shoulda hadda gun?

[john9blue]

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

lol, yeah, haggis wants to take defenseless people out back and shoot them

he's not that malicious scotty. he just doesn't understand the consequences of his beliefs.

[Phatscotty]

Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.


The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").

The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.


Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.

Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

[Phatscotty]

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

lol, yeah, haggis wants to take defenseless people out back and shoot them

he's not that malicious scotty. he just doesn't understand the consequences of his beliefs.

I know. you nailed it

[john9blue]

what is the fbi's "normal counter-terrorism routine"?

[patches70]

what is the fbi's "normal counter-terrorism routine"?

Entrapment.

[john9blue]

I know. you nailed it

okay, but if you accuse people like haggis of wanting to murder others, then don't expect to be respected by them

[BigBallinStalin]

Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.


The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").

The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.


Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.

Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Hey, it's not all crap. It's probable guesswork after a slight modification!

re: underlined, I've never seen any evidence for this, and that article provided nothing but conjecture. Would you mind quoting that article, or providing a source?

[Phatscotty]

I know. you nailed it

okay, but if you accuse people like haggis of wanting to murder others, then don't expect to be respected by them

No, I did not mean to suggest Haggis was the one with the gun. I see how it comes off, but if people know me then they know what I mean. The context is built in to my posts. I know that is rare around here, but they are just gonna have to deal.

But, officially and for the record, what I intended to suggest with that photo, as you correctly pointed out, is the people who want guns banned usually end up killing the people who's guns the took away, whether Haggis is aware of that or not. It's not like we can afford to give the gun takers the benefit of the doubt when history proves what the results can be, and history proves those results are the worst possible results.

And btw, how do you know he doesn't want to force his ideology at the barrel of a gun? Honestly, most posts he makes at least tends to be in lock step with those who do wish to force. So there is some evidence.

[Phatscotty]

Most of the conjecture (read: guesswork) in that article is useless crap; however, there's one interesting scenario from that article if it's modified.


The author mentions that the FBI could've been involved. He cites examples of the FBI posing as Al-Qaeda, or some terrorist organization, in order to supply willing, domestic terrorists the means to achieve their goals, which (for all we know) are always cut short of completion. Before the plot is carried out, the FBI arrests the person. (This is basically entrapment, but from what I've heard, the courts say, "Nah-uh!").

The author uses a 80-20 hypothesis for law enforcement (80% are good, 20% are bad), and applies it to the FBI. Then he concludes that (it could be possible that) bad FBI agents let this happen intentionally. I find this to be unbelievable because the FBI screens and continually assesses its agents much better than other law enforcement agencies. To me, this scenario is as likely as Santa Claus being real.


Modified version:
What could be the case is that the FBI, going through their normal counter-terrorism routine, bungled it, and accidentally let this guy kill a bunch of people, but to me this is extremely unlikely, because (from what I've read) the FBI have several agents in place and at least one right next to the person who they're trying to arrest. Furthermore, why would they allow Holmes to activate his 12AM music bomb at his apartment (i.e. Holmes played music late at night to entice people to open the door, thus setting off the bombs)? I don't see why the FBI would allow that to happen--assuming they would be in position to stop that.

Again, it's extremely unlikely, but it is probable... whatever that's worth.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Hey, it's not all crap. It's probable guesswork after a slight modification!

re: underlined, I've never seen any evidence for this, and that article provided nothing but conjecture. Would you mind quoting that article, or providing a source?

I have not seen any specific evidence that shows he spent the exact money from the grant on the guns and gear. There is specific evidence his total arsenal totaled approximately $20,000, and there is specific evidence that he got $26,000 from the government. I was just plugging the two together as my opinion. If you want the links to those I will provide them, but I'm hoping you have already seen them for yourself. Let me know.

[patches70]

I have not seen any specific evidence that shows he spent the exact money from the grant on the guns and gear. There is specific evidence his total arsenal totaled approximately $20,000, and there is specific evidence that he got $26,000 from the government. I was just plugging the two together as my opinion. If you want the links to those I will provide them, but I'm hoping you have already seen them for yourself. Let me know.

Maybe you can answer, I know the crazy got a grant of $26,000. But he was only getting about $2,000 a month from that grant.
For how many months had he been receiving money?
More specifically, how much exactly of that $26,000 grant had he received? He didn't get it in one lump sum I thought but was receiving monthly payments.
Did he get a lump sum and then also get the $2,000 a month stipend? If so, then didn't he have to use the lump sum grant payment (if he did indeed receive a lump sum grant payment) to pay to his school?

[BigBallinStalin]

what is the fbi's "normal counter-terrorism routine"?

