Jump to content

atomheartbevo

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    59709
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    153

Posts posted by atomheartbevo

  1. 1 minute ago, Not a cat said:

    A guy that watches a lot of porn that has caused him to feel inadequate in comparison would probably feel better about himself after seeing this show.  Hypothetically.

    So the dicks on display are small, like less than 6 inches?  Good to know, thanks!

  2. 18 hours ago, mulletpelini said:

    outsider perspective, galindo is shit, whoever announces with him is shit as well.  Get some fucking communications students up there instead it would be difficult to do worse than they already are.  Galindo is the Kyler Murray of broadcasting.

    Maybe Cole and Galindo are part of the BOMC. 

  3. 17 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

    ok, so let's set aside the general idiocy of shit like that for a minute (the beto-related social media post).

    let's say the shooter was a huge democrat, stickers and all.

    would that change the fact that as a country, we need stricter policy concerning guns?  does the right actually think the left wants the laws changed because it happens that some of the mass shootings were committed by trump supporters/white nationalists/both?

    Let's say the typical mass shooter was a minority who practices Islam, and was carrying out some fucked-up form of jihad, and there were a handful of websites that he and his fellow brown Islamic mass shooters kept popping up on, and he and his mass shooters kept using the same style of weapon, and they made damn sure that this would continue for many years to come.

    Does the GOP do anything?  Does the NRA?

    Yes, it's a stupid hypothetical situation.

    This whole thing is a fucking mess, because the GOP is in the pocket of the NRA, and it financially benefits the NRA not to budge a single inch (and when we get the inevitable AWB 2.0, the NRA will rake it in like nobody's business, and the controversy over ole Wayne's benefits will disappear).

    • Like 1
  4. 53 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

    Wonder how the trumpets feel about their chosen one playing so much golf ?

    Liberals: "He said he wouldn't play golf, he's ripping off American taxpayers!"

    Trumpkins: "Libtard tears are the yummiest!"

    The rest of us: "Who the fuck did you think Trump was?"

     

    • Like 4
  5. 42 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

    Agree with that, but by god make certain that due process is strictly adhered to and thoroughly investigated when putting the “red flag” laws in action. Just relying on a complaint from someone with an agenda (scorned woman, asshole neighbor, etc.) is a very dangerous constitutional step and ripe for abuse.

    Agree completely.  We've got 15 states or so that have them, that we can study, and we are starting to see them in action - they've nailed several people, that when you look at them, and read why their firearms were taken, you're thinking "yep, that was a mass shooting just waiting to happen."

    We don't want to go back to the days of "Uncle Ed was just locked up in the asylum, because he thought nobody was looking and he was wearing Aunt Ethel's dresses".

    But like I said, if a 17 year-old is perceived as a threat by law enforcement and school officials, maybe we shouldn't let him buy a firearm a few years down the road.  And being married to somebody in education, problems with students are fairly well documented.  It's not like some random person cutting somebody off in traffic and getting reported to the cops.  

    The Odessa shooter - had the cops bothered to put in the effort (I don't buy the GPS bullshit one bit) and talk to the guy after he threatened his neighbor over the trash in the dumpster, that might have been enough to take his guns for 60 days or so,   The fact that he didn't have electricity and water, and liked to shoot animals in his yard at night would have probably been enough for a West Texas judge to say "yep, let's keep an eye on him"

  6. 32 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

    You listed "red flag laws" separately, so again I will ask what does a "stricter" background check mean? Do you know what the current restrictions are for purchasing a firearm?

    l listed red flag laws separately (although I still think they go hand-in-hand somewhat), because they generally pertain to removing firearms from somebody, and not just preventing ownership.   They are only around in 15 or so states though.

    Last time I bought a firearm where I had to go through a background check was several years ago, so things may have tightened up, but stricter in the sense that we are headed towards universal background checks (even if a lot of mass shooters are already going through the background check).  More importantly, stricter in the sense that we need to be thinking in terms of the kinds of things that would kick a red flag law into effect.  Like I said, if somebody is a nutcase in high school, and is on school officials/law enforcement's radar then, we need to carry that over into adulthood.

