Another school shooting

[Spartanmack]

There are some people calling for almost everything.

I don't know if anyone calling for such a thing understands who ostensibly impossible the task would be.

I agree, but the point is, the gun grabber voice in the DNC is real - the lines about common sense gun measures is a charade.

Sorry about the type-o on Dana - I knew it wasn't Dan, I've watched many interviews/debates she's been in over the years. She's aging a bit, it looks like she put on a few lbs and also had some botox - her upper lip barely moved the whole night. Still, she's very good at what she does.

 

[tinselwolverine]

this is so dumb - did you watch the town hall? there wasn't a single question from the other side. One teacher asked the sheriff about his departments actions, but the sheriff brushed it aside adn basically ignored it. The rest were all from pro-gun control advocates.

There's gun control and there's gun control.

Trump is more gun control than he was a week ago.

He wants to make illegal those whatchamacallits that make semi-automatics more like automatics, he wants to raise the age at which a person can legally purchase an AR-15 from 18 to 21, and he wants to set up better ways to screen people so that it's much harder for potential kooks to get their hands on guns.

Dana Loesch is for gun control. At the town hall, she stated that laws should have been in place so as that guy in Florida could never have been able to get a gun.

Everybody is for that.

We already have some gun control laws that are supposed to do that, I guess they don't always work that well all the time.

Wanting to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of kooks doesn't necessarily make one hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I agree, but the point is, the gun grabber voice in the DNC is real - the lines about common sense gun measures is a charade.

Sorry about the type-o on Dana - I knew it wasn't Dan, I've watched many interviews/debates she's been in over the years. She's aging a bit, it looks like she put on a few lbs and also had some botox - her upper lip barely moved the whole night. Still, she's very good at what she does.

She looks hot to me.

There are people who want to do away with the electoral college - repealing the second amendment would run into the same arithmetic/demographic obstacle as that.

 

[Spartanmack]

Shocker. Hack wrong like always about the right to bare arms . We have nothing against lawful right to bare arms under the second Amendment. The NRA is nothing but a fundraising wing of the GOP sadly. Get rid of Citizens United would be a first step.

I haven't been proved wrong about anything. Good try though and nice name calling. I often wonder how someone as stupid, petty and biased as you became a moderator.

 

[Spartanmack]

There's gun control and there's gun control.

Trump is more gun control than he was a week ago.

He wants to make illegal those whatchamacallits that make semi-automatics more like automatics, he wants to raise the age at which a person can legally purchase an AR-15 from 18 to 21, and he wants to set up better ways to screen people so that it's much harder for potential kooks to get their hands on guns.

Dana Loesch is for gun control. At the town hall, she stated that laws should have been in place so as that guy in Florida could never have been able to get a gun.

Everybody is for that.

We already have some gun control laws that are supposed to do that, I guess they don't always work that well all the time.

Wanting to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of kooks doesn't necessarily make one hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

I know this doesn't make people hostile to the 2nd amendment because I'm not hostile to the 2nd amendment and I support all of that, and have for years - except the bump stock thing because I didn't know they existed. If I had been aware they existed for years, I'd have supported banning them for years as well.

There's a significant anti-gun wing of the Democratic party - the DNC has an openly anti-2nd amendment member on the committee that drafted the party platform, at least they did in 2012. I think the Dems who say the party is only talking about common sense reform are lying. I don't believe for a second that they don't want to ultimately ban and grab guns.

 

[tigermud]

Good news, CNN, youtube, google and others now get to decide what is a hoax and what isn't. The cat lady prolly has a say too.

Just remember now all of my fine D sports forum friends and those that despise.

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and you—and there was no one left to speak for you and I.

And just think another couple of years nobody is going to be able to trust anything they see either. Let alone hear.

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-fake-videos-20180219-story.html

Today: Don't trust anything you hear and only half of what you see.
Tomorrow: Don't trust anything you hear or see.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I know this doesn't make people hostile to the 2nd amendment because I'm not hostile to the 2nd amendment and I support all of that, and have for years - except the bump stock thing because I didn't know they existed. If I had been aware they existed for years, I'd have supported banning them for years as well.

There's a significant anti-gun wing of the Democratic party - the DNC has an openly anti-2nd amendment member on the committee that drafted the party platform, at least they did in 2012. I think the Dems who say the party is only talking about common sense reform are lying. I don't believe for a second that they don't want to ultimately ban and grab guns.