Oh, it's fascinating, john. Come take a trip down memory lane:

Reliable enough overview
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opini ... wanted=all

Sources for above claims in that opinion piece:
Rezwan Ferdaus, "Man arrested in ‘step-by-step’ plot to blow up Capitol, Pentagon"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/184445-man-arrested-in-plot-to-blow-up-capitol-pentagon
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15101449


Williams, 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/no ... NETTXT9038

, Mohamed Osman Mohamud
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/28portland.html?pagewanted=all

Some bomb plot, with 5 people
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 54661638/1
http://www.fbi.gov/cleveland/press-rele ... hio-bridge



They're sting operations, that are arguably entrapment, but supposedly the FBI makes sure that these guys are willing to commit these crimes, even after repeatedly given the chance to not do it (supposedly). A lot of people cry foul about this, and there does seem something wrong about this, but when people say that the FBI is staging "security theater," I lose interest because these cases are a small portion of the total terrorist and "terrorist" cases handled by the FBI. Furthermore, it's arguable that posing as Al-Qaeda serves as an effective threat deterrent (disseminates distrust among would-be terrorists).



This one plays into the more traditional counterterrorism role:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/ju ... ttf-part-1



And this is the general stuff that the JTTF deal with:

For 2011: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/de ... iew_122711

In general: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate ... rism_cases

More general info here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism

[jonesthecurl]

Arms sales have risen since this incident.
So who gains?
If we're going for paranoid "patsy" scenarios, who makes a profit?

[jonesthecurl]

I always had a theory, based on the same logic, that Princess Di was murdered by flower sellers.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Sigh, FINE, I'll respond seriously.

For the record scotty, the only 100% serious debate I've ever had with you was the one about gay marriage, where I kept trying to get you to define exactly where the delimitation between fundamental rights and democratically decided upon laws is and you kept repeating "I support the voter's choice" like a mantra.

Frankly, I find debating with you on politics much like debating with jay on religion. Might be entertaining for a little while, but eventually you realize kicking the ball repeatedly against the wall is just a massive waste of time. Worse, not only are you completely unable to change your mind, but your debating "strategy" makes it look like you're sharpening your skills for political office. It is nigh impossible to get anything concrete out of you. People will debate you for pages destroying position A, at which point you'll come and say "haha position B was right all along, I told you so".

Anyway:

All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.

I'm gonna ignore the name calling, cause I really don't give a shit what your oppinion of me is.

We've been through this before. You posted the fucking article without any hint that you're doing it sarcastically or whatever.
When people post an article like that, the general assumption is that they support the views presented in the article.
Do you really not understand this?

Further, Iliad immediately calls you out on posting that nonsense. If it's a joke or honest mistake or whatever, here's the point where you should say "Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles".
Instead you post.

I just shared a story. It's not like I am ruling things out, like you seem to be able to somehow do... How do you know it isn't political? Why do you seem to indicate that politics is off limits? Can't even talk about it huh?

I didn't turn to anything you stick in the mudd. Why don't you look at the rest of the posts in the thread, get some context.

Why don't you give us some answers then? How does an unemployed guy get thousands of dollars worth of top notch equipment????????????

This further indicates you actually support the article. You following me? You continue for several posts before, finally, slowly starting to distance yourself a bit from the article.
This is dishonest, terrible debating, and one of the main reasons why 90% of the people on this forum don't take you seriously.
When you get called on something FUCKIN STATE YOUR POSITION CLEARLY. Stop weaseling around.

Now, you come back. Quote the fuckin article again and state you won by talking about something completely different than the subject of the article you quoted.

Iliad was appaled that you were posting conspiracy theories when people had JUST DIED. What the f*ck does his reaction have to do with the goddamn government handouts. He was objecting to the ridiculous brainwashed stuff. I cannot believe you really don't understand this.
To then come back and celebrate your weaseling by declarin victory and calling him names ... it's just beyond belief.

What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!

See, you're doing it again.
From most posters this would seem like a harmless joke-ish post. If pressed on it they would subsequently clarify their position and initiate a real debate. From you though, this is just the start of another round of weaseling.

"100% gov't handout funded mass shooting" - exactlyt the kind of term I'd expect your average scumbag politician to use.
Tell me, if it turned out that he had saved the money for the guns by working at Walmart, would it then be called a "100% Walmart funded mass shooting" ?
How the f*ck is it even relevant where he got the money from ? You really think 20k is the limiting factor stopping some nut from a shooting spree? You really think without the government handout it would have been impossible for him to get the guns even though he doesn't give a shit about the consequences?

