gun lives matter

First topic message reminder :

We will never allow foreign bureaucrats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom': Trump tells the NRA he is pulling out of the international gun trade treaty signed by Obama

Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon on Friday announced at the National Rifle Association's annual meeting that the United States will drop out of an international arms treaty signed in 2013 by then-President Barack Obama but opposed by the NRA and other conservative groups.

Trump told members of the gun lobby that he intends to revoke the status of the United States as a signatory of the Arms Trade Treaty, which was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

'We're taking our signature back,' Trump said to thousands of cheering attendees, many wearing red hats emblazoned with the Republican president's 'Make America Great Again' slogan.

'Under my administration, we will never surrender American sovereignty to anyone, Trump said, before signing a document on stage asking the Senate to halt the ratification process. 'We will never allow foreign diplomats to trample on your Second Amendment freedom.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6964639/Trump-heeds-NRA-decides-pull-U-S-U-N-arms-treaty.html

The title of this thread still makes me sick to my stomach. It was written by a sociopath ...

Stench?

Lurker wrote:The title of this tread still makes me sick to my stomach. It was written by a sociopath ...

Try ignoring it. Like I do your threads.

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:The title of this tread still makes me sick to my stomach. It was written by a sociopath ...

Try ignoring it. Like I do your threads.  

You ignore a lot of things. Your answer to the number of gun deaths and mass shootings in this country belong in the abyss of nothingness.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Try ignoring it. Like I do your threads.  

You ignore a lot of things.  Your answer to the number of gun deaths and mass shootings in this country belong in the abyss of nothingness.

My answer is to make it illegal to shoot people unless you are defending life or property.

Oh wait! That's already the case.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You ignore a lot of things.  Your answer to the number of gun deaths and mass shootings in this country belong in the abyss of nothingness.

My answer is to make it illegal to shoot people unless you are defending life or property.

Oh wait! That's already the case.  

Your answer is to shoot around indiscriminately, Redneck. Defending life or property is just an easy excuse, used by everyone who gets caught.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My answer is to make it illegal to shoot people unless you are defending life or property.

Oh wait! That's already the case.  

Your answer is to shoot around indiscriminately, Redneck.  Defending life or property is just an easy excuse, used by everyone who gets caught.

Nah, my answer his to hit what you are aiming for.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Your answer is to shoot around indiscriminately, Redneck.  Defending life or property is just an easy excuse, used by everyone who gets caught.

Nah, my answer his to hit what you are aiming for.

You are just looking for an excuse to kill.  They shoot...they think, ahah, I was defending life or property.

Read the story:

Washington Post wrote:Florida man convicted in parking lot shooting of black man

By Terry Spencer and Mike Schneider | AP
August 23, 2019

A white Florida man who told detectives he had a “pet peeve” about illegal parking in handicapped spots was convicted late Friday of manslaughter for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man outside a convenience store.

Six jurors deliberated for six hours in Clearwater before convicting Michael Drejka for the July 19, 2018, death of Markeis McGlockton. Drejka, who could get 30 years, looked down after the verdict was read then wiped his brow with a blue handkerchief. The 49-year-old Drejka was ordered held without bond until his sentencing in October. He stared straight ahead as he was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom.

The verdict came about a half-hour after jurors sent out a note saying they were confused by the state’s self-defense law. Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone told them all he could do is reread it for them.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/national/prosecutor-florida-parking-lot-shooter-was-a-vigilante/2019/08/23/7973636e-c60d-11e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html

Killing over a parking spot he didn't even want?     That man wanted to shoot first, and make up a story that fit the rules, second.

That's what most American gun owners want...an excuse to kill and get away with it.

[/quote]

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nah, my answer his to hit what you are aiming for.

You are just looking for an excuse to kill.  They shoot...they think, ahah, I was defending life or property.

Read the story:

Washington Post wrote:Florida man convicted in parking lot shooting of black man

By Terry Spencer and Mike Schneider | AP
August 23, 2019

A white Florida man who told detectives he had a “pet peeve” about illegal parking in handicapped spots was convicted late Friday of manslaughter for the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man outside a convenience store.

Six jurors deliberated for six hours in Clearwater before convicting Michael Drejka for the July 19, 2018, death of Markeis McGlockton. Drejka, who could get 30 years, looked down after the verdict was read then wiped his brow with a blue handkerchief. The 49-year-old Drejka was ordered held without bond until his sentencing in October. He stared straight ahead as he was handcuffed and led out of the courtroom.

The verdict came about a half-hour after jurors sent out a note saying they were confused by the state’s self-defense law. Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone told them all he could do is reread it for them.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/national/prosecutor-florida-parking-lot-shooter-was-a-vigilante/2019/08/23/7973636e-c60d-11e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html

Killing over a parking spot he didn't even want?     That man wanted to shoot first, and make up a story that fit the rules, second.