I think it's more of a wing than the whole party.

A lot of Democrats are elected from constituencies with a lot of gun owners.

In the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid a little lip service to increase gun regulation, but at the end of the day, President Trump (and I still cringe about the way he often comports himself) President Trump has in a few day pushed forward more meaningful gun safety regulation than Obama and Reid did at that time.

I like the way this CNN (Commie News Network) commie (actually a two C commie, as her name puts it):

...they put a Democrat lawmaker on air or a former Republican lawmaker who shares their point of view to complain that Republicans will never do anything about guns. They never, these journalists, ask those lawmakers what Democrats did about gun control when they had the White House, House and Senate for two years under Barack Obama. Because the answer is NOTHING.

These journalists never say: where was Democrats' courage? Were Democrats too afraid to lose their seats, like they did in 1994, to pass another assault weapons ban?

This doesn't mean I'm conservative or Republican - I'm conservative on some things, liberal on some things and in the middle on some things. I'm not a registered member of any political party.

That said, here's the link to yet another hot conservative chick (although she's not always that conservative).

 

[Spartanmack]

I think it's more of a wing than the whole party.

A lot of Democrats are elected from constituencies with a lot of gun owners.

In the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid paid a little lip service to increase gun regulation, but at the end of the day, President Trump (and I still cringe about the way he often comports himself) President Trump has in a few day pushed forward more meaningful gun safety regulation than Obama and Reid did at that time.

I like the way this CNN (Commie News Network) commie (actually a two C commie, as her name puts it):

...they put a Democrat lawmaker on air or a former Republican lawmaker who shares their point of view to complain that Republicans will never do anything about guns. They never, these journalists, ask those lawmakers what Democrats did about gun control when they had the White House, House and Senate for two years under Barack Obama. Because the answer is NOTHING.

These journalists never say: where was Democrats' courage? Were Democrats too afraid to lose their seats, like they did in 1994, to pass another assault weapons ban?

This doesn't mean I'm conservative or Republican - I'm conservative on some things, liberal on some things and in the middle on some things. I'm not a registered member of any political party.

That said, here's the link to yet another hot conservative chick (although she's not always that conservative).

yeah, i've pointed that out before, not about SE Cupp (although I agree, she's not bad looking and not always conservative) but about the dems doing nothing when they controlled the WH, house and senate. but I think their inaction has more to do with political will than not really wanting to ban or grab guns. Guns rank very low on the list of things Americans care about, so you only see/hear them when something like this happens - striking while the iron is hot. When the dust settles and guns are the 14th most important issue to voters, everyone stops talking about them - that doesn't mean they don't want to take them.

 

[turok]

I haven't been proved wrong about anything. Good try though and nice name calling.

Who or what else ya got to back up your rather arrogant claim, besides some movable goalposts?

I often wonder how you became a moderator.

b/c Bob always does so much more on DSF, than just try to control and dominate the narrative on this puny political forum.

 

[Spartanmack]

Who or what else ya got to back up your rather arrogant claim, besides some movable goalposts?

You. I have you and your silly nonsensical arguments. There's nothing arrogant about stating you haven't proved me wrong. and if it is arrogant is it more arrogant or less backed-up thank this "Shocker. Hack wrong like always about the right to bare arms."

b/c Bob always does so much more on DSF, than just try to control and dominate the narrative on this puny political forum.

right like with the quote above and his constant, repetitive rants about Trump and the GOP and let's not forget single payer and for profit prisons - he's doing "so much more" than trying to dominate and control the narrative.

 

[turok]

You. I have you and your silly nonsensical arguments. There's nothing arrogant about stating you haven't proved me wrong. and if it is arrogant is it more arrogant or less backed-up thank this "Shocker. Hack wrong like always about the right to bare arms.

I consider your retorts against my posts to be proof that I get under your skin and that is a notch on my belt. Otherwise, why bother? Those who post "silly nonsense" is limited to mostly tinsel. And stating that you haven't been proved wrong about anything IS all encompassing and arrogant.

Bob makes some gramattical errors on occasion, but so does a conservative member who posts in DJ. I won't be so petty (this time) to call him out by his nic however.

right like with the quote above and his constant, repetitive rants about Trump and the GOP and let's not forget single payer and for profit prisons - he's doing "so much more" than trying to dominate and control the narrative.

