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

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The agreement that the Drumpster is pulling out of is concerned with attempting to regulate international arms trades  --  i.e.  who you sell weapons to, and what kinds of weapons you sell...

Maddog and Smelly' don't seem to care just what kinds of guns their friendly neighbourhood terrorists and mass-murders may be able to buy;  nor what tinpot dictatorships or terrorist organisations their countries may be prepared to sell guns to..

Just as long as Maddog and Smelly' can be left alone to buy or sell whatever weapons they like  ?

I don't care what kind of weapons you buy either.

Go buy a couple AR-10s. I don't care.

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Let me quote Jefferson for you.



"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

Let me quote Phildidge for you

"who gives a fuck about some long dead yank?"

You failed to actually answer my point

You would never have known the many things you do today, without others sharing

That is a fact

Jefferson > Some internet weirdo.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Let me quote Phildidge for you

"who gives a fuck about some long dead yank?"

You failed to actually answer my point

You would never have known the many things you do today, without others sharing

That is a fact

Jefferson > Some internet weirdo.  

Great whataboutism and again avoiding my point

So did you teach your daughters to share when they were growing up. Yes or no?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:When Trump is dumped in the next election, most likely there will be a strong push toward gun restrictions.

The one benefit of having a neo-fascist president is the backlash.  Everyone wants to divest themselves of everything he stood for.

the only thing that trump is dumping is obamas bad policies

you still havent figured it out yet, creepy uncle joe is the best you got and he fondles children

While I'm not a fan of Joe's, I'm sure that caging children is worse.

Children were separated from their Parents, they were put in "cages" to keep them safe until their parents were found !But of course you prefer to say they were kidnapped. It was to keep them safe, nothing else !

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Let me quote Phildidge for you

"who gives a fuck about some long dead yank?"

You failed to actually answer my point

You would never have known the many things you do today, without others sharing

That is a fact

Jefferson > Some internet weirdo.

Well Jefferson was pre-internet, but he certainly was a weirdo. He was known to stalk and harass women, most particularly the wife of his friend, John Walker, known as Betsy Walker:

… and it sounds like Tom may have made some (polite, but unmistakable) moves on Betsy. She resisted, but John Walker noticed that, for a while after, Betsy was always a little uncomfortable around Jefferson. Tom just didn’t take “no” for a real answer, and once on another visit, he “renewed his caresses” on Betsy, by slipping a written note into her gown’s sleeve describing “the innocence of promiscuous love.” Mrs. Walker tore the note up. Jefferson still didn’t get the hint, so later at a plantation house party given by John Coles, the women all said they were retiring for the night. Jefferson feigned a headache and said he was also turning in. But instead, Tom found Betsy’s bedroom where she “was undressing or in bed.” John L. Smith, Jr., SEXUAL LIBERTIES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, in Journal of the American Revolution (2016).
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/04/sexual-liberties-of-thomas-jefferson/

When it came to love, Jefferson was known to be (in today's parlance) 'creepy', a 'turn-off' and 'a stalker'.

nicko wrote:
Children were separated from their Parents,   they were put in "cages" to keep them safe until their parents were found !But of course you prefer to say they were kidnapped. It was to keep them safe, nothing else !

More idiotic bullshit lies from their paedo's defence league there, nicko -- why do you keep on defending the indefensible on here ?

Over 2,000 of those children "lost" in the system over the past year, still not reunited with their parents..

And you, and smelly', and gelico, all keep on defending Trump on here !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:
Children were separated from their Parents,   they were put in "cages" to keep them safe until their parents were found !But of course you prefer to say they were kidnapped. It was to keep them safe, nothing else !

More idiotic bullshit lies from their paedo's defence league there,  nicko  --  why do you keep on defending the indefensible on here  ?

Over 2,000 of those children "lost" in the system over the past year,  still not reunited with their parents..

And you, and smelly', and gelico, all keep on defending Trump on here  !

The situation on the border is a mess. The facilities are being overwhelmed, and overrun. Immigrants, are being turned loose after a few days of being held, to fend for themselves in small Texas towns, who are in no position to take care of these people.

Many of these children are never going to be reunited with her parents on this side of the border, because they are unaccompanied teenagers. Their parents are on the other side of the border.

nicko wrote:Children were separated from their Parents,   they were put in "cages" to keep them safe until their parents were found !But of course you prefer to say they were kidnapped. It was to keep them safe, nothing else !

Riddle me this, Nicko.  How come the DHS never kept records on who were the childrens’ parents?  They are still in custody along the Texas and New Mexico border, because they can't locate the parents.  FCS, with some kids they don’t even know the nationality.