That's what most American gun owners want...an excuse to kill and get away with it.

[/quote]


I know the story.

Was he defending life or property?

No matter how much arrogant self-serving NRA-inspired bullshit DeputyDopeyDawg serves up, he can't change one simple, basic and unwavering fact...

That the success rate for those dumbfuck redneck psycho's that Maddog is constanly defending, where they draw and shoot claiming to be defending life and/or property, stays around the 2 % mark..

With the other 98% shooting up furniture, surrounding landscape, their own bodies (far more Americans shoot themselves in the foot, rather than hitting an actual "offender" !) --  or in the worst case scenarios, innocent bystanders.

Trump is always shooting himself in the foot. He does it every time he opens up his lying mouth.

'Wolfie wrote:

No matter how much arrogant self-serving NRA-inspired bullshit DeputyDopeyDawg serves up, he can't change one simple, basic and unwavering fact...

That the success rate for those dumbfuck redneck psycho's that Maddog is constanly defending, where they draw and shoot claiming to be defending life and/or property, stays around the 2 % mark..

With the other 98% shooting up furniture, surrounding landscape, their own bodies (far more Americans shoot themselves in the foot, rather than hitting an actual "offender" !) --  or in the worst case scenarios, innocent bystanders.

One can succeed without ever firing their weapon.

In fact thats usually how people are successful in defending themselves.

And I'm more of a GOA guy than an NRA guy.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are just looking for an excuse to kill.  They shoot...they think, ahah, I was defending life or property.

Read the story:



Killing over a parking spot he didn't even want?     That man wanted to shoot first, and make up a story that fit the rules, second.

That's what most American gun owners want...an excuse to kill and get away with it.

I know the story.  

Was he defending life or property?

[/quote]

Yes or no?

Maddog wrote:I know the story.

Was he defending life or property?

He claims he was. All you gun-nutters cloak yourselves in that NRA-inspired verbiage. It's the old cart-before-the-horse problem ... you want to kill, and you look for excuses afterwards. Words like "defending life or property" are just tools employed after-the-fact.

When a gun-nut is convicted, the NRA just shrugs and says: he wasn't the 'good-guy' we were talking about. He was one of the 'bad guys'.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:I know the story.

Was he defending life or property?

He claims he was.  All you gun-nutters cloak yourselves in that NRA-inspired verbiage.  It's the old cart-before-the-horse problem ... you want to kill, and you look for excuses afterwards.  Words like "defending life or property" are just tools employed after-the-fact.

When a gun-nut is convicted, the NRA just shrugs and says: he wasn't the 'good-guy' we were talking about.  He was one of the 'bad guys'.  

Well, his claims were proved false and he's going where he belongs.

Maddog wrote:One can succeed without ever firing their weapon.  

In fact thats usually how people are successful in defending themselves.

That is one of the least thought-through ideas ever conceived. Everything that is properly taught to gun owners is, never pull a gun unless you fully intend to use it! The reason is obvious: you are making the other guy the decision-maker. You don't control the other guy, how he will react, or his mental state.

Guns have only one purpose, to kill. To use then in a game of bluff begs the question, what do you do if the other guy calls your bluff?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:One can succeed without ever firing their weapon.  

In fact thats usually how people are successful in defending themselves.

That is one of the least thought-through ideas ever conceived.  Everything that is properly taught to gun owners is, never pull a gun unless you fully intend to use it!  The reason is obvious: you are making the other guy the decision-maker.  You don't control the other guy, how he will react, or his mental state.

Guns have only one purpose, to kill.  To use then in a game of bluff begs the question, what do you do if the other guy calls your bluff?

One can intend to use it, without using it.

Firing it is not mandatory when brandishing.

You're dismissed Walter.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He claims he was.  All you gun-nutters cloak yourselves in that NRA-inspired verbiage.  It's the old cart-before-the-horse problem ... you want to kill, and you look for excuses afterwards.  Words like "defending life or property" are just tools employed after-the-fact.

When a gun-nut is convicted, the NRA just shrugs and says: he wasn't the 'good-guy' we were talking about.  He was one of the 'bad guys'.  

Well, his claims were proved false and he's going where he belongs.  

Do you realize how ass-backwards that reasoning is? You start out saying, he is the good guy, and you put a gun in his hand and encourage him to kill. When he does kill, you say, he was the bad guy!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Well, his claims were proved false and he's going where he belongs.  