    Way too many of these shooters are of the "yep, in school, we always thought he'd be the one to shoot up the place!" variety.

  7. 31 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

    And it will not affect mass shootings, just like the first one didn’t. The 1994 AWB was deemed a failure in retrospect.

    Doesn't stop the fact that we are headed towards another one - the first one was passed before mass shootings were truly a thing.  The only questions are when and how restrictive it will be, and what, if any, loopholes will there be.  

     

  8. 4 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

    Serious question: what is a "stricter" background check? Right now they require a full FBI check against any criminal or other restrictions for purchasing a firearm

    When I say stricter, I'm talking about pulling red-flag stuff (or extreme risk protective orders, etc.) into the mix - the Dayton shooter was a fucking nutcase in high school, same with the Parkland shooter.  These were guys that were on everybody's radar - their classmates, school officials, law enforcement (within their districts), etc.   A psychopath with a rape/kill list at age 17 doesn't magically get better when he turns 18.  A guy who has to be specially searched before entering a school is not going to magically get better at 18.  The would-be shooter at the Dallas courthouse - yeah, if the military won't let a soldier carry a weapon/use live ammo/etc., that's got to be flagged somewhere when he hits civilian life.

    Plus improve the  background checks.  The would-be Pease Park shooter here in Austin - the gun store owner that sold to him said the background check system failed and the guy was able to buy firearms he shouldn't have been able to - he had fucking warrants out.  That system needs to be improved.

    Sutherland Springs is the prime example - that guy was booted out of the AF and should have been on a no-buy list, but the system failed to get that info from the military into the system.

    • Like 2
  9. Here's the thing Iceman - solid red-flag legislation and better/stricter background checks would have prevented 2 out of the last 3 high-profile mass shootings - the Odessa guy should have lost his gun after threatening that woman over her trash or whatever.  The Dayton shooter would have been prevented from buying anything, based on the fact that he had some serious mental health issues in high school (and yeah, those records should have carried on past high school).

    And Hell, the El Paso shooter's mom expressed some concerns to the local cops over his purchases/habits, and they blew her off.  Solid red-flag legislation might have seen somebody taking a peek at that guy.

  10. 40 minutes ago, Iceman said:

    Lolz. "wasn't around in '94."

    and it won't make you a bit safer.  but you can hug that legislation at night.

    You seemed to act like gun control legislation is a foreign concept that will never affect you, when in fact we've had such legislation in our lifetimes, and it stood up to legal challenge after legal challenge.

    It's not about making me safer - some asshole fucking around on his cellphone and blowing through a stop sign or red light is more dangerous to me than a mass shooter, because I see those idiots every single week.  But there's a shitload of people in this country who are starting to reach their limits with these shootings, and they are getting tired of politicians doing jack shit.  

    Every time you get one of these shootings, you add more and more people to the list of those who want something done.

    It's about people like you, and organizations like the NRA saying "let's compromise a little, let's push through some solid national red-flag legislation and stricter/improved background checks, maybe increase the mental health resources."

    But far too many people like you and organizations like the NRA won't budge a single fucking inch, because you think that if you budge an inch, they'll take a mile.

    Guess what?  If nothing is done, and things continue the way they are, you're going to be wishing you had budged an inch or two, because they are going to take their fucking mile or two, and I guarantee that we are going to get AWB 2.0, and it's going to make people like you howl.

    • Like 2
  11. 5 hours ago, Iceman said:

    Because my ownership of firearms should never be the target of proposed legislation.  It s a threat to nobody.

    Unless I demonstrate something we all agree is worthy of deeming me unfit for my ownership, i.e mental fitness, felonies, etc., then leave me the fuck alone.

     

    4 hours ago, Iceman said:

    I absolutely support legislation against crimes committed with guns. 100% on board. 

    Possession, however, is not a crime in my opinion,  unless the individual has already demonstrated being unfit to possess that firearm.

    Regardless of your avatar, you're too young to remember, but we had an Assault Weapons Ban (also large capacity magazines) that lasted from 1994 - 2004.  It only went away because Congress didn't renew it - it was challenged year-after-year by the NRA, GOP,  various states, etc., and lasted for the full 10 years.  1994 was 5 years before Columbine, before mass shootings were a truly common thing, and yet we still had the AWB.  And while there were loopholes, and its effects can be debated, the fact is, it survived various legal challenges.   Congress could have even renewed it, had the Dems been in power.