"Put in cages to keep them safe..."  From whom, if they were never meant to be returned to their parents?  And cages?  Were they fed from pig troughs?  Four of the children died while in those cages...maybe the doctors couldn't figure out how to open the Sally Port doors?

"Parents were found?"  How could they find the parents, when they never kept records?  

"...It was to keep them safe, nothing else !"  Safe for who, when they never had any intention of reuniting the children with their parents?  Why did four children die while in custody, if they were keeping them safe? What part of "safe" don't they understand.

I get the distinct feeling that you think the Holocaust was about keeping the Jews warm and out of the elements.

You and your cronies were probably good at killing Vietnamese....but you sure don't grasp humanitarian missions.  If you did you would recognize the forest from the trees.  No cages.  No illness.  No deaths.  FCS, the Nazis kept better records of who was who!

NICKO you have no idea what you are talking about...

I read it in the Papers, but you are so filled with hate against Trump you use any excuse to belittle him !

In Fox News, the Mail and the Express., by any chance?

nicko wrote:I read it in the Papers, but you are so filled with hate against Trump you use any excuse to belittle him !

He's a criminal! Don't you recognize criminals when you see 'em? Why doesn't he release his tax returns for the past ten years? Why is he preventing former staffers from testifying? Why is he stonewalling on release of documents? Why is he trying to rewrite the Constitution, when there is clear, settled law on all of the points he raises? He's a criminal, doing what criminals do...stonewalling, running a cover-up, inventing lies to reinvent facts, and preventing the real witnesses from testifying.

Or do you think the only criminals are Muslims? You guys complain about how soft British courts are...you guys are feather merchants compared to them. If he's white, he's all right.

They gotta toe the party line, Quill.
What Dyk tells them to say, they repeat it here

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:
Children were separated from their Parents,   they were put in "cages" to keep them safe until their parents were found !But of course you prefer to say they were kidnapped. It was to keep them safe, nothing else !

More idiotic bullshit lies from their paedo's defence league there,  nicko  --  why do you keep on defending the indefensible on here  ?

Over 2,000 of those children "lost" in the system over the past year,  still not reunited with their parents..

And you, and smelly', and gelico, all keep on defending Trump on here  !

2,000 children without their parents....that’s absolutely heartbreaking. It really is. I think of my little one and that just makes me want to weep.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


More idiotic bullshit lies from their paedo's defence league there,  nicko  --  why do you keep on defending the indefensible on here  ?

Over 2,000 of those children "lost" in the system over the past year,  still not reunited with their parents..

And you, and smelly', and gelico, all keep on defending Trump on here  !

2,000 children without their parents....that’s absolutely heartbreaking.  It really is.  I think of my little one and that just makes me want to weep.

Go back and read my post a few up.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


More idiotic bullshit lies from their paedo's defence league there,  nicko  --  why do you keep on defending the indefensible on here  ?

Over 2,000 of those children "lost" in the system over the past year,  still not reunited with their parents..

And you, and smelly', and gelico, all keep on defending Trump on here  !

2,000 children without their parents....that’s absolutely heartbreaking.  It really is.  I think of my little one and that just makes me want to weep.

Go back and read my post a few up.  

If it’s this one, I did:

Maddog wrote: The situation on the border is a mess. The facilities are being overwhelmed, and overrun. Immigrants, are being turned loose after a few days of being held, to fend for themselves in small Texas towns, who are in no position to take care of these people.

Many of these children are never going to be reunited with her parents on this side of the border, because they are unaccompanied teenagers. Their parents are on the other side of the border.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Go back and read my post a few up.  

If it’s this one, I did:

Maddog wrote: The situation on the border is a mess. The facilities are being overwhelmed, and overrun. Immigrants, are being turned loose after a few days of being held, to fend for themselves in small Texas towns, who are in no position to take care of these people.

Many of these children are never going to be reunited with her parents on this side of the border, because they are unaccompanied teenagers. Their parents are on the other side of the border.

Then you would know that many of these children, are men where they come from. They are done with school and are looking for work.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

If it’s this one, I did:

Then you would know that many of these children, are men where they come from. They are done with school and are looking for work.

OMG, Here are the grown men of Guatemala



And Nicaragua:



And Costa Rica:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then you would know that many of these children, are men where they come from. They are done with school and are looking for work.

OMG, Here are the grown men of Guatemala



And Nicaragua:



And Costa Rica:

Are they all alone?

Pictures of kids tell me nothing.