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

Actually, I don't want to take your guns. Actually I believe gun ownership is an important liberty in the US, more for moral/mental/symbolic reasons than anything, and the government should not remove it.
I do, of course, think there should be some restrictions in place. I do not know exactly where these restrictions should be, much as I don't know at which exact point abortions should become illegal.

I'm annoyed that my position on this issue is made harder to defend because of pretend action heroes like yourself that think they could take down a guy with an automatic riffle and body armour in a dark smoke filled theater.
I'm sorry that I don't completely fit into your binary liberal/conservative view of the world.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Where did you say it shouldn't be taken seriously. Show me please.
I've already explained why you appeared to most people that you were taking it seriously.

In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.

2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.

3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.

---

Holy shit, haven't written a post this big in a while.

Btw, for future reference. THAT is how a serious reply from me looks like. Check my recent exchange with greece about atheism/agnosticism for more examples.
It seems to be relatively easy for most people to tell when I'm being serious or not, but who the hell knows with you, better make sure I guess.

[Woodruff]

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Which is an excellent example of why we don't take you very seriously.

I know. you nailed it

okay, but if you accuse people like haggis of wanting to murder others, then don't expect to be respected by them

No, I did not mean to suggest Haggis was the one with the gun. I see how it comes off, but if people know me then they know what I mean. The context is built in to my posts.

The context is definitely built into your posts. But I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Army of GOD]

[Woodruff]

In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.
2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.
3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.

The moderators as a group have declared that Phatscotty is not a troll and does nothing wrong in these threads, therefore the moderators obviously consider Phatscotty to be an utter moron.

[jonesthecurl]

Logical, Spock.

[Phatscotty]

Sigh, FINE, I'll respond seriously.

For the record scotty, the only 100% serious debate I've ever had with you was the one about gay marriage, where I kept trying to get you to define exactly where the delimitation between fundamental rights and democratically decided upon laws is and you kept repeating "I support the voter's choice" like a mantra.

Frankly, I find debating with you on politics much like debating with jay on religion. Might be entertaining for a little while, but eventually you realize kicking the ball repeatedly against the wall is just a massive waste of time. Worse, not only are you completely unable to change your mind, but your debating "strategy" makes it look like you're sharpening your skills for political office. It is nigh impossible to get anything concrete out of you. People will debate you for pages destroying position A, at which point you'll come and say "haha position B was right all along, I told you so".

Anyway:

All I said was he got his money from the gov't. All you did was slander the facts, and you added nothing. Which makes your post a typical liberal response. That is to say you said nothing. You should at least try to match the caliber of the post that you are responding to. Of course, you prove over and over again that you can't, so you act like an immature baby. You aren't even in the same league as me. The reason you try to belittle me and what I say is because I absolutely destroy your false narratives, over and over and over again. That's why calling me names is all you can do.

I'm gonna ignore the name calling, cause I really don't give a shit what your oppinion of me is.

We've been through this before. You posted the fucking article without any hint that you're doing it sarcastically or whatever.
When people post an article like that, the general assumption is that they support the views presented in the article.
Do you really not understand this?

Further, Iliad immediately calls you out on posting that nonsense. If it's a joke or honest mistake or whatever, here's the point where you should say "Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles".
Instead you post.

I just shared a story. It's not like I am ruling things out, like you seem to be able to somehow do... How do you know it isn't political? Why do you seem to indicate that politics is off limits? Can't even talk about it huh?

I didn't turn to anything you stick in the mudd. Why don't you look at the rest of the posts in the thread, get some context.

Why don't you give us some answers then? How does an unemployed guy get thousands of dollars worth of top notch equipment????????????

This further indicates you actually support the article. You following me? You continue for several posts before, finally, slowly starting to distance yourself a bit from the article.
This is dishonest, terrible debating, and one of the main reasons why 90% of the people on this forum don't take you seriously.
When you get called on something FUCKIN STATE YOUR POSITION CLEARLY. Stop weaseling around.

Now, you come back. Quote the fuckin article again and state you won by talking about something completely different than the subject of the article you quoted.

Iliad was appaled that you were posting conspiracy theories when people had JUST DIED. What the f*ck does his reaction have to do with the goddamn government handouts. He was objecting to the ridiculous brainwashed stuff. I cannot believe you really don't understand this.
To then come back and celebrate your weaseling by declarin victory and calling him names ... it's just beyond belief.

What we have here is a 100% gov't handout funded mass shooting. I think I know why you are soooooo scared about what that means, because, with the way you think, you are fearing that our next step would be to act the way you do, and say "we need to take away all federal education grants, because it caused a mass shooting. If he didn't get thefederal money, there would not have been a mass shooting!