Trump and the GOP provide fresh steaming piles of stinking bullshit 24/7/365, and even he couldn't possibly cover all of it.

His legit concern over heathcare is shared by 10s of millions. Doesn't affect me, but it does my wife as well as the RW, b/c what happens to him and his family, also will happen to them. I haven't read that many posts from him about private prisons. But your reply still doesn''t jibe with my post stating that he provides so much more to this DSF forum as a moderator. Even much moreso than the other active mods, except for one.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Those who post "silly nonsense" is limited to mostly tinsel.

I don't disagree. I need to up my nonsense game.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Those who post "silly nonsense" is limited to mostly tinsel.

I do not post "silly nonsense."

The nonsense I post is sophisticated and brilliant, thank you very much.

Also a plural subject pronoun isn't the best grammatical choice when referring to a primarily singular subject.

 

[biggunsbob]

Sorry I have not read all of the posts but I have been sick all week with a bad flu and cold. Yup nasty one. Are we still debating this antiquated 2nd amendment law ?
One in which the founding Fathers could not have invisioned Machine guns lol. The right are so misguided if they think all Democrats want to storm into their house and rip their guns from them which not true at all. Arguing about machine guns and profits over protecting people . Profits, profits , profits . Everything should be on the table including adjusting the 2nd amendment to the times we live in.

 

[turok]

I do not post "silly nonsense."

The nonsense I post is sophisticated and brilliant, thank you very much.

Also a plural subject pronoun isn't the best grammatical choice when referring to a primarily singular subject.

But you have recently posted that you don't take yourself seriously, unless you still are not.

And using is instead of are, I had noticed since I tend to self-proofread, but decided to not bother editing it. As well as "gramattical".

 

[tinselwolverine]

But you have recently posted that you don't take yourself seriously, unless you still are not.

And using is instead of are, I had noticed since I tend to self-proofread, but decided to not bother editing it. As well as "gramattical".

No, "is" was correct, but it's a verb, not a pronoun.

"Those" was the plural subject pronoun I was referring to.

 

[turok]

No, "is" was correct, but it's a verb, not a pronoun.

"Those" was the plural subject pronoun I was referring to.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Are you now the self-appointed grammar moderator here on DSF?

 

[Spartanmack]

I consider your retorts against my posts to be proof that I get under your skin and that is a notch on my belt. Otherwise, why bother? Those who post "silly nonsense" is limited to mostly tinsel. And stating that you haven't been proved wrong about anything IS all encompassing and arrogant.

Bob makes some gramattical errors on occasion, but so does a conservative member who posts in DJ. I won't be so petty (this time) to call him out by his nic however.

Trump and the GOP provide fresh steaming piles of stinking bullshit 24/7/365, and even he couldn't possibly cover all of it.

His legit concern over heathcare is shared by 10s of millions. Doesn't affect me, but it does my wife as well as the RW, b/c what happens to him and his family, also will happen to them. I haven't read that many posts from him about private prisons. But your reply still doesn''t jibe with my post stating that he provides so much more to this DSF forum as a moderator. Even much moreso than the other active mods, except for one.

If you need to feel like you're getting under my skin with your moronic posts I couldn't possibly care less. I find most of your posts amusing - the serious ones at least. I do however find your need to twist my words as much as or more than MC as a sign of your need to disagree with virtually everything I say (oops, I mean "type") - clearly I've touched a nerve.

I'm not even going to bother with your defense of bob - he's legitimately delusional and a complete moron. And by the way, everyone's concerns with healthcare are shared by 10s of millions - that doesn't legitimize his moronic solutions or make his incoherent rants any less moronic. The reference to for-profit prisons is a running joke about his frequent incoherent anti-GOP rants. If you've read more than 5 of his posts, chances are you've read one of those.

 

[turok]

Its still working..but hey..one of the unwritten rules of the interwebz is that he or she who posts last, wins the argument(s).

Oh and just FYI, and since you weren't around back when DSF began in August of '11, there was no input or vote or poll created, as to who became or deserved to be a moderator, and only one was asked, based upon his popularity and well-earned merit while on the ESPN messageboards. If there was any one method used of the above, the results would very likely have been quite different then and now.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Are you now the self-appointed grammar moderator here on DSF?

Nah, not really.

I was pretty much just posting nonsense.