What I do know, is the system is being overloaded, and the people overloading it are as much to blame as Trump, who isn't trying to fix it.

And since when are people fleeing FROM Costa Rica?

Maddog wrote:Are they all alone?

They soon will be, after the separation.

Maddog wrote:Pictures of kids tell me nothing.

That's right.  You're a real tough southerner.

Maddog wrote:What I do know, is the system is being overloaded, and the people overloading it are as much to blame as Trump, who isn't trying to fix it.

This is a big fucking country, with the screaming problem of too few workers and too many unfilled jobs.  What part of "Immigrants Needed" don't you understand?



The reason the people of the (southern) border are being rejected is the color of their skin.  Everything seems to be fine at the Canadian border. Ya know? Happy white faces.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Go back and read my post a few up.  

If it’s this one, I did:

Maddog wrote: The situation on the border is a mess. The facilities are being overwhelmed, and overrun. Immigrants, are being turned loose after a few days of being held, to fend for themselves in small Texas towns, who are in no position to take care of these people.

Many of these children are never going to be reunited with her parents on this side of the border, because they are unaccompanied teenagers. Their parents are on the other side of the border.

Then you would know that many of these children, are men where they come from. They are done with school and are looking for work.

Erm...so they are putting grown men into cages?

Do they look like grown men?

The claim that America is "full" is patently absurd. The U.S. ranks between 150 and 200 on the global lists of countries by population density -- one list has 233 countries, another has 215.

For perspective, the UK ranks around 50th on that list.

The U.S. needs immigrants to bolster an aging population with a low birth rate. Business owners need immigrants to fill the ranks of their employee rolls.

So America is basically in the same situation it's always been, because America is made of immigrants.

Original Quill wrote:

Do they look like grown men?

No, they do not. And that picture breaks my heart actually.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do they look like grown men?

No, they do not. And that picture breaks my heart actually.

So many have broken my heart.  Look at the one of  the little girl in the rose sweater, whose mother is being frisked roadside ^ above.  She'll be scarred for life...all because a crooked rich man wanted to impose racism on his country.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Then you would know that many of these children, are men where they come from. They are done with school and are looking for work.

Erm...so they are putting grown men into cages?  

No, but there are a great number of unaccompanied minors. They are being kept in any damn thing we can find.

Ben Reilly wrote:The claim that America is "full" is patently absurd. The U.S. ranks between 150 and 200 on the global lists of countries by population density -- one list has 233 countries, another has 215.

For perspective, the UK ranks around 50th on that list.

The U.S. needs immigrants to bolster an aging population with a low birth rate. Business owners need immigrants to fill the ranks of their employee rolls.

So America is basically in the same situation it's always been, because America is made of immigrants.

Who said it was full?

Original Quill wrote:

Do they look like grown men?

Do you know how old that picture is?

When was this pic taken?

The title to this thread is disturbing. Guns don't have a life they take a life. Fuck guns.

Lurker wrote:The title to this thread is disturbing. Guns don't have a life they take a life. Fuck guns.

Yes, guns take lives. That's what makes them so effective at stopping people, who want to harm others.

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:The title to this thread is disturbing. Guns don't have a life they take a life. Fuck guns.

Yes, guns take lives. That's what makes them so effective at stopping people, who want to harm others.

Or, stopping innocent people who just want to get along with their lives. Why not start a thread about anthrax?

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:The title to this thread is disturbing. Guns don't have a life they take a life. Fuck guns.

Yes, guns take lives. That's what makes them so effective at stopping people, who want to harm others.

Unfortunately for your blithering bullshit, Maddog, only around 2% of those 'private' American citizenss who attempt to shoot some baddies in self defence, real or imagined, will actually succeed in doing so...

The other 98% only manage to shoot themselves, their neighbours, their children or spouses, pets, or some innocent piece of furniture, landscape or wildlife..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, guns take lives. That's what makes them so effective at stopping people, who want to harm others.

Unfortunately for your blithering bullshit,  Maddog,  only around 2% of those 'private' American citizenss who attempt to shoot some baddies in self defence, real or imagined, will actually succeed in doing so...

The other 98% only manage to shoot themselves, their neighbours, their children or spouses, pets, or some innocent piece of furniture, landscape or wildlife..

What's the matter? Are you worried about your neighbors shooting you?

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:The title to this thread is disturbing. Guns don't have a life they take a life. Fuck guns.

Yes, guns take lives. That's what makes them so effective at stopping people, who want to harm others.