See, you're doing it again.
From most posters this would seem like a harmless joke-ish post. If pressed on it they would subsequently clarify their position and initiate a real debate. From you though, this is just the start of another round of weaseling.

"100% gov't handout funded mass shooting" - exactlyt the kind of term I'd expect your average scumbag politician to use.
Tell me, if it turned out that he had saved the money for the guns by working at Walmart, would it then be called a "100% Walmart funded mass shooting" ?
How the f*ck is it even relevant where he got the money from ? You really think 20k is the limiting factor stopping some nut from a shooting spree? You really think without the government handout it would have been impossible for him to get the guns even though he doesn't give a shit about the consequences?

This is why people like Haggis want to take our guns

Actually, I don't want to take your guns. Actually I believe gun ownership is an important liberty in the US, more for moral/mental/symbolic reasons than anything, and the government should not remove it.
I do, of course, think there should be some restrictions in place. I do not know exactly where these restrictions should be, much as I don't know at which exact point abortions should become illegal.

I'm annoyed that my position on this issue is made harder to defend because of pretend action heroes like yourself that think they could take down a guy with an automatic riffle and body armour in a dark smoke filled theater.
I'm sorry that I don't completely fit into your binary liberal/conservative view of the world.

Yeah, I know it was crap. I shared it in the context that AOG and I were sparring in, that was to say it should not have been taken seriously, and I pity the people who think that the article I threw up against the wall was me writing that article, or whatever the hell the crazies are trying to say. It was just a screwball post, but I am very surprised that it did turn out the shooting was federally funded.+

Where did you say it shouldn't be taken seriously. Show me please.
I've already explained why you appeared to most people that you were taking it seriously.

In sum, there are 3 options that explain your behaviour in this thread and in general.
1. You are simply a troll. A pretty good one at that.

2. Your debating consists of the lowest, dirtiest most dishonest tricks and massive ammounts of weaseling around. You routinely lead people to think you belive things you don't actually believe, you then let them debate you for 5 pages before revealing it was a red herring, you move the goal posts on a constant basis and you seem to have 0 interest in actually getting your views challenged. This is roughly what a significant number of people here believe about you.

3. You are massively off in both understanding what other people are saying to you and in expressing your views to other people. This huge gap in communication causes us to wrongly perceive you as #2. If this is the case, well it really would be fucking sad.

---

Holy shit, haven't written a post this big in a while.

Btw, for future reference. THAT is how a serious reply from me looks like. Check my recent exchange with greece about atheism/agnosticism for more examples.
It seems to be relatively easy for most people to tell when I'm being serious or not, but who the hell knows with you, better make sure I guess.

Haggis. Take the article for what it is. I did not take it seriously. Cmon....Lee Harvey Oswald? It was a conspiratorial article. I don't know about you, but I find conspiracies highly entertaining and thought provoking. Do conspiracy theories piss you off or something? Do we always have to wait for the conspiracy to be proven or disproven before it can be talked about? If that is a case, then every single conspiracy will succeed, because the eichmans will immediately shut down any speech concerning the conspiracy. You wouldn't be familiar with Cass Sunsteins opinion on this subject would ya?

Honestly, for some reason, I like you. I know you don't like me but hey, whatever. I used to think you were a highly reasonable person to bounce things off and get your take on, but as you say in gay marriage I guess you are just mad that we disagree. I suppose I can handle that better or something? Who knows.

As for peoples general assumption, I cannot control that. Some people realize the interesting thing about the information is that it cannot be ruled out, as of yet, at that time. But as I have pointed out it also asked legitimate questions, such as where did he get all his money. Can you drop a line in a possible response if you agree that question is legitimate? I think it sounds like you don't care where he got the money? Would you mind clearing that up as well? Can you also agree that libs are more oft than not to jump to their generalizations of Conservatives? example "Obama is spending too much money" lib fastposts "racist!" Seen it right here, a million times.

Iliad is a basher, and his post seems to fit in what you accuse me of, while you defend his post at the same time. Not weird to me at all, but moving on. He comes and trashes the crap out of me, but he always misses the point. Always. I explain it, but he disappears for a couple weeks until he gets hungry and wants to bash me again.

And yes I am following you line by line. At this point I will wonder just how different your suggestion of what I should say is ""Woah man, I don't support that article, just posted it for shits and giggles"" and what I said was ""I just shared a story."" Does it piss you off I did not match your suggestion exactly by adding "shits and giggles"? You follow that? The truth is I do not support that article, and I also do not-not support that article. I reckon that it raises some questions.....