Do you realize how ass-backwards that reasoning is?  You start out saying, he is the good guy, and you put a gun in his hand and encourage him to kill.  When he does kill, you say, he was the bad guy!

I never said he was a good guy.

He sounds like a dumbass to me.

Do you know him by chance?

Maddog wrote:Firing it is not mandatory when brandishing.

How the fuck do you know? You are not in control of the situation; the other guy controls his own response. Three-quarters of the people on the planet will respond aggressively if you pull a gun.

Your so-called "brandishing" is an open invitation to a killing. What you are talking about is positioning yourself to take advantage of the law after-the-fact. As we saw in the parking lot example above, it doesn't work.

Never pull a gun unless you fully intend to take a life.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do you realize how ass-backwards that reasoning is?  You start out saying, he is the good guy, and you put a gun in his hand and encourage him to kill.  When he does kill, you say, he was the bad guy!

I never said he was a good guy.

He sounds like a dumbass to me.

Do you know him by chance?

That's a good summary. We are talking about anyone who owns a gun, anytime, anywhere.

If you own a gun, you are a dumbass!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Firing it is not mandatory when brandishing.

How the fuck do you know?  You are not in control of the situation; the other guy controls his own response.  Three-quarters of the people on the planet will respond aggressively if you pull a gun.

Your so-called "brandishing" is an open invitation to a killing.  What you are talking about is positioning yourself to take advantage of the law after-the-fact.  As we saw in the parking lot example above, it doesn't work.

Never pull a gun unless you fully intend to take a life.

Psssst.

There is no law requiring anyone brandishing a weapon, to fire it.

In fact, it may be illegal to fire that weapon after brandishing it.

I thought you were some sort of legal wizard?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I never said he was a good guy.

He sounds like a dumbass to me.

Do you know him by chance?

That's a good summary.  We are talking about anyone who owns a gun, anytime, anywhere.

If you own a gun, you are a dumbass!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-shotgun/

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's a good summary.  We are talking about anyone who owns a gun, anytime, anywhere.

If you own a gun, you are a dumbass!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-shotgun/

Yes, I'm not a Biden fan.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-shotgun/

Yes, I'm not a Biden fan.

So we can count on you calling him a dumbass if he get's the nomination?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I'm not a Biden fan.

So we can count on you calling him a dumbass if he get's the nomination?

If it comes up in some meaningful manner.

Lurker wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:

All so typical that the spineless fat turd 'DopeyDawg can only roll his eyes these days..

Silly brainless redneck might finally be waking up to the fact that his endless whining NRA-inspired apologist crappola excusing and defending America's record rates of mass shootings isn't finding too many supporters on this forum ?

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

All so typical that the spineless fat turd 'DopeyDawg can only roll his eyes these days..

Silly brainless redneck might finally be waking up to the fact that his endless whining NRA-inspired apologist crappola excusing and defending America's record rates of mass shootings isn't finding too many supporters on this forum  ?

So speaks the Keyboard Warrior !

Maddog wrote:

All that moronic post proves is just what a total NRA-inspired fuckwit you really are at heart, Dopey'...

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

All that moronic post proves is just what a total NRA-inspired fuckwit you really are at heart, Dopey'...

nicko wrote:Not sure about Trump losing Quill !

The loser will lose. He and his ilk will be flushed down the sewer of time where they belong.

I hope Trump loses, then lurker can go away and post something of interest !

I like Lurker's clever format. Even if Trump is defeated, there's always the Russo-Republican Party to deal with.

And White Supremacy has turned into a Brexit-like movement. Could it be a Party in the making?

Hey Maddog, what if there were no guns? How do you think people may defend themselves?

eddie wrote:Hey Maddog, what if there were no guns? How do you think people may defend themselves?

History has that answer.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Hey Maddog, what if there were no guns? How do you think people may defend themselves?

History has that answer.  

I didn’t ask history, I asked you.

Unarmed Combat ! ? I taught that once, or a big Stick ?

nicko wrote:Unarmed Combat ! ? I taught that once, or a big Stick ?

Hahaha...now the most you can hope for is, his arm gets caught in your wheelchair spokes and flips 'im.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

History has that answer.  

I didn’t ask history, I asked you.

And I gave you an answer. I don't have to think about it, as history shows how humans defended themselves prior to firearms.

Swords, knives, arrows, rocks, clubs, spears, slings, trebuches, boiling oil, dogs and fists.

I'm sure there are more.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

I didn’t ask history, I asked you.

And I gave you an answer. I don't have to think about it, as history shows how humans defended themselves prior to firearms.  

Swords, knives, arrows, rocks, clubs, spears, slings, trebuches, boiling oil, dogs and fists.

I'm sure there are more.  

But none designed to so efficiently kill other people.