But the evidence  and stats does not show that to be the case. All,it does it lead to more gun deaths

Even the Swiss who have stricter gun laws than you have, have the highest number of gun deaths in Europe

Its a no brainer this and basic maths

More guns are always going to lead to a higher percentage of more gun deaths

What makes guns so effective far favours those who seek to kill. As there is little you can do to actually prevent this without intelligence. If someone is intent on shooting you, they will often succeed. That is why within the criminal world. Even Mafia boses, who's soldiers are armed to the teeth, often cannot defend themselves against a person set on killing them. If you cannot grasp the reality, that guns favour the criminal. Then you are seriously not understanding criminology

I will add. If guns seriously prevented gun crime. Then how on earth does thousands of people be murdered each year by guns Maddog?

As the reality is that if someone wants to gun you down, there is little that people can do.  As what you then need is basically an army to protect you and even then that is not good enough for even criminal gangs. As you often simple do not know who is the enemy

Hence the argument they prevent gun deaths, is based on a pure myth. As in fact access to guns, leads far more to murders and deaths by guns.

phildidge wrote:I will add. If guns seriously prevented gun crime. Then how on earth does thousands of people be murdered each year by guns Maddog?

As the reality is that if someone wants to gun you down, there is little that people can do.  As what you then need is basically an army to protect you and even then that is not good enough for even criminal gangs. As you often simple do not know who is the enemy

Hence the argument they prevent gun deaths, is based on a pure myth. As in fact access to guns, leads far more to murders and deaths by guns.

Guns don't protect everyone the same.

If you engage in certain behavior, your chance of being murdered increases. That's what places lake St Louis have such a high rate of murder.

It's the behavior of it's citizens, not the number of weapons.

In fact, most major cities in the US have low levels of gun ownership, but higher murder rates.

Crime, including gun crime, isn't simply down to availability of weapons. It's usually a socio economic problem.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:I will add. If guns seriously prevented gun crime. Then how on earth does thousands of people be murdered each year by guns Maddog?

As the reality is that if someone wants to gun you down, there is little that people can do.  As what you then need is basically an army to protect you and even then that is not good enough for even criminal gangs. As you often simple do not know who is the enemy

Hence the argument they prevent gun deaths, is based on a pure myth. As in fact access to guns, leads far more to murders and deaths by guns.

Guns don't protect everyone the same.

If you engage in certain behavior, your chance of being murdered increases. That's what places lake St Louis have such a high rate of murder.

It's the behavior of it's citizens, not the number of weapons.

In fact, most major cities in the US have low levels of gun ownership, but higher murder rates.

Crime, including gun crime, isn't simply down to availability of weapons. It's usually a socio economic problem.    

That is nonsense on every level as many innocent people die in the Us from Murder

Even using that argument that fact is criminals have easy access to guns, making it more important and even more so that you would back stricter laws on guns in the us. So if behaviour is the problem. Then you should be advocating stricter gun laws.

Let me give you an even better example on how ineffective guns can be on preventing crime

Lets look at Israel, where again they have far stricter gun laws than the US and face a far greater threat than you could ever possible imagine.

During the knife itntifada, 38 people were killed and 558 were wounded by knives, axes etc. Often near to security services and soldiers.
Now 232 of the attackers were killed. Some before they could attack someone, as they were using knives. Once they expose them to attack, it takes longer to cause harm, than does a bullet being fired from a gun.. 4,000 of them were injured, showing amasing restraint by the Israelis when facing such suicidial knife attacks.

Now imagine what the death toll of Israeli's would have been if the Palestinians had of had guns

Times it at least 50 and you might get close to the mark of the number of people killed

How did guns prevent the number of people murdered and wounded by knives?

Often it was intelligence, security check points, etc that prevent attacks and quick thinking by security and army personnel. That would have not been the case, if they faced terrorists with guns

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Guns don't protect everyone the same.

If you engage in certain behavior, your chance of being murdered increases. That's what places lake St Louis have such a high rate of murder.

It's the behavior of it's citizens, not the number of weapons.

In fact, most major cities in the US have low levels of gun ownership, but higher murder rates.

Crime, including gun crime, isn't simply down to availability of weapons. It's usually a socio economic problem.    

That is nonsense on every level as many innocent people die in the Us from Murder

Even using that argument that fact is criminals have easy access to guns, making it more important and even more so that you would back stricter laws on guns in the us. So if behaviour is the problem. Then you should be advocating stricter gun laws.

Let me give you an even better example on how ineffective guns can be on preventing crime

Lets look at Israel, where again they have far stricter gun laws than the US and face a far greater threat than you could ever possible imagine.