    The NRA has the political power, right now, to make Congress push through improved/stricter background checks, nation-wide red flag laws, an improved mental health system, etc. - things that would keep plenty of guns out of the hands of nutcases, and reduce the chances of these mass shootings.    And plenty of those nuts had contact with law enforcement and mental health agencies prior to their shootings and were setting off warning flags.  And we are seeing law enforcement in areas with red-flag laws taking guns away from people with clear mental issues, but it's not nation-wide.

    Those improved background checks and red flag laws would not affect a law-abiding mentally-stable citizen such as yourself.

    But the NRA chooses to sit on their thumbs.  And the shootings will continue, perhaps even increase, based on the trends of the past few years.  And we will probably get live-streamed massacres of little kids at some point.

    And so there will eventually be another Federal Assault Weapons Ban, we'll call it AWB 2.0.  And it will be stricter, and its creators will have 10 years of legal challenges face by the original AWB to draw upon when crafting the AWB 2.0

    And AWB 2.0 will definitely affect you. 

    • Like 5
  12. 4 hours ago, Fozzz said:

    How do I kill the 30-50 feral hogs that run into my yard within 3-5 mins while my small kids play?

    Invite an aggy to come over and hang out in your yard.  The feral hogs will be so concerned with protecting their asses, they'll ignore your kids.

  13. The mail carrier that was killed, I guess she called her twin sister when the shooting started or something, and the twin sister heard her being murdered.  Ughh.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/01/us/west-texas-mass-shooting-victims/index.html

    One of the victims was a 15 year-old who had just celebrated her quinceañera a few months before, 

    Quote

    On Saturday, Hernandez stood next to her brother Nathan as he collected the keys to a truck he'd saved up for. Also with them was their 9-year-old brother, their mother, and their mother's boyfriend.

    As they walked out of the dealership, the gunman drove past and shot them.

    Nathan was hit in the arm. Leilah was hit in the shoulder, near her collarbone, and bled to death as they waited 20 minutes for an ambulance to arrive, her grandmother told the Washington Post.

    "Help me, help me," Leilah cried while dying, according to her grandmother.

    Quote

    Joseph Griffith was driving with his wife and two children when he was shot and killed on Saturday, his sister Carla Byrne told the Washington Post.

    "This maniac pulled up next to him and shot him, took away his life, murdered my baby brother. Like nothing," she said.

    The 17 month-old

    Quote

    The toddler, Anderson Davis, was sitting in her carseat next to her twin brother when the gunman shot at her family's car

     

  14. 1 hour ago, texas08 said:

    socialistttt....scawyyyy

    ...dumb fucking right really believes they don’t partake in any socialism...stupid fucks...

    Well, he was in a US Mail truck at one point, or at least it was claimed that he was, and the US Postal Service is a commie socialist government program, so...

  15. 1 hour ago, cactusflinthead said:

    But, I think the suburban GOP leaning moms might. 

    Based on the ones I know, I believe you're right.  And when you see things like all of those Gofundme donations pouring in for various victims, there's a shitload of suburban moms pitching in money for them.  It ain't Bubba T. Beauregard IV.

    • Like 1
  16. 1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

    senseless gun violence is not a partisan problem, nor does it require a partisan solution.

    Moscow Mitch, or Massacre Mitch, or Mylanta Mitch, or whatever he goes by these days, says "Go fuck yourselves, it is a partisan issue because I say so, and I'm going to make damn sure my NRA Masters are going to get everything they asked for!"

    While the NRA is hurting these days, if they wanted better background checks and a national red-flag law, they could have it within weeks with a few phone calls to Mitch and Co., and Trump would have no problems signing it (he personally doesn't give a shit about guns).

    The only problem is that the NRA will make more money by not budging an inch, and they will make even more money should more gun control laws start going into effect.  They will absolutely rake it in when the Dems are back in power.

×
×
  • Create New...