive person on the planet.

Of course I like to keep an open mind to all possibilities, so if it turns out Tomi Lauren is the wicked witch of the west or one of the aliens from the movie Signs, then I sincerely apologize.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

IT won’t be funny at the time, but probably in the future we would laugh at what a sad loser he was. I dunno though, I guess I would draw the line if there was intent to injure, but water thrown and someone? Not assault in my book (or the police’s apparently as there have been no charges or investigations on this matter).

Some violence towards complete strangers is acceptable as long as its not too aggressive. Good to know.

Again with the violence. What is your definition of violence? Getting wet? The water park must be a horror scene to you.

Again, I’m not defending them actions of the, as you might call them, “Aqua Terrorists” because it was immature and unnecessary. But if getting water thrown on you is a violent assault, you must be the most sensitive person on the planet.

Of course I like to keep an open mind to all possibilities, so if it turns out Tomi Lauren is the wicked witch of the west or one of the aliens from the movie Signs, then I sincerely apologize.

I just don't think someone throwing a glass of water in someone's face is acceptable behavior. You should be held accountable, not dismissed as a prankster.

I never called it an violent assault. Its an assault. If I steal $10 our of your wallet I'm still a thief.

We can't allow political discourse in this country to excuse political violence, which this was. I hate Tomi but nobody deserves to be assaulted in public for something they say.

MSPNWA wrote:

jetero wrote:

Would there have been a situation if the other guy didn’t have his gun?

(See how that was done?)

Obviously your answer must be "no" due to the subsequent red herring. Amazing how hard it is for you to answer a simple question!

I have no problem answering your question if it wasn't a fallacy, so better luck next time. Ask it again after you answer mine, and I'll give you my answer.

Oh MSP, you’re one of my top 5.

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Some violence towards complete strangers is acceptable as long as its not too aggressive. Good to know.

Again with the violence. What is your definition of violence? Getting wet? The water park must be a horror scene to you.

Again, I’m not defending them actions of the, as you might call them, “Aqua Terrorists” because it was immature and unnecessary. But if getting water thrown on you is a violent assault, you must be the most sensitive person on the planet.

Of course I like to keep an open mind to all possibilities, so if it turns out Tomi Lauren is the wicked witch of the west or one of the aliens from the movie Signs, then I sincerely apologize.

I just don't think someone throwing a glass of water in someone's face is acceptable behavior. You should be held accountable, not dismissed as a prankster.

I never called it an violent assault. Its an assault. If I steal $10 our of your wallet I'm still a thief.

We can't allow political discourse in this country to excuse political violence, which this was. I hate Tomi but nobody deserves to be assaulted in public for something they say.

I never defended the actions of the water throwers, but there is a huge difference between stealing $10 and Grand Larceny and you were the one calling it a violent assault. You also brought a sexual assault against my unborn daughter into this, so I’d offer that you are the one being unreasonable and dragging this conversation to an unproductive place.

2122M wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

2122M wrote:

Again with the violence. What is your definition of violence? Getting wet? The water park must be a horror scene to you.

Again, I’m not defending them actions of the, as you might call them, “Aqua Terrorists” because it was immature and unnecessary. But if getting water thrown on you is a violent assault, you must be the most sensitive person on the planet.

Of course I like to keep an open mind to all possibilities, so if it turns out Tomi Lauren is the wicked witch of the west or one of the aliens from the movie Signs, then I sincerely apologize.

I just don't think someone throwing a glass of water in someone's face is acceptable behavior. You should be held accountable, not dismissed as a prankster.

I never called it an violent assault. Its an assault. If I steal $10 our of your wallet I'm still a thief.

We can't allow political discourse in this country to excuse political violence, which this was. I hate Tomi but nobody deserves to be assaulted in public for something they say.

I never defended the actions of the water throwers, but there is a huge difference between stealing $10 and Grand Larceny and you were the one calling it a violent assault. You also brought a sexual assault against my unborn daughter into this, so I’d offer that you are the one being unreasonable and dragging this conversation to an unproductive place.

You're right. Have a nice evening.

https://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoen ... ian-school

This is why you own an AR 15 and become proficient with it. It happens in every city every day across America.