I then asked a bunch of questions. That is the way I get a conversation started about what was said in the article, so as to get into the substance, talk about the money, talk about his experiment. Support has nothing to do with it from my pov. I was just asking question. And to call it "terrible debating" wtf are you talking about? We had not even started to debate if you ask me. If my question would have been addressed, answered, considered, returned with another question, then the debate would have started. Reading your post, it's pretty clear you are just trying to paint a picture, put me in a box or label me because, since the debate did not even start, that is not the reason 90% don't take me seriously. But 90% of people who fly off the hinge before the debate can even start probably has a lot to do with the reason. You are just trying to make me look bad.

And you say "Iliad called me out?" PFFFFFFFF what a joke. here is what he said

I'm quoting this so Scotty can't edit his way out of shame.

Jesus fucking Christ man, is there anything you can't turn into political fodder? And when did you turn into outright conspiracy theory level of idiocy and delusion? People died Scotty, FFS have some decency.

How is that calling someone out? What is there for me to respond to? Its just a huge attack, has nothing to do with the post he was responding to. Not to mention, as you say that was "Terrible debating skills" well guess what, Iliad's nice little statement was supposedly the opening statement, according to you. To use Iliad's post as an example of implied "good debate skills" is PURE folly! You aren't making any sense, but I will finish reading your post anyways.

And you are defending Iliad and even speaking for him, but you make a few asinine claims yourself. How is it that you are able to know or be able to object that he was brainwashed or not? You suggest I am out of line to share an article that wonders if the shooter was on drugs, or brainwashed? I think the entire country was asking those kinds of questions....ya know..."WHY?" again, you are just trying to make me look bad.

And yes, I was 100% mocking the other sides argument. They say "if it wasn't for the guns, this would not have happened" It's fair game, going with their logic (as i stated ) to say "if it wasn't for the unemployment checks and federal grant money, this would have never happened" they are both equally ridiculous

But truth be told, you pissed me off, plain and simple. You had been making snide responses to my posts for weeks in different threads, and finally I responded in treating you the way you treat me. Seems you don't like it very much. I deal with all your shit. I guess if you really have to you can foe me

[PLAYER57832]

Interestingly enough, the OP has it right. If somebody had have had a gun or some other weapon capable of firing a projectile, then perhaps not as many people would have died. Ever wondered why crime rates are low in the Texas countryside? Why people still feel comfortable keeping their doors unlocked?

The same reason they do so in most small towns around America... there just are not that many criminals out where everyone knows everyone else.

However, the truth is that Texas is not all that peaceful a place, particularly if you are not white.

[PLAYER57832]

.

But, officially and for the record, what I intended to suggest with that photo, as you correctly pointed out, is the people who want guns banned usually end up killing the people who's guns the took away, whether Haggis is aware of that or not. It's not like we can afford to give the gun takers the benefit of the doubt when history proves what the results can be, and history proves those results are the worst possible results.
.

That is only true when the "gun takers" are the government, and in times/places where individuals could actually muster the firepower to effect governmental change.. i.e. overthrow. That world is essentialy past. It will only return with anarchy. The government, today, has far more firepower than any individual or group of individuals could possibly muster. Our security rests in the fact that (idealisitically) we are the government and (in practice) that the pwoers that be have far more to lose by oppressing swaths of citizens than from just letting us go.

HOWEVER, a few thugs with big guns can easily subver that security for individuals. If the "thugs" are contained to the "bad" districts, and are not really a "true problem" for the rest.. then not much of a big deal, for the powers that be. When they reach beyond or when the "bad districts" are being transformed into "nice districts".. then folks demand and often get gun controls.

The NRA trying to claim this is about taking hunting rifles and guns needed for protection is just stupidity.. but stupidity with a lot of power behind it.

[Phatscotty]

We don't budge an inch on ANY of our freedoms Player. Give them an inch, they take a mile.

ETERNAL VIGILANCE means we take on freedom stealers and liberty decreasers and right infringers with everything we got, 100%, to the limit. That is what eternal vigilance means, and that is the price of freedom.

No fucking surrender

[Neoteny]

SEMPER FI OORAH

[Woodruff]

We don't budge an inch on ANY of our freedoms Player. Give them an inch, they take a mile.

Unless it's a freedom you don't like, of course. Then it's different.

[Lootifer]

We don't budge an inch on ANY of our freedoms Player. Give them an inch, they take a mile.

Unless it's a freedom you don't like, of course. Then it's different.

Dem queer folks didnt have none rights to begin with yall hear