During the knife itntifada, 38 people were killed and 558 were wounded by knives, axes etc. Often near to security services and soldiers.
Now 232 of the attackers were killed. Some before they could attack someone, as they were using knives. Once they expose them to attack, it takes longer to cause harm, than does a bullet being fired from a gun.. 4,000 of them were injured, showing amasing restraint by the Israelis when facing such suicidial knife attacks.

Now imagine what the death toll of Israeli's would have been if the Palestinians had of had guns

Times it at least 50 and you might get close to the mark of the number of people killed

How did guns prevent the number of people murdered and wounded by knives?

Often it was intelligence, security check points, etc that prevent attacks and quick thinking by security and army personnel. That would have not been the case, if they faced terrorists with guns

Every day innocent people are killed in certain areas, in far greater numbers than other areas.

Certain behavior, in conjunction with being in certain areas, has a huge effect on your chance of being killed.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

That is nonsense on every level as many innocent people die in the Us from Murder

Even using that argument that fact is criminals have easy access to guns, making it more important and even more so that you would back stricter laws on guns in the us. So if behaviour is the problem. Then you should be advocating stricter gun laws.

Let me give you an even better example on how ineffective guns can be on preventing crime

Lets look at Israel, where again they have far stricter gun laws than the US and face a far greater threat than you could ever possible imagine.

During the knife itntifada, 38 people were killed and 558 were wounded by knives, axes etc. Often near to security services and soldiers.
Now 232 of the attackers were killed. Some before they could attack someone, as they were using knives. Once they expose them to attack, it takes longer to cause harm, than does a bullet being fired from a gun.. 4,000 of them were injured, showing amasing restraint by the Israelis when facing such suicidial knife attacks.

Now imagine what the death toll of Israeli's would have been if the Palestinians had of had guns

Times it at least 50 and you might get close to the mark of the number of people killed

How did guns prevent the number of people murdered and wounded by knives?

Often it was intelligence, security check points, etc that prevent attacks and quick thinking by security and army personnel. That would have not been the case, if they faced terrorists with guns

Every day innocent people are killed in certain areas, in far greater numbers than other areas.

Certain behavior, in conjunction with being in certain areas, has a huge effect on your chance of being killed.    

Which would and should mean, that stricter gun control would help prevent this

Can you out run a person with a knife?

The survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attack would tell you this. Hence why they are alive

Could they have out run bullets?

phildidge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Every day innocent people are killed in certain areas, in far greater numbers than other areas.

Certain behavior, in conjunction with being in certain areas, has a huge effect on your chance of being killed.    

Which would and should mean, that stricter gun control would help prevent this

Can you out run a person with a knife?

The survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attack would tell you this. Hence why they are alive

Could they have out run bullets?

What about those who can't outrun someone with a knife?

Tough shit eh? Should have worked on their sprinting skills?

Sorry you tried to outrun someone while carrying your child too.

This should be a personal decision, made by you and I.

And your decision, is none of my business, and mine, none of yours.

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Which would and should mean, that stricter gun control would help prevent this

Can you out run a person with a knife?

The survivors of the London Bridge terrorist attack would tell you this. Hence why they are alive

Could they have out run bullets?

What about those who can't outrun someone with a knife?

Tough shit eh? Should have worked on their sprinting skills?

Sorry you tried to outrun someone while carrying your child too.

This should be a personal decision, made by you and I.

And your decision, is none of my business, and mine, none of yours.    

1) Did i say tough shit? I deal in maths. How many could out run a bullet compared to a kinfe?

Do you want to do the maths on this?

The point you miss is this

If four extremist terrorists had of had guns instead of knives. What would have been the death toll?

Do you dare to contemplate that equation mate?

Maddog wrote:Every day innocent people are killed in certain areas, in far greater numbers than other areas.

A completely meaningless statement. Guns are killing those "innocent people". The issue is not that people die, but what causes those deaths. Laws that protect guns, also protect the death of "innocent people".

Maddog wrote:Certain behavior, in conjunction with being in certain areas, has a huge effect on your chance of being killed.

And that shouldn't have to be. Outlaw guns...problem solved.

Fuck guns, fuck Trump and fuck republicans and all sympathizers. May they all rot in hell.

Lurker wrote:Fuck guns, fuck Trump and fuck republicans and all sympathizers. May they all rot in hell.

Fuck me!

Maddog wrote:

Lurker wrote:Fuck guns, fuck Trump and fuck republicans and all sympathizers. May they all rot in hell.

Fuck me!

I think you will appreciate this by a psychologist: