MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: 4everwarriors on July 02, 2022, 03:21:26 PM
-
I always count my blessings at this time of year and reflect how fortunate I am to not only be here, but also to live in a country of golden opportunities, while remembering and honoring those who paved the way. Enjoy, hey?
https://youtu.be/HdiNqt2Q5Js
-
that's a big dittos atcha doc-free to golf any time we want. to all the scoopers out there celebrating this fine day-count your digits before ya blow off the celebratory fire works. i'm just watching
-
Went to the Richard Bong memorial with nephew who is a major in AF. Spent a good 2 hours there. Very moving.
One of the most riveting items was a SS death head ring. The stories that ring could tell about evil it was a part of.
-
We’re all lucky to be citizens of this country. On this weekend, I’m grateful for many things, including that we can express freely how much Lee Greenwood sucks.
-
About 15 years ago, my wife and I attended a Citizenship Ceremony on the 4th of July at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home. Actor Sam Waterson was the speaker, and he delivered a stunningly beautiful, crafted speech to the immigrants and attendees. It was a very moving experience. Watching the faces of the new citizens as they took their oaths was unforgettable.
-
I am thankful every day to have born in the USA and never take for granted I was blessed with this wonderful gift. I am equally thankful that my four children feel blessed and love and respect the folks that sacrificed to build the greatest country in the world.
Happy 4th of July weekend to all the scoopers!!
-
Thomas Jefferson passed this mortal coil on the 4th of July in 1826. His words remain wise
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...”
-
We’re all lucky to be citizens of this country. On this weekend, I’m grateful for many things, including that we can express freely how much Lee Greenwood sucks.
Now this makes me proud to be an American.
-
I always count my blessings at this time of year and reflect how fortunate I am to not only be here, but also to live in a country of golden opportunities, while remembering and honoring those who paved the way. Enjoy, hey?
https://youtu.be/HdiNqt2Q5Js
I agree with this analysis
-
Now this makes me proud to be an American.
Who?
-
About 15 years ago, my wife and I attended a Citizenship Ceremony on the 4th of July at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home. Actor Sam Waterson was the speaker, and he delivered a stunningly beautiful, crafted speech to the immigrants and attendees. It was a very moving experience. Watching the faces of the new citizens as they took their oaths was unforgettable.
Fantastic Scoop Snoop! Happy 4th to all.
-
Happy 4th! Be safe out there.
-
We’re all lucky to be citizens of this country. On this weekend, I’m grateful for many things, including that we can express freely how much Lee Greenwood sucks.
I will third this.
-
Having seen how the other side lives, I can second the sentiment in here. To be poor in the United States means to be middle class in many parts of the world.
I was reminded today of the Sunday after we returned from Ukraine with our son. As I went to Mass, I looked over and noticed the American flag hanging on the side of the sanctuary. All I could think at that time was Thank God!
I had the same feeling today as I saw our flag again!
-
I am thankful every day to have born in the USA and never take for granted I was blessed with this wonderful gift. I am equally thankful that my four children feel blessed and love and respect the folks that sacrificed to build the greatest country in the world.
Happy 4th of July weekend to all the scoopers!!
Can’t agree more. Spending a couple of weeks behind the Iron Curtain in the 70s imprinted this on my brain.
-
Thomas Jefferson passed this mortal coil on the 4th of July in 1826. His words remain wise
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry...”
...The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Jefferson may not have been a Christian, but he did believe in a higher power than the State. He was no atheist.
-
https://twitter.com/benyahr/status/1540346407785226242
-
Have a great 4th of July everyone. In God We Trust.
-
...The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Jefferson may not have been a Christian, but he did believe in a higher power than the State. He was no atheist.
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him (i.e. Jesus) by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Government is not to impose the religious beliefs of one sect, but to allow the many religions of the world to worship and congregate freely within the borders of its land. Imposing the religion of the few on the whole by law or decree is an anathema to those who founded this nation. No argument can be made that says else.
-
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e8/f0/o2L418bd_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/o2L418bd)
-
Not such a great 4th in Highland Park.
Hooray America.
-
Man, I just got back from the Elgin parade (my daughter was in it) and saw the Highland Park news. Damn.
-
We've exceeded 250 mass shootings this year on Independence Day. Nice job, America!
-
We've exceeded 250 mass shootings this year on Independence Day. Nice job, America!
Maybe it is time to go back to the gun laws common immediately after this nation was founded, including:
1. Confiscation of weapons from people who do not swear loyalty to the US.
2. Universal gun registration.
3. Banning all weapons in public spaces.
-
Maybe it is time to go back to the gun laws common immediately after this nation was founded, including:
1. Confiscation of weapons from people who do not swear loyalty to the US.
2. Universal gun registration.
3. Banning all weapons in public spaces.
Number 1 sounds good.
-
My grandma is 94, has lived in Highland Park for 67 yrs, and my Dad was raised there. I've never heard her so shook up. She was in the area early this morning to get a few special groceries for a party at her neighbor's later today. She literally had trouble getting words out of her mouth. This is absolutely horrific and sickening. The fact that the shooter has not been apprehended is deeply concerning. From early reports it sounds like this was clearly well planned. What an disgusting and evil human being that committed this massacre.
-
I guess the doors to the parade were left unlocked.
It's unfathomably sad that my first thought after hearing this news was "At least it's only 6 dead". That's the point we've reached.
Suspect still at large, described as an 18-22 yo white male with long black hair. I hope all Chicago based scoopers and their loved ones are safe and this guy is caught soon.
-
Someone, perhaps Wags, asked if this post from June 21st was a future looking Minority Report style prediction. Sadly, no, just highly predictable in Gunmerica.
Independence Day bloodbath: 142 people are killed in 379 shootings across the US during July Fourth weekend as celebrations turned violent
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9758317/Independence-Day-bloodbath-379-shot-142-fatally-July-4-weekend.html
Violent July Fourth results in dozens shot, several killed
Nearly 100 people were shot across the country during the holiday weekend
https://www.foxnews.com/us/july-fourth-2021-violence
Dozens Injured, 5 Dead in Independence Day Violence
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dozens-injured-in-independence-day-violence-5-dead-across-dallas-and-fort-worth/2673387/
-
What would Jesus do?
-
What would Jesus do?
Jesus certainly wouldn’t call for the assassination of people like you do.
-
I can’t believe the guy is still at large. All the police presence at the parade, all the video cameras that have to be in downtown Highland Park. It’s almost 4 hours now, he could be anywhere at this point.
-
54 shot and 7 dead in the city of Chicago since Friday. But nobody cares about those because of the ones doing the shooting. Carry on.
-
54 shot and 7 dead in the city of Chicago since Friday. But nobody cares about those because of the ones doing the shooting. Carry on.
You are such a unnatural carnal knowledgeing nut job. Get a god damn life.
You’re really going to use this tragedy to take pot shots at Chicago? Holy crap, what a loser of a person.
I have a former volleyball player from this last season that was there in the hospital right right now. She’ll be okay thankfully, but to make comments like this?
Seriously take some unnatural carnal knowledgeing time to reevaluate yourself.
-
You are such a unnatural carnal knowledgeing nut job. Get a god damn life.
You’re really going to use this tragedy to take pot shots at Chicago? Holy crap, what a loser of a person.
I have a former volleyball player from this last season that was there in the hospital right right now. She’ll be okay thankfully, but to make comments like this?
Seriously take some unnatural carnal knowledgeing time to reevaluate yourself.
Hope she’s ok. Incredibly difficult thing to have to go through at what’s supposed to be a celebration.
-
Hope she’s ok. Incredibly difficult thing to have to go through at what’s supposed to be a celebration.
That’s rich coming from a guy who calls for the assassination of many people. You are no different than them.
-
Jesus certainly wouldn’t call for the assassination of people like you do.
And he probably wouldn't be a unnatural carnal knowledgeing racist like you.
-
54 shot and 7 dead in the city of Chicago since Friday. But nobody cares about those because of the ones doing the shooting. Carry on.
"Nobody talks about crime in Black communities," says racist troll who talks incessantly about crime in Black communities.
Of course, people like you only cares about crime in Black communities as a political talking point.
-
Muggs
Very sorry to hear you grandma had to experience such a horrible day. She is in my prayers, as is everyone in HP.
-
#thoughtsandprayers
#racistwhataboutism
-
Once again the Police are nowhere to be found and seemingly incompetent.
Where were the good guys with guns?
-
Maybe they were dodging/gaining cover from the .223 rounds being fired by an individual using a semi automatic rifle, from a sniper position. Do you know if any of the killed or injured was a police officer. Incompetent? Why would you make that statement.
From a position on the roof, the guy fired his rounds, left his rifle and empty cartridges and probably went down building stairs and ran with the crowd also running. Hopefully they have video from front or back of the building to review
-
Maybe they were dodging/gaining cover from the .223 rounds being fired by an individual using a semi automatic rifle, from a sniper position. Do you know if any of the killed or injured was a police officer. Incompetent? Why would you make that statement.
From a position on the roof, the guy fired his rounds, left his rifle and empty cartridges and probably went down building stairs and ran with the crowd also running. Hopefully they have video from front or back of the building to review
https://twitter.com/muellershewrote/status/1544030113355874305?s=21&t=9OH5hCsdZVSpUQvhKav7Pw
-
Maybe they were dodging/gaining cover from the .223 rounds being fired by an individual using a semi automatic rifle, from a sniper position. Do you know if any of the killed or injured was a police officer. Incompetent? Why would you make that statement.
From a position on the roof, the guy fired his rounds, left his rifle and empty cartridges and probably went down building stairs and ran with the crowd also running. Hopefully they have video from front or back of the building to review
Police are equipped like the military in the country yet they can't stop a single shooter, let alone find the guy. If he was on top of a building, shouldn't the first move have been to cover the entrances to said building so the shooter can't escape? Incompetent.
This guy reportedly popped of dozens of shots and had time to reload. Did the police even return any fire?
-
Once again the Police are nowhere to be found and seemingly incompetent.
Where were the good guys with guns?
Putting 60 bullets in a black guy?
-
Muggs
Very sorry to hear you grandma had to experience such a horrible day. She is in my prayers, as is everyone in HP.
Thank you Goose. She is devastated and has yet to hear from a few of her friends so It's been extremely difficult. I appreciate your comments.
-
Putting 60 bullets in a black guy?
Give them some credit for missing 30 times as well.
-
My grandma is 94, has lived in Highland Park for 67 yrs, and my Dad was raised there. I've never heard her so shook up. She was in the area early this morning to get a few special groceries for a party at her neighbor's later today. She literally had trouble getting words out of her mouth. This is absolutely horrific and sickening. The fact that the shooter has not been apprehended is deeply concerning. From early reports it sounds like this was clearly well planned. What an disgusting and evil human being that committed this massacre.
My guess is that we will find out that he acquired the gun legally. I have seen reports that he shot from a rooftop. Rs will want to ban them now too cuz the gun wasn’t the problem.
Incredibly sad.
-
It looks like he shot from the rooftop and then slipped away in the panicked stampede. Bruce Willis in the Jackal.
-
Police are equipped like the military in the country yet they can't stop a single shooter, let alone find the guy. If he was on top of a building, shouldn't the first move have been to cover the entrances to said building so the shooter can't escape? Incompetent.
This guy reportedly popped of dozens of shots and had time to reload. Did the police even return any fire?
Have you ever been fired at? Have you ever seen any human beings being shot and the chaos surrounding such an incident.
You don’t have a freaking clue. New video out that has the sounds of gunfire and it was 2 to 3 rounds a second for like 30 seconds.
The officers were there to patrol a suburbs parade, not geared up in SWAT/EST gear to make an apprehension of a homicide suspect. The officers heard the shots, but probably could only guess what rooftop the rounds were being fired from. Firing back to a rooftop with a handgun? Not me I am taking cover against a semi automatic rifle with maybe a scope. After rounds stop, then start assessing what to do, look for shooter, assist injured, get other citizens to safety.
-
Police are equipped like the military in the country yet they can't stop a single shooter, let alone find the guy. If he was on top of a building, shouldn't the first move have been to cover the entrances to said building so the shooter can't escape? Incompetent.
This guy reportedly popped of dozens of shots and had time to reload. Did the police even return any fire?
If you watch some of the video coming out, the entire shooting took about 20 seconds.
If you think it's realistic for a cops to 1) Identify and arrive at the exact location, 2) locate a rooftop shooter and 3) accurately return fire (from the ground at a rooftop?) amidst a panicked crowd fleeing ... all in less than 20 seconds, then you probably have a very unrealistic concept of what's possible.
Yes, cops were present at the parade. No, they were not positioned up and down the route, weapons drawn, scanning rooftops for threats. This is Highland Park, Illinois, not the DMZ.
At this point, there's zero evidence police acted incompetently.
-
Have you ever been fired at? Have you ever seen any human beings being shot and the chaos surrounding such an incident.
You don’t have a freaking clue. New video out that has the sounds of gunfire and it was 2 to 3 rounds a second for like 30 seconds.
The officers were there to patrol a suburbs parade, not geared up in SWAT/EST gear to make an apprehension of a homicide suspect. The officers heard the shots, but probably could only guess what rooftop the rounds were being fired from. Firing back to a rooftop with a handgun? Not me I am taking cover against a semi automatic rifle with maybe a scope. After rounds stop, then start assessing what to do, look for shooter, assist injured, get other citizens to safety.
First off, my not having been shot at is irrelevant. I'm not a trained officer tasked with defending the citizens.
There was an interview with a bystander that saw the guy shooting, so I would hope a well trained officer would be able to spot it and call it in. Returning fire makes the shooter take cover. This stuff is all common sense.
-
One common thread to all of these mass murders.
Well, actually two. Soon there will be the chorus of thoughts and prayers from one side. They will not bring back the dead.
-
One common thread to all of these mass murders.
Well, actually two. Soon there will be the chorus of thoughts and prayers from one side. They will not bring back the dead.
I hope the gun is safe
-
Have you ever been fired at? Have you ever seen any human beings being shot and the chaos surrounding such an incident.
You don’t have a freaking clue. New video out that has the sounds of gunfire and it was 2 to 3 rounds a second for like 30 seconds.
The officers were there to patrol a suburbs parade, not geared up in SWAT/EST gear to make an apprehension of a homicide suspect. The officers heard the shots, but probably could only guess what rooftop the rounds were being fired from. Firing back to a rooftop with a handgun? Not me I am taking cover against a semi automatic rifle with maybe a scope. After rounds stop, then start assessing what to do, look for shooter, assist injured, get other citizens to safety.
Suburban police at a celebratory parade weren't prepared for a weapon of war to rain down hell? Well, one side and 6 radical extremist religious judges say that's just too bad.
-
First off, my not having been shot at is irrelevant. I'm not a trained officer tasked with defending the citizens.
There was an interview with a bystander that saw the guy shooting, so I would hope a well trained officer would be able to spot it and call it in. Returning fire makes the shooter take cover. This stuff is all common sense.
[/quote
Did the bystander tell an officer as the shooting occurred or afterwards only to the news crew doing the interview? I hope a well trained bystander would have told the officers soon after the shooting, because a well trained bystander would be running for their lives, not standing in middle of the street looking up at buildings. You have no idea who, when or where or even if the bystander told the police. Common sense.
I am sure after the shooting someone told the police where the rounds were being fired from and they responded in an appropriate manner. Locate gun, run the serial number and go from there.
-
Scoop:
(https://media.tenor.com/images/4d5af68c85634497e48af808bbd46453/tenor.gif[img])[/img]
-
First off, my not having been shot at is irrelevant. I'm not a trained officer tasked with defending the citizens.
There was an interview with a bystander that saw the guy shooting, so I would hope a well trained officer would be able to spot it and call it in. Returning fire makes the shooter take cover. This stuff is all common sense.
[/quote
Did the bystander tell an officer as the shooting occurred or afterwards only to the news crew doing the interview? I hope a well trained bystander would have told the officers soon after the shooting, because a well trained bystander would be running for their lives, not standing in middle of the street looking up at buildings. You have no idea who, when or where or even if the bystander told the police. Common sense.
I am sure after the shooting someone told the police where the rounds were being fired from and they responded in an appropriate manner. Locate gun, run the serial number and go from there.
Defend them all you want, I honestly do not care. Amazing.
-
I am sure after the shooting someone told the police where the rounds were being fired from and they responded in an appropriate manner. Locate gun, run the serial number and go from there.
[/quote]
So you support a national gun registry?
-
Defend them all you want, I honestly do not care. Amazing.
You are amazed that I am defending the police response? Not defending just stating facts, you are in fantasy world and have no idea. I will let you and the other Superbar posters now turn this into a political discussion as the recent posts have started. Enjoy.
-
You are amazed that I am defending the police response? Not defending just stating facts, you are in fantasy world and have no idea. I will let you and the other Superbar posters now turn this into a political discussion as the recent posts have started. Enjoy.
What is the fantasy world I live in? Police are inept. The point is these events cannot be stopped no matter how much we militarize the police if citizens are allowed to possess extremely deadly weapons meant to kill people.
Think they'll shoot Robert E Crimo III when they find him in his 2010 Honda Fit with plate DM80653?
-
What is the fantasy world I live in? Police are inept. The point is these events cannot be stopped no matter how much we militarize the police if citizens are allowed to possess extremely deadly weapons meant to kill people.
Think they'll shoot Robert E Crimo III when they find him in his 2010 Honda Fit with plate DM80653?
Robert E. Crimo III, also known as Awake The Rapper.
-
As I ran our community's parade today, this hits hard.
We had a SCOWIS justice in our parade, and I was acutely aware of security issues. Even with that, and a shift's worth of officers, CSOs, aux police, and sheriffs in the parade .. a madman with a gun would have been catastrophic.
So sad, and so thankful we finished safe today.
-
Photo of Crimo here, if you check the picture on the wall behind him, it’s a headline about the death of Lee Harvey Oswald.
*I’m not intelligent enough to figure out how to successfully copy/paste this and enlarge it here*
-
Photo of Crimo here, if you check the picture on the wall behind him, it’s a headline about the death of Lee Harvey Oswald.
*I’m not intelligent enough to figure out how to successfully copy/paste this and enlarge it here*
He is or was a (wannabe) hip-hop artist who goes by Awake the Rapper.
https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Awake
Even made a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=149&v=WIlIVDpc_mw&feature=emb_logo
-
OK, the criticism of the Highland Park Police is unfair.
Their first responsibility is to stop the shooting, then aide the wounded and get them to hospitals as fast as they can. Then, you find the shooter.
First, it's not just Highland Park. ISP is on the scene, as is the Lake County Major Crimes Task Force. Both ATF and the FBI are providing significant federal support to apprehend the shooter. Available police officers from every nearby suburb, including Northbrook, Highwood, Glencoe, Libertyville, Vernon Hills, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest and others are there. As are fire department medical units.
All considered, they've done a good job.
-
Crimo has ties to Elgin (where I live). Great.
-
It is simply not reasonable to expect the police to have stopped the shooter in this scenario. It would have taken blind ass luck for it to happen. Thinking otherwise shows a disregard for time, distance, and physics.
-
It is simply not reasonable to expect the police to have stopped the shooter in this scenario. It would have taken blind ass luck for it to happen. Thinking otherwise shows a disregard for time, distance, and physics.
Yup. This isn’t a policing issue. This is a gun and culture issue
-
Yup. This isn’t a policing issue. This is a gun and culture issue
Bingo
-
Caught on the Skokie Highway north of chicago
-
Yup. This isn’t a policing issue. This is a gun and culture issue
Agreed
-
Caught on the Skokie Highway north of chicago
They got him?
-
 #BREAKING: Well-Regulated Militia Opens Fire On Fourth Of July Parade In Highland Park, Illinois; Cheap Thoughts And Useless Prayers Now Being Rushed To The Scene ... more on this soon-to-be-forgotten-and-then-repeated story as it develops ...
-
 #BREAKING: Well-Regulated Militia Opens Fire On Fourth Of July Parade In Highland Park, Illinois; Cheap Thoughts And Useless Prayers Now Being Rushed To The Scene ... more on this soon-to-be-forgotten-and-then-repeated story as it develops ...
Great time to get some real fresh and clever jokes off!!
I think the most disturbing aspect to this story is the myriad red flags give off by this POS. As upsetting as each successive shooting is, its equally infuriating when seemingly all of them have buckets of video/social media/text evidence of warning signs and danger from the individual. I'm sure the NRA will fight for his "creative expression" to be silo'd separately when considering his fit for gun ownership
-
Great time to get some real fresh and clever jokes off!!
I think the most disturbing aspect to this story is the myriad red flags give off by this POS. As upsetting as each successive shooting is, its equally infuriating when seemingly all of them have buckets of video/social media/text evidence of warning signs and danger from the individual. I'm sure the NRA will fight for his "creative expression" to be silo'd separately when considering his fit for gun ownership
I would posit that these 'jokes' are more the result of the frustration that this is ALLOWED to happen over and over - rather than just a cheap attempt at humor. The 'joke is actually a stinging indictment of the Right in this once great country.
-
Great time to get some real fresh and clever jokes off!!
I think the most disturbing aspect to this story is the myriad red flags give off by this POS. As upsetting as each successive shooting is, its equally infuriating when seemingly all of them have buckets of video/social media/text evidence of warning signs and danger from the individual. I'm sure the NRA will fight for his "creative expression" to be silo'd separately when considering his fit for gun ownership
We absolutely need to find some common ground here. Exactly, there are "buckets" of warning signs apparently on Ytube and other social media platforms. If there is ample evidence someone is an imminent threat to others and themselves I think we need to calibrate laws to get weapons out of their hands. It certainly won't stop every scumbag murderer but it definitely wouldn't hurt ln limiting these horrific tragedies.
-
Caught on the Skokie Highway north of chicago
What does it take for cops to shoot a white guy? Can't they just pretend he's an unarmed black man and put 60 bullets in him?
Talk about white privilege...
-
myriad red flags give off by this POS.
https://twitter.com/theeunfluencer/status/1544085608167088129?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
https://twitter.com/mmmadworlddd/status/1544093211269922818?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1544100448763887617?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
-
Great time to get some real fresh and clever jokes off!!
Gallows humor is a good thing
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crisis-control/202006/in-praise-gallows-humor
-
Well, we're going to find out more as the days go by, but I expect they will investigate whether this was politically motivated and perhaps religiously motivated. Sickening.
-
We absolutely need to find some common ground here. Exactly, there are "buckets" of warning signs apparently on Ytube and other social media platforms. If there is ample evidence someone is an imminent threat to others and themselves I think we need to calibrate laws to get weapons out of their hands. It certainly won't stop every scumbag murderer but it definitely wouldn't hurt ln limiting these horrific tragedies.
You want someone's constitutional rights taken away without them committing a crime?
-
He wasn't a criminal until he pulled the trigger. There aren't enough resources in existence to monitor every angry person venting their spleen on social media.
Young men with a detailed plan for kidnapping a governor, who went far enough to case the house, try to purchase explosives, go through drills, were recently cleared.
Threats are all over social media and the interwebs.
It isn't a crime until they pull the trigger.
-
He wasn't a criminal until he pulled the trigger. There aren't enough resources in existence to monitor every angry person venting their spleen on social media.
Young men with a detailed plan for kidnapping a governor, who went far enough to case the house, try to purchase explosives, go through drills, were recently cleared.
Threats are all over social media and the interwebs.
It isn't a crime until they pull the trigger.
You can’t yell fire in a theater. I guess we have to figure out what our virtual communities represent.
I don’t envy the judiciary. None of
These were traditions that our drafters or traditions could fathom.
-
You want someone's constitutional rights taken away without them committing a crime?
It's a slippery slope but when you have these kinds of posts and videos on social media? I think we have to consider some red flag options. It's a pretty common thread that these murderers often boast about comminting horrific acts on various platforms.
-
It's a slippery slope but when you have these kinds of posts and videos on social media? I think we have to consider some red flag options. It's a pretty common thread that these murderers often boast about comminting horrific acts on various platforms.
Where's the slippery slope?
-
Gallows humor is a good thing
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crisis-control/202006/in-praise-gallows-humor
You think that piece of sh!t “joke” is praiseworthy and “a good thing”? How about a couple of dead baby jokes at an infant’s funeral? Bet pbi would absolutely kill with those. But I never thought (until today) that you’d be in the audience laughing.
-
You think that piece of sh!t “joke” is praiseworthy and “a good thing”? How about a couple of dead baby jokes at an infant’s funeral? Bet pbi would absolutely kill with those. But I never thought (until today) that you’d be in the audience laughing.
Such faux outrage!
He made fun of the thoughts and prayers a--clowns and the gun nuts, not the victims
Jesus, Lenny. What happened to you? Step away from the internet and go shake your fist at some clouds.
-
https://twitter.com/theeunfluencer/status/1544085608167088129?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
https://twitter.com/mmmadworlddd/status/1544093211269922818?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/status/1544100448763887617?s=21&t=uCgkKGVF5iEkWfvWq3JVsg
I would say the school shooting music videos and videos in tactical gear or the video of him on the same main street with the EAS sound blaring are more disturbing than him being a total clown. Not sure he really fits the alt-right domestic terrorist bill. More a garden variety twisted psychopath. Same kind of person who thinks swastikas are funny but knows nothing more than the surface level about Nazis.
Gallows humor is a good thing
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crisis-control/202006/in-praise-gallows-humor
Gallows humor is fine, its just the same tired trope. At least freshen it up. Otherwise its a lazy attempt at a gotcha
-
@Timodc: This week the Supreme Court determined that it was unconstitutional for a state to require someone like Awake The QAnon Rapper to provide justification for why they might need a concealed carry permit. Not great.
-
You think that piece of sh!t “joke” is praiseworthy and “a good thing”? How about a couple of dead baby jokes at an infant’s funeral? Bet pbi would absolutely kill with those. But I never thought (until today) that you’d be in the audience laughing.
It’s not a joke. It’s the reality of America today. Dead kids are the norm these days, the price of freedom according to gun nuts.
The people that say that nothing can be done and support unfettered access to weapons of destruction are the real pieces of crap.
-
Maybe someday the pro life crowd will give a sh!t about the lives of people killed by the weapons they’re more interested in protecting than the lives being lost.
Maybe.
-
Maybe someday the pro life crowd will give a sh!t about the lives of people killed by the weapons they’re more interested in protecting than the lives being lost.
Maybe.
Maybe someday the pro abortion crowd will give a sh!t about the lives lost ensuring no adult be inconvenienced.
Maybe.
-
Gallows humor is fine, its just the same tired trope. At least freshen it up. Otherwise its a lazy attempt at a gotcha
The same tired trope is any hypocrite that thinks thoughts and prayers have any use while simultaneously refusing to entertain this nation as a whole taking gun safety seriously.
-
Gallows humor is fine, its just the same tired trope. At least freshen it up. Otherwise its a lazy attempt at a gotcha
One might suggest it's a tired trope because it is, sadly, true.
-
Great time to get some real fresh and clever jokes off!!
I think the most disturbing aspect to this story is the myriad red flags give off by this POS. As upsetting as each successive shooting is, its equally infuriating when seemingly all of them have buckets of video/social media/text evidence of warning signs and danger from the individual. I'm sure the NRA will fight for his "creative expression" to be silo'd separately when considering his fit for gun ownership
I guess his social media presence/history did not violate any of the social media company's rules. It amazes me how inconsistent they are when it comes to enforcing their rules as they are no big fans of the NRA.
Maybe we should have background checks and a waiting period before joining a social media site.
-
Maybe someday the pro abortion crowd will give a sh!t about the lives lost ensuring no adult be inconvenienced.
Maybe.
Lenny, were you always so staunchly pro-life that you would characterize it that way, or is this radicalization in real time?
-
I guess his social media presence/history did not violate any of the social media company's rules. It amazes me how inconsistent they are when it comes to enforcing their rules as they are no big fans of the NRA.
Maybe we should have background checks and a waiting period before joining a social media site.
Did you report the posts to the social media companies?
-
As I ran our community's parade today, this hits hard.
We had a SCOWIS justice in our parade, and I was acutely aware of security issues. Even with that, and a shift's worth of officers, CSOs, aux police, and sheriffs in the parade .. a madman with a gun would have been catastrophic.
So sad, and so thankful we finished safe today.
Was at the WFB parade yesterday, and that thought has been on my mind since. My daughter was out in the open grabbing candy with the other kids, and if someone would have been shooting from the roof of that condo building she'd be dead.
-
Our town has a big festival on the fourth. And while they have a big police presence, while I was down there I was thinking "there are a hundred points of entry into this place." All it would take is one person with a high powered gun to mow down a dozen people. No "locked door" would prevent that. No "good guy with a gun" is going to take a bad guy out before causing that damage.
-
Did you report the posts to the social media companies?
I thought the social media companies have algorithms to flag "hate speech" or speech they view as mis/disinformation that don't conform to their rules. Why would I have to report something to the social media company when they are supposedly flagging violations of their rules everyday.
-
I thought the social media companies have algorithms to flag "hate speech" or speech they view as mis/disinformation that don't conform to their rules. Why would I have to report something to the social media company when they are supposedly flagging violations of their rules everyday.
Which social media posts and platforms do you believe should have been flagged?
-
I thought the social media companies have algorithms to flag "hate speech" or speech they view as mis/disinformation that don't conform to their rules. Why would I have to report something to the social media company when they are supposedly flagging violations of their rules everyday.
Oh. So you're yet again just whining more grievance.
-
I thought the social media companies have algorithms to flag "hate speech" or speech they view as mis/disinformation that don't conform to their rules. Why would I have to report something to the social media company when they are supposedly flagging violations of their rules everyday.
If your house is broken into, do you call 911, or do you wait for the police to show up randomly since they should have someone driving by on patrol at some point every day?
-
Our town has a big festival on the fourth. And while they have a big police presence, while I was down there I was thinking "there are a hundred points of entry into this place." All it would take is one person with a high powered gun to mow down a dozen people. No "locked door" would prevent that. No "good guy with a gun" is going to take a bad guy out before causing that damage.
I take your point seriously, but a person could also get into a vehicle plow down dozens of people as well. I'll concede gun shootings do happen more frequently. Waukesha, WI and Nice, France not that long ago come to mind. We have lost our sense of right and wrong.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730
-
Which social media posts and platforms do you believe should have been flagged?
Ask the social media companies. I don't make the rules.
-
Ask the social media companies. I don't make the rules.
So, you come here to complain, but don't know 1) which posts should have been flagged, 2) which platforms those posts appeared on, 3) what the rules of those platforms are and 4) which rules said posts may have violated.
Go it.
-
I take your point seriously, but a person could also get into a vehicle plow down dozens of people as well. I'll concede gun shootings do happen more frequently. Waukesha, WI and Nice, France not that long ago come to mind. We have lost our sense of right and wrong.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730
Actually they had barriers set up to make it harder for people to plow into a crowd.
But regardless, my take is that we should make it harder for people to kill others, even if we can't make it perfect.
-
Our town has a big festival on the fourth. And while they have a big police presence, while I was down there I was thinking "there are a hundred points of entry into this place." All it would take is one person with a high powered gun to mow down a dozen people. No "locked door" would prevent that. No "good guy with a gun" is going to take a bad guy out before causing that damage.
Luckily, the pro-lifers like Lenny and 69 are trying to do something about this.
Oops, I mean they are voting people into office that are fighting hard for the Crimos of the world to be armed to the teeth with weapons of war.
-
If your house is broken into, do you call 911, or do you wait for the police to show up randomly since they should have someone driving by on patrol at some point every day?
Bad analogy. I know. I posted a CDC report on facebook and got flagged as misinformation just seconds after I posted it. Yes, a CDC report on COVID. We share the same house with my daughter's family so we can mind our grand daughter while they are at work. They both have permits for their guns so we wouldn't have to wait to call 911; besides we have 3 dogs and any person would have to think twice trying to break into our home before our grown children would have to use their guns.
-
*Sigh*
Way to not answer the question. Let's try again. Your house is broken into. No home invasion, just a break-in. You come home and find there has been a robbery. Do you call 911, or wait for a patrol car to randomly come by?
The point is, you make the report because that raises awareness to the people responsible for addressing the situation. I have had an account suspended because I used the word "hacked" in a sentence (referring to a basketball player getting hacked at the rim, but terms of service flagged my account as being hacked) so it will happen that things will get caught inaccurately. It happens, you deal and move on, just like you call police or report social media posts when it's appropriate.
-
Did you report the posts to the social media companies?
Reporting doesn't always do any good. See, Uncle Rico and his advocating the murder of Supreme Court Justices. He's still posting.
-
*Sigh*
Way to not answer the question. Let's try again. Your house is broken into. No home invasion, just a break-in. You come home and find there has been a robbery. Do you call 911, or wait for a patrol car to randomly come by?
The point is, you make the report because that raises awareness to the people responsible for addressing the situation. I have had an account suspended because I used the word "hacked" in a sentence (referring to a basketball player getting hacked at the rim, but terms of service flagged my account as being hacked) so it will happen that things will get caught inaccurately. It happens, you deal and move on, just like you call police or report social media posts when it's appropriate.
...but that is after the fact. I thought we were suppose to prevent these guys from getting guns before they commit a crime. You would think the algorithms the social platforms use would catch this stuff and alert the authorities.
-
Luckily, the pro-lifers like Lenny and 69 are trying to do something about this.
Oops, I mean they are voting people into office that are fighting hard for the Crimos of the world to be armed to the teeth with weapons of war.
...and the pro-choice people are just fine snuffing the life of babies before they take their first breath.
https://www.alittleinsight.com/by-week
-
Reporting doesn't always do any good. See, Uncle Rico and his advocating the murder of Supreme Court Justices. He's still posting.
He was very serious about that, let me assure you.
Just to be safe, you should alert the FBI (and his HR department).
-
...but that is after the fact. I thought we were suppose to prevent these guys from getting guns before they commit a crime. You would think the algorithms the social platforms use would catch this stuff and alert the authorities.
Isn’t the threat of a person having a gun in the home supposed to stop a break-in before it happens? That’s not a perfect solution, much like the algorithms aren’t a perfect solution. But yes, this is an algorithm problem and not a gun problem.
-
...but that is after the fact. I thought we were suppose to prevent these guys from getting guns before they commit a crime. You would think the algorithms the social platforms use would catch this stuff and alert the authorities.
Again, could you tell us which post and which platform?
Or are you just playing the right-wing victim card?
-
I take your point seriously, but a person could also get into a vehicle plow down dozens of people as well. I'll concede gun shootings do happen more frequently. Waukesha, WI and Nice, France not that long ago come to mind. We have lost our sense of right and wrong.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730
Proving yet again that stupid arguments never die...
The purpose of a vehicle is to transport people and things. The purpose of a gun is to send high velocity metal projectiles into people or things to destroy them. Sure, a vehicle *can* be used to intentionally kill people, but they are used in that way an infinitesimal amount of the time, just as a gun is used as a door jam or hammer an infinitesimal amount of the time.
And yet, to own and operate a car a person must:
* Pass both written and on road examinations that they can safely operate the vehicle
* Purchase an annual tag for the vehicle
* Have the vehicle examined yearly to ensure it is operating safely and efficiently
* Purchase liability insurance for the vehicle
* Renew their operating license on a regular basis
Comparing the two as killing machines is idiotic.
-
...but that is after the fact. I thought we were suppose to prevent these guys from getting guns before they commit a crime. You would think the algorithms the social platforms use would catch this stuff and alert the authorities.
Regarding the algorithms, they catch some of it and funnel it to their technical staff, some almost certainly gets through and that's what the reporting functions exist for. Just like police. They catch some criminal acts in real time, others they are alerted to through the 911 system.
As far as preventing these guys from getting guns, a break-in doesn't require guns. The only guns in the scenario are the ones you reported being in the house, which could be stolen and become illegal guns, proving that the problem begins not with the criminal action but with the presence of legal guns. Because all illegal guns start out as legal guns.
-
Reporting doesn't always do any good. See, Uncle Rico and his advocating the murder of Supreme Court Justices. He's still posting.
I’ve changed my mind. I love the justices and how they’ve protected guns
-
It is also idiotic to seriously suggest the fault lies with social media companies rather than laws allowing anyone, anywhere, anytime to obtain killing machines. Distract, dissemble, obfuscate...anything except address the actual issue.
-
...and the pro-choice people are just fine snuffing the life of babies before they take their first breath.
https://www.alittleinsight.com/by-week
Well, fetuses are not babies, so your post is simply inaccurate hysterical hyperbole.
-
I’ve changed my mind. I love the justices and how they’ve protected guns
Well the recent ruling doesn't stop states from requiring licenses, background checks, mental health evaluations, or even type of guns. Just once a license is issued, you cant stop a person from carrying it outside the home.
Oh, and you are no Patton Oswalt.
-
I’ve changed my mind. I love the justices and how they’ve protected guns
The price of freedom is being murdered while celebrating your freedom.
-
Well, fetuses are not babies, so your post is simply inaccurate hysterical hyperbole.
fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/
noun
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
https://optionsforwomenrf.com/child-a-fetus-or-a-baby/
Sure they are. A fetus is an unborn baby and unborn babies are medically referred to as a fetus. They are one and the same.
-
Well the recent ruling doesn't stop states from requiring licenses, background checks, mental health evaluations, or even type of guns. Just once a license is issued, you cant stop a person from carrying it outside the home.
The ruling has some far wider-reaching implications than that. It basically says the government's interest in reducing violence no longer matters when it comes to guns, and should no longer be considered when weighing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Instead, they wrote, "this Nation's historical tradition" is all that matters.
So yeah, the majority of the Supreme Court says protecting lives is less important than protecting guns. In this case, the ruling involved a conceal carry law, but the standard they set will apply to any gun control measure.
On the other hand, mass shootings are well on their way to becoming "this Nation's historical tradition," so maybe this ruling won't be so bad after all.
-
Proving yet again that stupid arguments never die...
The purpose of a vehicle is to transport people and things. The purpose of a gun is to send high velocity metal projectiles into people or things to destroy them. Sure, a vehicle *can* be used to intentionally kill people, but they are used in that way an infinitesimal amount of the time, just as a gun is used as a door jam or hammer an infinitesimal amount of the time.
And yet, to own and operate a car a person must:
* Pass both written and on road examinations that they can safely operate the vehicle
* Purchase an annual tag for the vehicle
* Have the vehicle examined yearly to ensure it is operating safely and efficiently
* Purchase liability insurance for the vehicle
* Renew their operating license on a regular basis
Comparing the two as killing machines is idiotic.
...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.
-
The ruling has some far wider-reaching implications than that. It basically says the government's interest in reducing violence no longer matters when it comes to guns, and should no longer be considered when weighing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Instead, they wrote, "this Nation's historical tradition" is all that matters.
So yeah, the majority of the Supreme Court says protecting lives is less important than protecting guns. In this case, the ruling involved a conceal carry law, but the standard they set will apply to any gun control measure.
On the other hand, mass shootings are well on their way to becoming "this Nation's historical tradition," so maybe this ruling won't be so bad after all.
Quite frankly, the Supreme Court didn’t do enough to protect guns.
-
The ruling has some far wider-reaching implications than that. It basically says the government's interest in reducing violence no longer matters when it comes to guns, and should no longer be considered when weighing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Instead, they wrote, "this Nation's historical tradition" is all that matters.
So yeah, the majority of the Supreme Court says protecting lives is less important than protecting guns. In this case, the ruling involved a conceal carry law, but the standard they set will apply to any gun control measure.
On the other hand, mass shootings are well on their way to becoming "this Nation's historical tradition," so maybe this ruling won't be so bad after all.
Well, you read it differently than I do, I read it as, once a person is able to obtain a gun legally, his should be able to have it in public.
Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”
“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
-
...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.
Doesn’t the fault lie on the parade goers for not being armed themselves? Also, it’s time for stronger protection from getting on roofs. We have a right to bear arms, not be allowed on roofs
-
Locks on doors to roofs.
-
...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.
Having more impediments wouldn't have hurt, but you do reveal that the real problem is the access to guns. And the obvious answer is to restrict access universally.
-
Locks on doors to roofs.
This probably belongs in the investing thread, but I’d buy stocks in lock companies
-
...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.
So, what is your solution? I’m all ears because I know I’m not smart enough to solve it or have the answers. However, I hope you recognize that there’s an issue and something has to be done instead of saying, “that won’t stop every situation.”
-
Speaking of the 4th, how did I miss this?
https://twitter.com/JomboyMedia/status/1544008568461983744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544008568461983744%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
-
Speaking of the 4th, how did I miss this?
https://twitter.com/JomboyMedia/status/1544008568461983744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544008568461983744%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
I thought the same thing. I was half-watching the damn thing and somehow didn't pick up on that???
-
Well, you read it differently than I do, I read it as, once a person is able to obtain a gun legally, his should be able to have it in public.
Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”
“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
Why didn't you bother to cite the majority ruling here? And, of course, nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote.
Anyhow, from the majority ruling:
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
So, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but the majority is saying here that public safety (i.e. "an important interest") is no longer legal justification for any imposition upon a Second Amendment right. Rather, if must be consistent with "historical tradition" of firearm regulation.
In other words Guns > People.
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.
-
Why didn't you bother to cite the majority ruling here? And, of course, nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote.
Anyhow, from the majority ruling:
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” There is a historical tradition of background checks, limits on type of weapons, etc. You seem to be taking their words of "historic tradition" to mean no laws, which is far from the case. This case has a pretty strict meaning, towards laws against those who have a right to have a gun. Saying there is "an important interest" is too vague. If that were OK, a state could just say, our interest is stopping shootings, so lets make a law to get rid of all guns. That won't work.
So, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but the majority is saying here that public safety (i.e. "an important interest") is no longer legal justification for any imposition upon a Second Amendment right. Rather, if must be consistent with "historical tradition" of firearm regulation.
In other words Guns > People.
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.
-
Proving yet again that stupid arguments never die...
The purpose of a vehicle is to transport people and things. The purpose of a gun is to send high velocity metal projectiles into people or things to destroy them. Sure, a vehicle *can* be used to intentionally kill people, but they are used in that way an infinitesimal amount of the time, just as a gun is used as a door jam or hammer an infinitesimal amount of the time.
And yet, to own and operate a car a person must:
* Pass both written and on road examinations that they can safely operate the vehicle
* Purchase an annual tag for the vehicle
* Have the vehicle examined yearly to ensure it is operating safely and efficiently
* Purchase liability insurance for the vehicle
* Renew their operating license on a regular basis
Comparing the two as killing machines is idiotic.
Completely false.
You can own a vehicle and you can certainly operate a vehicle without doing any of those things. Do you think carjackers and others who committ crimes with vehicles buy liability insurance, renew their car tags and operators license faithfully every year, and have safety inspections.
Talk about what's idiotic.
-
Gun + Evil Person + Bystanders = Tragedy
Have to remove at least one of the three.
-
Completely false.
You can own a vehicle and you can certainly operate a vehicle without doing any of those things. Do you think carjackers and others who committ crimes with vehicles buy liability insurance, renew their car tags and operators license faithfully every year, and have safety inspections.
Talk about what's idiotic.
Are you unnatural carnal knowledgeing serious? Holy unnatural carnal knowledgeing crap, even roqqet wouldn't make that ridiculous argument.
-
You seem to be taking their words of "historic tradition" to mean no laws, which is far from the case. This case has a pretty strict meaning, towards laws against those who have a right to have a gun. Saying there is "an important interest" is too vague. If that were OK, a state could just say, our interest is stopping shootings, so lets make a law to get rid of all guns. That won't work.
That's not at all what I wrote. And no, your hypothetical is not a possibility.
Prior to last week's ruling, courts applied a two-prong test when evaluating gun control laws. The approach sought a constitutional balance between protecting historical Second Amendment rights and and the government's legitimate interest in public safety. Obviously, a law that says "No guns" would fail that test, as "No guns" would not protect historical Second Amendment rights.
But what the majority did here is eliminate the first prong of that test, ruling that public safety is not and cannot be a consideration. All that matters, according to them, is the Second Amendment right. And if that means more dead bodies, well them's the breaks.
You can cite Kavanaugh's concurrence until you're blue in the face, but we both know it doesn't matter. Kavanaugh's concurrence isn't the law of the land. The majority opinion is.
-
Gun + Evil Person + Bystanders = Tragedy
Have to remove at least one of the three.
I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation. There are simply too many in modern American society.
-
That's not at all what I wrote.
Yes, it is. You literally wrote:
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.
And, I'll say it again, there is a historical tradition in who can get guns, what types of guns, etc. That will not stop laws from being passed (red flag, etc).
-
Yes, it is. You literally wrote:
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.
And, I'll say it again, there is a historical tradition in who can get guns, what types of guns, etc. That will not stop laws from being passed (red flag, etc).
You seem to be conveniently ignoring the word "new" in what I wrote. Why?
Rather than arguing with things I didn't write, do you have any comment/disagreement with what I did write?
-
I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation. There are simply too many in modern American society.
At least unarmed bystanders. Those people are why we have gun violence
-
I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation. There are simply too many in modern American society.
Sounds like you are on it.
-
At least unarmed bystanders. Those people are why we have gun violence
You guys are woefully underestimating Evil People. If we eliminate Evil People--for an example of this, Gov. Abbott in Texas has vowed to eliminate rapists in Texas, the 2nd rapiest state in the union, in what will be surely a successful effort that others will study for years--then guns will finally be able to live in peace.
-
Back to the serious discourse.
My general view is the shooter in HP was suffering some type of mental illness. Nobody does a shoot-em-up like that with a normal, healthy outlook toward themselves and society. Whether he fits the legal definition of mentally ill is another story. Already, our governor (who has no authority over prosecutions in Illinois) has pledged full retribution, which rather outlines the mindset of the state.
The big question is who and how to make a determination of a mentally or emotionally unstable person. Using internet posts and chat rooms leaves the owner of the chatroom open to liability if they tag a person as emotionally unstable. God forbid that the schools -- with the political pressure they face -- do it. The legal ramifications of getting it "wrong" are huge because emotionally unstable affects a persons in ways far broader than gun ownership.
If we used chatrooms and internet postings, half the people on Scoop would be considered emotionally unstable. Real Chili messes with your mind.
Look, for many of us, yesterday hit home harder than usual. Many of us have ties to the North Shore and felt differently. What I'd hope we do is think about getting high-powered assault rifles, such as AR-15s, out of civilian hands and ban manufacture of fragmentation bullets for all but military use.
-
At least unarmed bystanders. Those people are why we have gun violence
People like you who call for assassinations are one primary reason for violence. If anyone needs red flag laws activated, it would be Rico. Astonishing the mods haven’t banned this account for actively calling for the assassination of judges and presidents. His words, not mine.
-
You seem to be conveniently ignoring the word "new" in what I wrote. Why?
Rather than arguing with things I didn't write, do you have any comment/disagreement with what I did write?
I am. That is what I meant when I wrote my initial comment. You claim no new regulation can be enacted. So the laws we have now are it? Congress is on the way to try to get some regulation passed.
-
The big question is who and how to make a determination of a mentally or emotionally unstable person.
The only way this is the "big question" is if we are the only country that has a problem with mentally or emotionally unstable people. As we are decidedly not the only country, the big question is the actual problem, not the problem politicians of a certain shade like to deflect to.
-
I am. That is what I meant when I wrote my initial comment. You claim no new regulation can be enacted. So the laws we have now are it? Congress is on the way to try to get some regulation passed.
I feel you're being disingenuous at this point. Too bad.
The ruling is there for you to read. I know you'd rather focus in the concurrence, but Thomas wrote what he wrote.
-
Back to the serious discourse.
My general view is the shooter in HP was suffering some type of mental illness. Nobody does a shoot-em-up like that with a normal, healthy outlook toward themselves and society. Whether he fits the legal definition of mentally ill is another story. Already, our governor (who has no authority over prosecutions in Illinois) has pledged full retribution, which rather outlines the mindset of the state.
The big question is who and how to make a determination of a mentally or emotionally unstable person. Using internet posts and chat rooms leaves the owner of the chatroom open to liability if they tag a person as emotionally unstable. God forbid that the schools -- with the political pressure they face -- do it. The legal ramifications of getting it "wrong" are huge because emotionally unstable affects a persons in ways far broader than gun ownership.
If we used chatrooms and internet postings, half the people on Scoop would be considered emotionally unstable. Real Chili messes with your mind.
Look, for many of us, yesterday hit home harder than usual. Many of us have ties to the North Shore and felt differently. What I'd hope we do is think about getting high-powered assault rifles, such as AR-15s, out of civilian hands and ban manufacture of fragmentation bullets for all but military use.
The guns have won. It’s over. It was over after Sandy Hook. Nothing is changing. Mental illness won’t be addressed, limiting types of weapons won’t ever stand a chance of passing.
My suggestion is too arm yourself as much as you can and pray you don’t get shot in a mass shooting. We’re not a serious nation, so expecting this to be addressed is silly.
-
I feel you're being disingenuous at this point. Too bad.
The ruling is there for you to read. I know you'd rather focus in the concurrence, but Thomas wrote what he wrote.
What are you talking about. You stated no new regulations on guns. That is absurdly false.
Here's New York's response:
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law (https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law)
-
What are you talking about. You stated no new regulations on guns. That is absurdly false.
Here's New York's response:
https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law (https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-acts-scotus-ruling-invalidating-new-yorks-concealed-carry-law)
This doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Licensing requirements for concealed carry are not new. Safe storage laws are not new. Laws allowing some places to bar concealed carry are not new.
-
We need to accept these unfortunate incidents as the price we pay to live in a society that so exalts guns.
No other country worships guns like we do.
No other country has nearly the same number of mass murders as we do.
I don't see a causality. Just bad luck.
-
This doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Licensing requirements for concealed carry are not new. Safe storage laws are not new. Laws allowing some places to bar concealed carry are not new.
You specifically stated no new regulations, so to me that means no additional regulations than what we already have.
-
Is it just a coincidence that the pro-lifers and the pro 'everyone gets guns' crowd are one and the same?
-
You specifically stated no new regulations, so to me that means no additional regulations than what we already have.
new
/n(y)o͞o/
adjective
adjective: new; comparative adjective: newer; superlative adjective: newest
1. not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.
"new crop varieties"
-
Is it just a coincidence that the pro-lifers and the pro 'everyone gets guns' crowd are one and the same?
I don't think that's true.
https://twitter.com/CardinalBCupich/status/1529270441080152066
-
Lenny, were you always so staunchly pro-life that you would characterize it that way, or is this radicalization in real time?
Burrow, this was intentional hyperbole in response to to what I hope was intentional hyperbole on Wade’s part.
I am pro life, but support exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother. I’m against exceptions like “it’s not convenient”, “it’s a girl”, etc.
That said, I would support a federal law allowing unfettered access in the first 15 weeks with exceptions thereafter. Codifying a compromise that neither side is wild about seems to me to be the best (only?) solution.
-
Burrow, this was intentional hyperbole in response to to what I hope was intentional hyperbole on Wade’s part.
I am pro life, but support exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother. I’m against exceptions like “it’s not convenient”, “it’s a girl”, etc.
That said, I would support a federal law allowing unfettered access in the first 15 weeks with exceptions thereafter. Codifying a compromise that neither side is wild about seems to me to be the best (only?) solution.
Thanks for the follow up, Lenny, and sorry if I was being obtuse.
-
new
/n(y)o͞o/
adjective
adjective: new; comparative adjective: newer; superlative adjective: newest
1. not existing before; made, introduced, or discovered recently or now for the first time.
"new crop varieties"
Correct douchebag. So if Congress, or a state, passes a law not previously enacted, it would be a NEW law.
For example, Indiana legislators passed more than 170 new laws this year and the vast majority take effect July 1. Here are some of the laws we followed during the legislative session taking effect.
HEA 1002: $1 billion tax cut
One of the year’s highest-profile measures was a $1 billion tax cut package. The bulk of those cuts take effect in future years. But lawmakers eliminated two utility taxes that will save the average Hoosiers a couple dollars a month, after July 1.
HEA 1296: Permitless handgun carry
Previously, if you wanted to carry a handgun in public in Indiana, you needed to get a permit from the state to do so. That involved submitting to a background check by the Indiana State Police and fingerprinting. But HEA 1296 eliminates that permit.
-
Correct douchebag.
Spicy.
-
Spicy.
Well, if the bag fits. But seriously, you wanted to draw it to its "logical conclusion" of no new regulations, you are wrong. New York is attempting to enact new regulation.
-
Well, if the bag fits. But seriously, you wanted to draw it to its "logical conclusion" of no new regulations, you are wrong. New York is attempting to enact new regulation.
If you say so.
Nowhere else do safe storage laws and conceal-carry licenses exist. Totally new!
-
If you say so.
Nowhere else do safe storage laws and conceal-carry licenses exist. Totally new!
It will be a new regulation if passed. New bill number and everything! Not sure what type of "new" regulation you are thinking won't have a chance because it is new. A regulation against light sabers, laser beams?
-
My suggestion is too arm yourself as much as you can and pray you don’t get shot in a mass shooting. We’re not a serious nation, so expecting this to be addressed is silly.
Arm myself as much as I can? How would that have helped yesterday in Highland Park. The shooter was partially concealed on a second floor roof. Assuming I had a concealed carry permit in Illinois and moved to fire back, what would I have fired at?
Second, do you have a handgun that's effective at that range? Too much of an effort with a rifle.
-
It will be a new regulation if passed. New bill number and everything! Not sure what type of "new" regulation you are thinking won't have a chance because it is new. A regulation against light sabers, laser beams?
I'm agreeing with you. Safe storage laws don't exist. Any such law would be new.
Licenses for conceal carry? New.
Restrictions on where you can conceal carry? New!
But what about all the places these regulations exist and have for many years, you ask? Not true. lawdog says so.
This has become such a stupid argument because you're literally denying reality. Bizarre.
-
I'm agreeing with you. Safe storage laws don't exist. Any such law would be new.
Licenses for conceal carry? New.
Restrictions on where you can conceal carry? New!
But what about all the places these regulations exist and have for many years, you ask? Not true. lawdog says so.
This has become such a stupid argument because you're literally denying reality. Bizarre.
Something seems to be getting lost in translation. Here's what I see:
You state that no new regulation can be passed because of this ruling.
I call b.s. because there will be new laws passed (Congress and New York for example)
If you think the Supreme Court won't allow new laws concerning background checks, red flags, you are crazy.
Licenses for conceal carry and where you can conceal carry are not new, under your definition. Heck, this New York law they overturned was how old?
-
Burrow, this was intentional hyperbole in response to to what I hope was intentional hyperbole on Wade’s part.
I am pro life, but support exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother. I’m against exceptions like “it’s not convenient”, “it’s a girl”, etc.
That said, I would support a federal law allowing unfettered access in the first 15 weeks with exceptions thereafter. Codifying a compromise that neither side is wild about seems to me to be the best (only?) solution.
I think most reasonable people could agree on this or something very similar. The fact is, this is already what was occurring in practice. Per CDC data, only 4.3% of abortions occur after 15 weeks:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7a/2e/CHWSZVDd_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/CHWSZVDd)
The problem of course is that neither the religious fanatics on the Supreme Court nor those controlling Republican legislatures are capable of being reasonable.
-
I don't think that's true.
https://twitter.com/CardinalBCupich/status/1529270441080152066
I understand a religious leader saying that.
But those who vote pro-forced birth (most of the right) are also voting for unfettered access to guns. That is the choice they have made regardless of what they say to pollsters.
-
Crimo drove close to Madison between the time of the shooting and getting caught. Lot of questions I’d have as to why/why did he turn back/where was he ultimately trying to go?
-
Talk about cold, cold hearted:
In a Facebook live stream at 11.45 a.m., less than two hours after the Highland Partk incident, Illinois State Senator (and Gov. candidate Darren Bailey was seen with a group of people in Skokie village. During the stream, he said that Skokie's 4th of July parade was canceled because of the shooting, which has left six dead and dozen injured.
"Friends, let's pray for the law enforcement and even the organizers of this parade," Bailey was heard saying. "The shooter is still at large. So let's pray for justice to prevail, and then let's move on and let's celebrate the independence of this nation."
This trump endorsed guy couldn't even be bothered with the 'thoughts and prayers' scam.
Forget & party down!!!
-
Crimo drove close to Madison between the time of the shooting and getting caught. Lot of questions I’d have as to why/why did he turn back/where was he ultimately trying to go?
He drove to Madison, left his cell phone up there, and then drove back.
-
He drove to Madison, left his cell phone up there, and then drove back.
He's going to hell, so he wanted a sneak preview?
-
He drove to Madison, left his cell phone up there, and then drove back.
Yeah, just saw that additional info about the cell. Seems odd to drive 2 plus hours into WI, just to drive back, close to the scene of the crime.
-
Something seems to be getting lost in translation. Here's what I see:
You state that no new regulation can be passed because of this ruling.
I call b.s. because there will be new laws passed (Congress and New York for example)
If you think the Supreme Court won't allow new laws concerning background checks, red flags, you are crazy.
Licenses for conceal carry and where you can conceal carry are not new, under your definition. Heck, this New York law they overturned was how old?
This back and forth is about the difference between "constitutionally new" and "geographically new" - yes? I think Pakuni's point is that if you took CA's gun laws and introduced them as legislation in TX, that would not be "new" becuase they were laws on the books in a state as of the NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc decision, whereas lawdog is calling that "new" becuase it was not previously the law in TX.
-
Wow. I just heard some of these recent revelations from the investigation. Trying to figure out why he wasn't arrested in 2019. Freaking crazy.
-
Yeah, just saw that additional info about the cell. Seems odd to drive 2 plus hours into WI, just to drive back, close to the scene of the crime.
Uhh....what? Crazy.
-
Wow. I just heard some of these recent revelations from the investigation. Trying to figure out why he wasn't arrested in 2019. Freaking crazy.
Sounds like the threat wasn't direct and immediate enough. Clearly had untreated mental health issues.
-
That little boy that was found wandering around after the parade…both his parents were killed.
-
Sounds like the threat wasn't direct and immediate enough. Clearly had untreated mental health issues.
On the radio I heard someone in his family called the police and they seized two firearms in 2019. The murderer also stated that he "wanted to kill everyone" at that time. That sounds like a direct threat to me. Highland Park police reported it to IL State police. Yes, he has severe mental health issues.
-
That little boy that was found wandering around after the parade…both his parents were killed.
Here’s a tweet with some information
https://twitter.com/marparnews/status/1544418629642584070?s=21&t=CIGIGuSwpizP2xWI8aH3qw
Hope one day he can appreicate the price of freedom to be able to purchase machines meant to mass murder
-
On the radio I heard someone in his family called the police and they seized two firearms in 2019. The murderer also stated that he "wanted to kill everyone" at that time. That sounds like a direct threat to me. Highland Park police reported it to IL State police. Yes, he has severe mental health issues.
Family called in 2019 to say he was threatening them. Cops confiscated a bunch of knives, but no guns. Family members wouldn't sign a complaint, so cops decided they had no PC for charges (which, without benefit of hindsight, was the right call).
The guns weren't acquired until 2020 and 2021.
-
Family called in 2019 to say he was threatening them. Cops confiscated a bunch of knives, but no guns. Family members wouldn't sign a complaint, so cops decided they had no PC for charges (which, without benefit of hindsight, was the right call).
The guns weren't acquired until 2020 and 2021.
Oh.. what happened with the guns in 2020 and 2021?
-
Licenses for conceal carry and where you can conceal carry are not new, under your definition. Heck, this New York law they overturned was how old?
Not my definition. Webster's definition.
But glad we can finally agree. These laws are not new.
-
Oh.. what happened with the guns in 2020 and 2021?
He used one of them to shoot a few dozen people.
-
Not my definition. Webster's definition.
But glad we can finally agree. These laws are not new.
You just said this:
I'm agreeing with you. Safe storage laws don't exist. Any such law would be new.
Licenses for conceal carry? New.
Restrictions on where you can conceal carry? New!
-
He used one of them to shoot a few dozen people.
I thought the Highland Park police chief said guns were seized. I
-
This back and forth is about the difference between "constitutionally new" and "geographically new" - yes? I think Pakuni's point is that if you took CA's gun laws and introduced them as legislation in TX, that would not be "new" becuase they were laws on the books in a state as of the NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc decision, whereas lawdog is calling that "new" becuase it was not previously the law in TX.
As far as my version, yes. So I am trying to figure out what sort of gun control law would be "new" under Pakuni's definition.
-
I understand a religious leader saying that.
But those who vote pro-forced birth (most of the right) are also voting for unfettered access to guns. That is the choice they have made regardless of what they say to pollsters.
No one forced anyone to get pregnant and please spare me the rape and incest scam.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
-
No one forced anyone to get pregnant and please spare me the rape and incest scam.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
“Rape and incest scam”
Which religions are a scam? There are so many of them, some have to be scams, no?
Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland running scams? Sure seems like it.
-
This doesn't contradict anything I wrote. Licensing requirements for concealed carry are not new. Safe storage laws are not new. Laws allowing some places to bar concealed carry are not new.
Not only are they not new, but those and mandated gun registration existed at the time of this nations founding and in the immediate time period before and after the institution of the constitution.
-
No one forced anyone to get pregnant and please spare me the rape and incest scam.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
You are awful.
-
You are awful.
...but snuffing the life out of an unborn baby before it takes its first breath is not?
-
As far as my version, yes. So I am trying to figure out what sort of gun control law would be "new" under Pakuni's definition.
Universal background checks would be new.
A ban on private party gun sales would be new.
Mandatory background checks on private sales would be new.
A federal gun registry would be new.
A federal 21+ age requirement for rifles would be new.
A permanent ban on assault weapons would be new.
Want more?
-
Well, you read it differently than I do, I read it as, once a person is able to obtain a gun legally, his should be able to have it in public.
Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”
“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”
Undertaking actual reading decisions is overrated. It's better to just read a 280 character tweet by a partisan telling one what they want to hear about the decision, even if it's wrong. You can't interject the actual holding of the ruling.
Sure, my current state may still allow legal abortions up to the day of birth, but someone on Twitter said all abortions are illegal now, so...
-
Undertaking actual reading decisions is overrated. It's better to just read a 280 character tweet by a partisan telling one what they want to hear about the decision, even if it's wrong. You can't interject the actual holding of the ruling.
Sure, my current state may still allow legal abortions up to the day of birth, but someone on Twitter said all abortions are illegal now, so...
This is hilarious, given that lawdog wasn't quoting from the majority decision here.
Do better, Billy.
-
This is hilarious, given that lawdog wasn't quoting from the majority decision here.
Do better, Billy.
Familia Chicos only reads headlines, not content.
-
Man, the more tidbits that come out about the father, the house, what the State of Illinois maybe should have done…this is beyond words.
I’m sorry, but if my kid painted a picture on the side of our house of a happy face holding an assault weapon, I’m probably telling the authorities.
-
Man, the more tidbits that come out about the father, the house, what the State of Illinois maybe should have done…this is beyond words.
I’m sorry, but if my kid painted a picture on the side of our house of a happy face holding an assault weapon, I’m probably telling the authorities.
Yes D-Dish. Freaking messed up.
-
Thomas and Scalia opposed Highland Park's ban on assault weapons. Because of course they did.
-
Universal background checks would be new.
A ban on private party gun sales would be new.
Mandatory background checks on private sales would be new.
A federal gun registry would be new.
A federal 21+ age requirement for rifles would be new.
A permanent ban on assault weapons would be new.
Want more?
First, I need to apologize. I should not have called you a dbag. I am better than that.
No one is going to pass a ban on private party gun sales for all types of guns-but there should be mandatory background checks, on private party sales, which some states already have
Maryland has a law where handguns and assault rifles can only be purchased if you are 21+
Other types of guns have been outlawed, so banning assault weapons wouldnt really be new
-
Thomas and Scalia opposed Highland Park's ban on assault weapons. Because of course they did.
Lot of good that ban did. Less gun laws and more guns = safe America.
-
Thomas and Scalia opposed Highland Park's ban on assault weapons. Because of course they did.
He called them “modern sporting rifles”.
Someone should have told him that hunting humans is NOT a modern sport.
He was a much better man when his only dalliances were sexually harassing women.
-
...but snuffing the life out of an unborn baby before it takes its first breath is not?
When does life begin?
Do you support the use of birth control?
-
Man, the more tidbits that come out about the father, the house, what the State of Illinois maybe should have done…this is beyond words.
I’m sorry, but if my kid painted a picture on the side of our house of a happy face holding an assault weapon, I’m probably telling the authorities.
Or at least not sponsor his FOID application.
-
First, I need to apologize. I should not have called you a dbag. I am better than that.
No worries. Stupid internet arguments get the best of all of us sometimes.
-
...but snuffing the life out of an unborn baby before it takes its first breath is not?
No, it is not.
It is, however, none of your business.
-
When does life begin?
Do you support the use of birth control?
https://www.alittleinsight.com/by-week
You tell me.
-
https://www.alittleinsight.com/by-week
You tell me.
😂😂😂😂
-
No, it is not.
It is, however, none of your business.
...but Planned Parenthood (there is an oxymoron if there ever was one) has made it a Big Business to kill babies and harvest their body parts for research and now some states can now make it their business to have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn baby. So obviously it is somebody's business.
-
https://www.alittleinsight.com/by-week
You tell me.
What's your opinion?
Do you support the use of birth control?
-
The only way this is the "big question" is if we are the only country that has a problem with mentally or emotionally unstable people. As we are decidedly not the only country, the big question is the actual problem, not the problem politicians of a certain shade like to deflect to.
Actually, mostly white men are the mass shooters, so obviously being a white male is a mental defect. Otherwise, the whole mental issues are the root cause of mass shooters is complete and utter bs.
-
Thanks for the follow up, Lenny, and sorry if I was being obtuse.
No worries, Burrow - Agree or disagree I think you’re one of Scoop’s most thoughtful posters.
-
So gun humper daddy Crimos sponsored less-than-21 year-old Bobby, allowing him to get a military grade weapon even though Bobby had threatened to kill himself and the family. Because that's just what you do.
Dad of suspect in Highland Park Fourth of July massacre OK’d his seeking gun permit, state police say
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/5/23195378/highland-park-mass-shooting-fourth-july-parade-gun-robert-crimo-rifle
"The Highland Park massacre suspect was too young to get a gun permit in 2019 from the state of Illinois, but his father sponsored him for one anyway —even after the son had threatened to kill himself and his family, authorities said Tuesday."
-
...but Planned Parenthood (there is an oxymoron if there ever was one) has made it a Big Business to kill babies and harvest their body parts for research and now some states can now make it their business to have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn baby. So obviously it is somebody's business.
Abortions make up a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. And you are absolutely being fed and believing disinformation.
-
So gun humper daddy Crimos sponsored less-than-21 year-old Bobby, allowing him to get a military grade weapon even though Bobby had threatened to kill himself and the family. Because that's just what you do.
Dad of suspect in Highland Park Fourth of July massacre OK’d his seeking gun permit, state police say
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/5/23195378/highland-park-mass-shooting-fourth-july-parade-gun-robert-crimo-rifle
"The Highland Park massacre suspect was too young to get a gun permit in 2019 from the state of Illinois, but his father sponsored him for one anyway —even after the son had threatened to kill himself and his family, authorities said Tuesday."
If we only had a clue why this guy turned out the way he did...
-
...but Planned Parenthood (there is an oxymoron if there ever was one) has made it a Big Business to kill babies and harvest their body parts for research and now some states can now make it their business to have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the unborn baby. So obviously it is somebody's business.
But you vote for the people who want to put weapons of war in the hands of unstable teenagers.
You're not a champion of life. You are just another mediocre white guy who wants control over a woman's body.
-
Abortions make up a tiny percentage of what Planned Parenthood does. And you are absolutely being fed and believing disinformation.
They performed more than 350,000 abortions in the USA in 2020 - well over half the abortions reported here. To some, that number is meaningless, “a tiny % of what they do”. To others, the numbers are staggering. Depends on one’s POV.
-
They performed more than 350,000 abortions in the USA in 2020 - well over half the abortions reported here. To some, that number is meaningless, “a tiny % of what they do”. To others, the numbers are staggering. Depends on one’s POV.
It is very much a tiny percentage of what they do. From their Wiki page.
“In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions.”
324,000 / 9.5 million = about 3%
-
Maybe someday the pro abortion crowd will give a sh!t about the lives lost ensuring no adult be inconvenienced.
Maybe.
So you're of the opinion that a 14 year old who's raped by an adult and becomes pregnant as a result should have to carry the baby full term, give birth to the baby, and either decide to give up the baby or raise the baby? Seems like a great thing for both the 14 year old and the baby.
I don't think many are pro abortion. I think many are smartly pro not making decisions on other peoples' bodies and giving them the choice. Remember how horrible this world was when we had to wear a cloth mask over our face when we went out into public? My body my choice? How inconvenient. Now imagine being forced to give birth.
At least you didn't deny you don't give a sh!t about the children who are being gunned down in schools. Pro life until birth.
-
So you're of the opinion that a 14 year old who's raped by an adult and becomes pregnant as a result should have to carry the baby full term, give birth to the baby, and either decide to give up the baby or raise the baby?
I think too often, we focus on the extreme situations and not enough on the majority of abortions. I consider these legitimate reasons to have an abortion:
1) Rape
2) Incest
3) Parent who needs the resources to support existing children
4) Risk to mother's health/life
5) High risks to potential infant
6) Pregnancy would infringe on the mother's ability to pursue her own life and liberty
7) Any goddamn reason not listed above that the mother feels is appropriate because it's none of anyone's business other than the mother and her doctor
You can't be for freedom and liberty and also against abortion. The freedom and liberty of existing citizens trumps the freedom and liberty of potential citizens. Otherwise, if we're going to criminalize abortion, we should do the EXACT SAME for masturbation, because every time a man masturbate that's the potential of human life being shot into a sock. You want to criminalize a woman's bodily autonomy? Look in the goddamn mirror first.
And before anyone comes with some BS "sperm isn't a fertilized egg" nonsense, we have to draw a line somewhere, and if you're going to draw the line at criminalizing women, you better goddamn well hold yourself to the same standard and be prepared to spend life in prison if you ejaculate ever for a reason other than consensual procreation.
-
I think too often, we focus on the extreme situations and not enough on the majority of abortions. I consider these legitimate reasons to have an abortion:
1) Rape
2) Incest
3) Parent who needs the resources to support existing children
4) Risk to mother's health/life
5) High risks to potential infant
6) Pregnancy would infringe on the mother's ability to pursue her own life and liberty
7) Any goddamn reason not listed above that the mother feels is appropriate because it's none of anyone's business other than the mother and her doctor
You can't be for freedom and liberty and also against abortion. The freedom and liberty of existing citizens trumps the freedom and liberty of potential citizens. Otherwise, if we're going to criminalize abortion, we should do the EXACT SAME for masturbation, because every time a man masturbate that's the potential of human life being shot into a sock. You want to criminalize a woman's bodily autonomy? Look in the goddamn mirror first.
And before anyone comes with some BS "sperm isn't a fertilized egg" nonsense, we have to draw a line somewhere, and if you're going to draw the line at criminalizing women, you better goddamn well hold yourself to the same standard and be prepared to spend life in prison if you ejaculate ever for a reason other than consensual procreation.
Jesus judges you when you masterbate
-
I think too often, we focus on the extreme situations and not enough on the majority of abortions. I consider these legitimate reasons to have an abortion:
1) Rape
2) Incest
3) Parent who needs the resources to support existing children
4) Risk to mother's health/life
5) High risks to potential infant
6) Pregnancy would infringe on the mother's ability to pursue her own life and liberty
7) Any goddamn reason not listed above that the mother feels is appropriate because it's none of anyone's business other than the mother and her doctor
You can't be for freedom and liberty and also against abortion. The freedom and liberty of existing citizens trumps the freedom and liberty of potential citizens. Otherwise, if we're going to criminalize abortion, we should do the EXACT SAME for masturbation, because every time a man masturbate that's the potential of human life being shot into a sock. You want to criminalize a woman's bodily autonomy? Look in the goddamn mirror first.
And before anyone comes with some BS "sperm isn't a fertilized egg" nonsense, we have to draw a line somewhere, and if you're going to draw the line at criminalizing women, you better goddamn well hold yourself to the same standard and be prepared to spend life in prison if you ejaculate ever for a reason other than consensual procreation.
So, you are OK with abortion up until birth?
-
So, you are OK with abortion up until birth?
It's not about me nor what I'm okay with, nor what you're okay with, nor what anyone in here is okay with. It's between the woman and her doctor. It's not anyone's business outside that doctor's office.
-
It's not about me nor what I'm okay with, nor what you're okay with, nor what anyone in here is okay with. It's between the woman and her doctor. It's not anyone's business outside that doctor's office.
A simple “yes” would have sufficed. Be proud of your stance, have conviction! Say “yes, I support that!”
-
A simple “yes” would have sufficed. Be proud of your stance, have conviction! Say “yes, I support that!”
Again, it's not my place one way nor the other. Saying yes would indicate I should have a say. I shouldn't, just like you shouldn't. My stance is that I know when the decision has nothing to do with me, unlike any man that isn't the attending physician and thinks they should have any say in this matter whatsoever.
I see what you are doing. It's an attempt to demonize me while abdicating your own responsibility and deflecting from your own beliefs. It's whataboutism. I'm not here for it.
-
People like you who call for assassinations are one primary reason for violence. If anyone needs red flag laws activated, it would be Rico. Astonishing the mods haven’t banned this account for actively calling for the assassination of judges and presidents. His words, not mine.
Yes, you keep informing us. Get over it already.
-
So, you are OK with abortion up until birth?
Would you choose death for your wife/partner die during childbirth if it were preventable?
Same question, different angle.
-
Would you choose death for your wife/partner die during childbirth if it were preventable?
Same question, different angle.
I am OK with abortions in limited circumstances, such as rape, incest, health of mother. I also believe its not for me to judge those who want abortions in other circumstances. That's above my paygrade. .
-
Jesus judges you when you masterbate
Yeah but he usually scores me a 10 out of 10
-
I am OK with abortions in limited circumstances, such as rape, incest, health of mother. I also believe its not for me to judge those who want abortions in other circumstances. That's above my paygrade. .
Then we agree.
-
So you're of the opinion that a 14 year old who's raped by an adult and becomes pregnant as a result should have to carry the baby full term, give birth to the baby, and either decide to give up the baby or raise the baby? Seems like a great thing for both the 14 year old and the baby.
I don't think many are pro abortion. I think many are smartly pro not making decisions on other peoples' bodies and giving them the choice. Remember how horrible this world was when we had to wear a cloth mask over our face when we went out into public? My body my choice? How inconvenient. Now imagine being forced to give birth.
At least you didn't deny you don't give a sh!t about the children who are being gunned down in schools. Pro life until birth.
He literally said he had no issues with rape/incest/medical exceptions earlier in the thread. You guys disagree on enough without inflating arguments he never made.
-
He literally said he had no issues with rape/incest/medical exceptions earlier in the thread. You guys disagree on enough without inflating arguments he never made.
Ignoring what people say and making up things they never said is a favorite ploy of his. Every honest/fair person here gets that.
-
Jesus judges you when you masterbate
Heard you were awarded a 10 for effort and enthusiasm, but the 2 for faulty equipment dragged down your overall score.
-
I have to say, I've never understand why people who claim to believe that life begins at conception are okay with exceptions for rape/incest. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, what is the logic behind it? "Someone else did something awful to you so you get to murder an innocent person"?
I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be exception for rape/incest, I'm just genuinely curious what the logic is.
-
Sounds like Madison/Middleton literally dodged a bullet. Cops say the Highland Park shooter happened upon a celebration after driving up there and thought about opening fire, but decided against it because he hadn't done any planning for it.
Phew.
-
I have to say, I've never understand why people who claim to believe that life begins at conception are okay with exceptions for rape/incest. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, what is the logic behind it? "Someone else did something awful to you so you get to murder an innocent person"?
I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be exception for rape/incest, I'm just genuinely curious what the logic is.
I think there are shades of grey to it. I have a lot of pro-life family members. Some are strict Catholics who are life begins at conception and have no grey area. They wouldn't be in favor of exceptions, regardless.
Others understand the nuance, and would be fine with the exceptions, but I think thats also the understanding that you're taking steps with regards to aborting the pregnancy pretty soon after finding out. They get uncomfortable if you're talking anywhere near the second trimester. My uncle, for example, is very much pro-life but reasonable. However, he relayed one time how he got into a heated abortion argument with a friend of theirs because he said anything after 11-12 weeks, save for critical medical emergency, was too long and the friend was incredibly insistent on "plenty of people don't even know they're pregnant at that point" which he found to be ridiculous.
FWIW, he's also very anti-gun
-
I think there are shades of grey to it. I have a lot of pro-life family members. Some are strict Catholics who are life begins at conception and have no grey area. They wouldn't be in favor of exceptions, regardless.
Others understand the nuance, and would be fine with the exceptions, but I think thats also the understanding that you're taking steps with regards to aborting the pregnancy pretty soon after finding out. They get uncomfortable if you're talking anywhere near the second trimester. My uncle, for example, is very much pro-life but reasonable. However, he relayed one time how he got into a heated abortion argument with a friend of theirs because he said anything after 11-12 weeks, save for critical medical emergency, was too long and the friend was incredibly insistent on "plenty of people don't even know they're pregnant at that point" which he found to be ridiculous.
FWIW, he's also very anti-gun
I'm not asking about your uncle. I'm asking about people who say life begins at conception but also say that they would make exceptions for rape/incest. That's different from people who are fine with all abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
-
I have to say, I've never understand why people who claim to believe that life begins at conception are okay with exceptions for rape/incest. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, what is the logic behind it? "Someone else did something awful to you so you get to murder an innocent person"?
I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be exception for rape/incest, I'm just genuinely curious what the logic is.
TAMU
Just speaking for me, but I’m OK with it under the “health of the mother” exception. I think in those cases the victim should be allowed to weigh her trauma carrying until term given the circumstances vs the life she is carrying.
-
I'm not asking about your uncle. I'm asking about people who say life begins at conception but also say that they would make exceptions for rape/incest. That's different from people who are fine with all abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
I think thats a much smaller number than you'd think. I think the vast majority of life at conception people are absolute.
And I wasn't talking fine with all abortion up to a certain point. I was talking someone who is fine with exceptions to a certain point.
-
Jesus judges you when you masterbate
That is why I try to do my best.
-
Ignoring what people say and making up things they never said is a favorite ploy of his. Every honest/fair person here gets that.
So you're pro choice. Congratulations.
-
I have to say, I've never understand why people who claim to believe that life begins at conception are okay with exceptions for rape/incest. If you truly believe that abortion is murder, what is the logic behind it? "Someone else did something awful to you so you get to murder an innocent person"?
I'm not advocating that there shouldn't be exception for rape/incest, I'm just genuinely curious what the logic is.
Exactly.
-
I think thats a much smaller number than you'd think. I think the vast majority of life at conception people are absolute.
And I wasn't talking fine with all abortion up to a certain point. I was talking someone who is fine with exceptions to a certain point.
So if people are okay with exceptions until a certain point...but don't believe that life starts at conception....why don't they support all abortion until that certain point?
As I understand it, pro-life's issue with abortion is that it is murdering babies. I can understand that for some people it goes from non-baby to baby at conception, for others it is at various points throughout the pregnancy. But you seem to be saying that there are people who don't believe that life starts at conception but also want to ban all abortion except for specific exceptions (rape/incest etc.). If they don't believe life doesn't begin at conception, why do they want to ban all abortion minus exceptions?
-
TAMU
Just speaking for me, but I’m OK with it under the “health of the mother” exception. I think in those cases the victim should be allowed to weigh her trauma carrying until term given the circumstances vs the life she is carrying.
Just to make sure I understand, you believe life starts at conception but are okay with women murdering their babies if they were conceived through rape/incest?
-
Sounds like Madison/Middleton literally dodged a bullet. Cops say the Highland Park shooter happened upon a celebration after driving up there and thought about opening fire, but decided against it because he hadn't done any planning for it.
Phew.
I can’t even fathom if this guy had put more thought into it, what else he could have done. Once he got out of HP undetected and into a car, essentially on the move and unknown as a person of interest, he was still heavily armed.
-
Sounds like we’ve moved on from video games and onto anti-depressants and wees causing mass shootings. Tough day for the door industry, too.
-
Sounds like we’ve moved on from video games and onto anti-depressants and wees causing mass shootings. Tough day for the door industry, too.
Also, women.
https://news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-points-finger-women-045131296.html
-
Also, women.
https://news.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-points-finger-women-045131296.html
Of course. He really projects
-
Just to make sure I understand, you believe life starts at conception but are okay with women murdering their babies if they were conceived through rape/incest?
Well the goal would be that if you were raped, it would be reported immediately, and EC would be used before the embryo implants.
-
Sounds like we’ve moved on from video games and onto anti-depressants and wees causing mass shootings. Tough day for the door industry, too.
And fire escapes.
Yes, if the shooter was willing to act spontaneously, this would have been exponentially worse. However, he clearly liked to plan his escape route.
-
So if people are okay with exceptions until a certain point...but don't believe that life starts at conception....why don't they support all abortion until that certain point?
As I understand it, pro-life's issue with abortion is that it is murdering babies. I can understand that for some people it goes from non-baby to baby at conception, for others it is at various points throughout the pregnancy. But you seem to be saying that there are people who don't believe that life starts at conception but also want to ban all abortion except for specific exceptions (rape/incest etc.). If they don't believe life doesn't begin at conception, why do they want to ban all abortion minus exceptions?
Its not my argument, Im pro-choice to an timeline extent. I'm just adding nuance. There seems to be this idea with some that anyone pro-life either wants control of women or is some dense, unwavering "life starts at conception, hard stop".
There are some who think it starts somewhere between conception and a lump of cells becoming a fetus and believe at that point, all pregnancies should progress, save for some extreme examples.
-
Well the goal would be that if you were raped, it would be reported immediately, and EC would be used before the embryo implants.
Do you know how many rapes go unreported due to:
1. Embarrassment.
2. Fear of being attacked as part of the problem, not the victim.
3. Fear of not being believed.
4. Fear of being attacked as ruining the "boy/man/girl/woman's" life.
5. For the case of children, not even understanding what happened or who to tell.
6. General emotional and physical trauma.
And a long list of other reasons and reasonable fears.
Your goal is quite frankly, unreasonable.
-
Sounds like Madison/Middleton literally dodged a bullet. Cops say the Highland Park shooter happened upon a celebration after driving up there and thought about opening fire, but decided against it because he hadn't done any planning for it.
Phew.
Yup. Good thing the police found him before he had the opportunity to create a sequel.
-
After watching the Highland Park shooting mess, there's a whole group of questions that needs answering as we move forward. In no particular order, they are:
1) What is the justification for allowing civilian ownership of high-powered assault weapons? I don't get what we need these weapons in civilian hands for. If some hunter out there can explain what we hunt for with assault rifles, I'm all ears. We ban very dangerous weapons such as explosives, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, from private ownership, so why not high-powered assault rifles?
2. In the "what was he thinking category," Why would a father whose son has shown known emotional issues sponsor the son's FOID application? I'm all ears on this one.
3, In Illinois, billions are wasted on everything from consultants, to cost overruns, to gold plated pensions to patronage employees. If Indiana can do it for $1.00, Illinois will spend $10 on the same thing. So, Why wasn't the State Police FOID Database Upgraded? Apparently, Highland Park reported the disturbances caused by Robert Crimo III to State Police but evidently, there was no centralized database that was easily accessible for the State Police to review Mr. Crimo's fitness for gun ownership.
With the Exception of Item 1 (which is sorely needed), the laws are on the books. Not sure any gun law can resolve Item 2 without Item 3. And I guess Item 3 never happened because there wasn't enough juice in it to excite a corrupt Chicago politician!
-
Its not my argument, Im pro-choice to an timeline extent. I'm just adding nuance. There seems to be this idea with some that anyone pro-life either wants control of women or is some dense, unwavering "life starts at conception, hard stop".
There are some who think it starts somewhere between conception and a lump of cells becoming a fetus and believe at that point, all pregnancies should progress, save for some extreme examples.
I honestly still don't get it. Whether you believe life starts at conception, 5 weeks, 12 weeks, etc, why are you okay with exceptions for rape/incest after the point you believe it is alive? Why would someone else harming the mother in the past justify the mother murdering an innocent life? Pro choice people I get, they don't believe it is alive, but pro life people say it is a human life which would make abortion murder.
Again, not saying there shouldn't be exceptions, just don't understand the logic being used
-
I can’t even fathom if this guy had put more thought into it, what else he could have done. Once he got out of HP undetected and into a car, essentially on the move and unknown as a person of interest, he was still heavily armed.
That's whats even more chilling for me. Its not like "oh dude snapped and went wild". He had it planned acutely and witheld from a further spree killing cause he didn't have it properly planned out. No insanity defense, temporary or otherwise. Just a supremely twisted and calculating individual.
-
That's whats even more chilling for me. Its not like "oh dude snapped and went wild". He had it planned acutely and witheld from a further spree killing cause he didn't have it properly planned out. No insanity defense, temporary or otherwise. Just a supremely twisted and calculating individual.
Wow....just wow. Chilling is exactly right.
-
3, In Illinois, billions are wasted on everything from consultants, to cost overruns, to gold plated pensions to patronage employees. If Indiana can do it for $1.00, Illinois will spend $10 on the same thing. So, Why wasn't the State Police FOID Database Upgraded? Apparently, Highland Park reported the disturbances caused by Robert Crimo III to State Police but evidently, there was no centralized database that was easily accessible for the State Police to review Mr. Crimo's fitness for gun ownership.
With the Exception of Item 1 (which is sorely needed), the laws are on the books. Not sure any gun law can resolve Item 2 without Item 3. And I guess Item 3 never happened because there wasn't enough juice in it to excite a corrupt Chicago politician!
Just to clarify this, the reason the disturbance wasn't noted in the FOID database is because Crimo neither had nor was seeking a FOID card at the time, and no police agency or family member filed a "red flag" complaint against him.
Sadly for the narrative, but this isn't the fault of those gosh darn Chicago politicians or lazy government workers.
-
I honestly still don't get it. Whether you believe life starts at conception, 5 weeks, 12 weeks, etc, why are you okay with exceptions for rape/incest after the point you believe it is alive? Why would someone else harming the mother in the past justify the mother murdering an innocent life? Pro choice people I get, they don't believe it is alive, but pro life people say it is a human life which would make abortion murder.
Again, not saying there shouldn't be exceptions, just don't understand the logic being used
It's an interesting point and imo a fair argument and discussion. Regardless I think the vast majority believe in a 15 week limit.
Your point does make me think about our other most polarizing issue. Many people (probably most) are for banning assault style weapons but not for a blanket gun ban. Whether it be for 2nd Amendment constitutional issues or what have you.. Isn't this logically problematic when hand guns are responsible for far more homicides and carnage?
-
Many people (probably most) are for banning assault style weapons but not for a blanket gun ban. Whether it be for 2nd Amendment constitutional issues or what have you.. Isn't this logically problematic when hand guns are responsible for far more homicides and carnage?
Agreed. That's why I'm in favor of a full ban. The only exception would be for trained, organized, and clearly well-regulated militias. Not hunting, nor self-defense, nor collecting, nor any other reason not expressed in the 2nd Amendment.
It's interesting how textualism only applies when it comes to restricting human rights but not when it comes to limiting our ability to rapidly kill each other.
-
Your point does make me think about our other most polarizing issue. Many people (probably most) are for banning assault style weapons but not for a blanket gun ban. Whether it be for 2nd Amendment constitutional issues or what have you.. Isn't this logically problematic when hand guns are responsible for far more homicides and carnage?
I would say no. There are far more handguns in circulation than there are AR-15s and their ilk. My guess is that the homicide per gun is much higher for AR-15s than it is for handguns. Certainly than amount of deaths per shooting is much higher for AR-15s than it is for handguns.
While both handgun violence and mass shootings are examples of gun violence, and there are certainly mass shootings that use handguns, they are two different flavors of gun violence with different causes and different needed remedies.
I would also say that I don't really see a comparison between the gun responsibility debate and the abortion debate. We all agree that gun violence is bad but disagree on how to solve it. We don't agree on whether or not abortion is bad.
-
It's an interesting point and imo a fair argument and discussion. Regardless I think the vast majority believe in a 15 week limit.
Your point does make me think about our other most polarizing issue. Many people (probably most) are for banning assault style weapons but not for a blanket gun ban. Whether it be for 2nd Amendment constitutional issues or what have you.. Isn't this logically problematic when hand guns are responsible for far more homicides and carnage?
Only if you insist on letting perfect be the enemy of good.
It is true that no law or new regulation is going to prevent all gun violence. But that's a terrible justification for (once again) doing nothing. An assault weapons ban won't stop someone from wanting to shoot up their local parade/school/grocery store, but I'd much rather see that person armed with a 9mm handgun or a five-shot hunting rifle than an AR-15. Wouldn't you?
-
Just to clarify this, the reason the disturbance wasn't noted in the FOID database is because Crimo neither had nor was seeking a FOID card at the time, and no police agency or family member filed a "red flag" complaint against him.
Sadly for the narrative, but this isn't the fault of those gosh darn Chicago politicians or lazy government workers.
Brother Pakuni:
From what Lake County Major Crimes said yesterday, HP did file an incident report with the Illinois State Police. Is it a true "Red Flag Report? Maybe not. But the ISP can manage a database that has every traffic ticket I have received since 1972. They ought to be able to somehow handle this.
They ought to be able to take an incident report that is filed by a reputable police organization, digitize it for 10 years or whatever and if a FOID comes in, be able to cross match the name on the FOID with the database.
I don't blame the ISP. I blame the lawmakers and Illinois State Administration for the issue. If the ISP has fault, it's for not pushing this matter hard enough.
As for Brother TAMU's point, look I'd like to see much tougher controls on handguns too. I live in a state where concealed carry permits are about as easy to get as water and somehow our goofy state believes Stand Your Ground is a good idea! But you're not going to sit on top of a building with a handgun, fire off 70 rounds and kill eight people. There are some reasons why certain people should have handguns. I know of NO legitimate reason why any civilian should have a high powered assault rifle.
And, for the record, I'm not woke! I'm a moderate Republican who likes to think I have a certain amount of political common sense.
-
Would you shoot your grandchildren to protect your grandchildren?
-
Brother Pakuni:
From what Lake County Major Crimes said yesterday, HP did file an incident report with the Illinois State Police. Is it a true "Red Flag Report? Maybe not. But the ISP can manage a database that has every traffic ticket I have received since 1972. They ought to be able to somehow handle this.
They ought to be able to take an incident report that is filed by a reputable police organization, digitize it for 10 years or whatever and if a FOID comes in, be able to cross match the name on the FOID with the database.
I don't blame the ISP. I blame the lawmakers and Illinois State Administration for the issue. If the ISP has fault, it's for not pushing this matter hard enough.
As for Brother TAMU's point, look I'd like to see much tougher controls on handguns too. I live in a state where concealed carry permits are about as easy to get as water and somehow our goofy state believes Stand Your Ground is a good idea! But you're not going to sit on top of a building with a handgun, fire off 70 rounds and kill eight people. There are some reasons why certain people should have handguns. I know of NO legitimate reason why any civilian should have a high powered assault rifle.
And, for the record, I'm not woke! I'm a moderate Republican who likes to think I have a certain amount of political common sense.
That's too bad. It's good to be woke. Where people often go wrong is with woke scolding.
-
Only if you insist on letting perfect be the enemy of good.
It is true that no law or new regulation is going to prevent all gun violence. But that's a terrible justification for (once again) doing nothing. An assault weapons ban won't stop someone from wanting to shoot up their local parade/school/grocery store, but I'd much rather see that person armed with a 9mm handgun or a five-shot hunting rifle than an AR-15. Wouldn't you?
His father is an accessory to mass murderer. I personally would rather see someone armed with a handgun vs a AR-15 but this is a comprehensive conversation. It was an awful holiday weekend for gun violence.
-
His father is an accessory to mass murderer. I personally would rather see someone armed with a handgun vs a AR-15 but this is a comprehensive conversation. It was an awful holiday weekend for gun violence.
T.I.A.
-
His father is an accessory to mass murderer. I personally would rather see someone armed with a handgun vs a AR-15 but this is a comprehensive conversation. It was an awful holiday weekend for gun violence.
Then stop voting for the guys that always want more guns, more guns. Otherwise you are part of the problem.
-
Just to make sure I understand, you believe life starts at conception but are okay with women murdering their babies if they were conceived through rape/incest?
Of course life begins at conception. That’s a scientific fact. When that life should be protected. I don’t recall ever calling abortion “murder” but life/health of the mother is mitigating no matter what you call.
When do you think the life deserves protection - only after birth?
-
Nm
-
Then stop voting for the guys that always want more guns, more guns. Otherwise you are part of the problem.
So anyone who has voted for a Republican, ever, is "part of the problem". Got it. That's a real rational take.
-
Of course life begins at conception. That’s a scientific fact. When that life should be protected. I don’t recall ever calling abortion “murder” but life/health of the mother is mitigating no matter what you call.
When do you think the life deserves protection - only after birth?
Well no, that's not a scientific fact, unless you are using a different definition of life. That's a question that is widely debated.
But since you believe (as do I for that matter) that life starts at conception, then intentionally ending that life would be murder, no? So you believe that a baby being conceived through rape/incest is justification for its mother to murder it. I'm not sure how the mother's health is a factor here. I don't think pregnancies that are caused by rape/incest are any more risky to the mother than any other pregnancy. I think everyone (except a select few on the fringe) believe that if the mother's life is in danger that abortion is justified.
I believe that viability is a reasonable compromise when it comes to abortion.
-
Of course life begins at conception. That’s a scientific fact. When that life should be protected. I don’t recall ever calling abortion “murder” but life/health of the mother is mitigating no matter what you call.
When do you think the life deserves protection - only after birth?
Very cool of you to make up that definition to fit your narrative.
-
So anyone who has voted for a Republican, ever, is "part of the problem". Got it. That's a real rational take.
I don't presume to speak for Jockey, but I personally wouldn't go as far as that. But if you think back, there was not a fundamental disagreement between the two parties as recently as the 90's; they came together and passed what they hoped were reasonable gun laws to outlaw assault style weapons.
But what has happened since then? I would argue that only one party has radically changed positions. Gingrich decided there could be no compromise about anything and he was going to conduct all-out war--any compromise was viewed as weakness.
Now, that party subscribes to an extremist point of view that no reasonable restrictions can be implemented and guns must be available to virtually anyone, anytime, without restrictions. One reason is all that sweet, sweet NRA money pouring into their coffers, but another is that it has helped keep them in power by whipping up fear and perpetual anger amongst a whole bunch of dopes that listen to Fox News and their ilk.
So I would say that if you vote for politicians that subscribe to the extremist position, you are making an active choice to perpetuate the problem.
-
Well no, that's not a scientific fact, unless you are using a different definition of life. That's a question that is widely debated.
But since you believe (as do I for that matter) that life starts at conception, then intentionally ending that life would be murder, no? So you believe that a baby being conceived through rape/incest is justification for its mother to murder it. I'm not sure how the mother's health is a factor here. I don't think pregnancies that are caused by rape/incest are any more risky to the mother than any other pregnancy. I think everyone (except a select few on the fringe) believe that if the mother's life is in danger that abortion is justified.
I believe that viability is a reasonable compromise when it comes to abortion.
An even more complicated question ... if you believe life begins at conception, then what do you do with all the embryos created, but never used, during the IVF process? Is freezing them child abuse? Is disposing of them murder? Should a clinic be required to find adoptive parents?
-
When does life begin?
Do you support the use of birth control?
Still waiting on warrior69's answer on this...
-
Well no, that's not a scientific fact, unless you are using a different definition of life. That's a question that is widely debated.
But since you believe (as do I for that matter) that life starts at conception, then intentionally ending that life would be murder, no? So you believe that a baby being conceived through rape/incest is justification for its mother to murder it. I'm not sure how the mother's health is a factor here. I don't think pregnancies that are caused by rape/incest are any more risky to the mother than any other pregnancy. I think everyone (except a select few on the fringe) believe that if the mother's life is in danger that abortion is justified.
I believe that viability is a reasonable compromise when it comes to abortion.
That's a tricky one. As medicine gets more and more advanced, "viability" comes sooner and sooner in the developmental process.
-
I believe that viability is a reasonable compromise when it comes to abortion.
Viability is tough for me because you're well into the second trimester passing a lot of milestones before that 23-24 week mark. I mean, my pregnant wife was feeling our son moving and kicking at like 20 weeks. So that feels far more unsettling to me personally.
I don't presume to speak for Jockey, but I personally wouldn't go as far as that. But if you think back, there was not a fundamental disagreement between the two parties as recently as the 90's; they came together and passed what they hoped were reasonable gun laws to outlaw assault style weapons.
But what has happened since then? I would argue that only one party has radically changed positions. Gingrich decided there could be no compromise about anything and he was going to conduct all-out war--any compromise was viewed as weakness.
Now, that party subscribes to an extremist point of view that no reasonable restrictions can be implemented and guns must be available to virtually anyone, anytime, without restrictions. One reason is all that sweet, sweet NRA money pouring into their coffers, but another is that it has helped keep them in power by whipping up fear and perpetual anger amongst a whole bunch of dopes that listen to Fox News and their ilk.
So I would say that if you vote for politicians that subscribe to the extremist position, you are making an active choice to perpetuate the problem.
Really the brutality of the two party system. Forcing people to become single issue voters and suffer the rest of the party's platform is just awful. Republicans do it with financial issues. Dems do it with gun control/abortion. Just allows the creation of scapegoats and vilification.
-
So anyone who has voted for a Republican, ever, is "part of the problem". Got it. That's a real rational take.
That's not what I said at all. You did a very good imitation of chico, here.
But make no mistake. If you vote R in November, you ARE voting for more guns and less gun control.
-
That's not what I said at all. You did a very good imitation of chico, here.
But make no mistake. If you vote R in November, you ARE voting for more guns and less gun control.
And if you vote for Biden again things will be great for everyone with chocolate rivers, gumdrop smiles, and everything completely under control.
-
I generally shrug off the "Supreme Court justices are Christian theocrats" stuff as hyperbole, but yikes.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/roe-supreme-court-justices-1378046/
-
I generally shrug off the "Supreme Court justices are Christian theocrats" stuff as hyperbole, but yikes.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/roe-supreme-court-justices-1378046/
I used to.
-
Mass shooting problem solved:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/f0/qArkWQCI_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/qArkWQCI)
-
But since you believe (as do I for that matter) that life starts at conception, then intentionally ending that life would be murder, no? So you believe that a baby being conceived through rape/incest is justification for its mother to murder it. I'm not sure how the mother's health is a factor here. I don't think pregnancies that are caused by rape/incest are any more risky to the mother than any other pregnancy. I think everyone (except a select few on the fringe) believe that if the mother's life is in danger that abortion is justified.
I believe that viability is a reasonable compromise when it comes to abortion.
TAMU
I’m confused by your answer. You say because I believe life begins at conception I therefore must believe that intentionally ending that life is murder. Then you say that you also believe that life begins at conception - but that you don’t have to believe anything of the sort. That’s a contradiction.
Regarding rape or incest I think your attitude is cavalier. If you don’t think the health of a women raped or victimized by incest can be further compromised by being forced to carry a child to term I don’t know what to tell you.
-
And if you vote for Biden again things will be great for everyone with chocolate rivers, gumdrop smiles, and everything completely under control.
Make all the jokes you want - but know when you cast a ballot that you are voting for either guns or for kids. It's your choice.
But it takes guts to vote for people who are nothing more than gun 'pushers' and then have the nerve to complain when those guns are used for what they are intended to do.
-
Make all the jokes you want - but know when you cast a ballot that you are voting for either guns or for kids. It's your choice.
But it takes guts to vote for people who are nothing more than gun 'pushers' and then have the nerve to complain when those guns are used for what they are intended to do.
So if you voted for Democrats in Highland Park and Chicago, communities that are vastly Democratic btw, you have every right to "conplain" about what happened over the weekend. My grandma who has lived in Highland Park for 67 yrs, cannot "complain", or show any emotion whatsoever, if she did not only vote for Democrats. It's her fault, not Crimo or his asshead father.
And as a voter, whether a Democrat or Republican, your vote should be solely based on one issue because Jockey says so. If you have ever voted for a Republican, and someone is murdered, you are complicit and under no conditions can you grieve or be upset about it. Makes perfect sense as all of these cases aren't nuanced at all.
-
Make all the jokes you want - but know when you cast a ballot that you are voting for either guns or for kids. It's your choice.
But it takes guts to vote for people who are nothing more than gun 'pushers' and then have the nerve to complain when those guns are used for what they are intended to do.
How many more people are dying because of the fentanyl pouring in at our southern borders? How many more people are being pushed close to or into poverty by policies that encourage more inflation? And as awful as things are on that front, imagine where we’d be if “Build Back Better” had made it through Congress. Our President has the lowest approval rating at this point in his term of any president in the history of polling, even though he’s unscathed by scandal or personality disorders. He’s earned it by consistently passing the buck and being behind the curve on virtually every issue.
You can try to make the coming election about one issue and name call/vilify everyone who disagrees with you but I think you’ll be in for a rude awakening come November.
-
TAMU
I’m confused by your answer. You say because I believe life begins at conception I therefore must believe that intentionally ending that life is murder. Then you say that you also believe that life begins at conception - but that you don’t have to believe anything of the sort. That’s a contradiction.
The difference is that I am pro-choice. My personal belief is that life begins at conception. As such, I will never encourage another human being to get an abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. But that is my personal belief. I don't believe that I or the government have the right to impose that belief on anyone else. You have said you are pro-life which means that you believe that the government should have the right to impose that belief on others. You asked me when I thought life deserved to be protected, I answered that I thought viability was a reasonable compromise. I didn't mean that as my personal belief, I meant that as that's where the minimum bar should be set.
TAMU
Regarding rape or incest I think your attitude is cavalier. If you don’t think the health of a women raped or victimized by incest can be further compromised by being forced to carry a child to term I don’t know what to tell you.
Of course it affects their health, but it doesn't put their life in jeopardy (anymore than any other pregnancy). You know what else affect's the mother's health? Being pregnant. Having to take on medical debt. Not having enough resources to take care of a child or another child on top of already having children. If the bar is "it effects the mother's health", then I would argue that all abortions should be on the table.
-
Make all the jokes you want - but know when you cast a ballot that you are voting for either guns or for kids. It's your choice.
But it takes guts to vote for people who are nothing more than gun 'pushers' and then have the nerve to complain when those guns are used for what they are intended to do.
You do realize you and talk like this is a large part of the problem.
-
How many more people are dying because of the fentanyl pouring in at our southern borders? How many more people are being pushed close to or into poverty by policies that encourage more inflation? And as awful as things are on that front, imagine where we’d be if “Build Back Better” had made it through Congress. Our President has the lowest approval rating at this point in his term of any president in the history of polling, even though he’s unscathed by scandal or personality disorders. He’s earned it by consistently passing the buck and being behind the curve on virtually every issue.
You can try to make the coming election about one issue and name call/vilify everyone who disagrees with you but I think you’ll be in for a rude awakening come November.
Fentanyl has been a problem for years, so I'm not going to put that on the administration. As for your other polices, our entire legislative branch is broken so no meaningful policy can be passed. Blaming supply side inflation is the free market's fault, not the Biden administration's.
The rest I can generally agree with. Biden is a feckless, relic, and a fading member of the old guard of the Democratic party. His VP is managing Dan Quayle levels of public gaffes on a weekly basis. Unless the overturning of Roe galvanizes a lot more Dems by November, there will be an enormous wipeout of vulnerable Dems, and the GOP will cruise. And if you want my opinion, if the Dems don't DO SOMETHING or ANYTHING by November, they're going to lose the youth vote (ha) to apathy, and they will absolutely deserve it.
-
Fentanyl has been a problem for years, so I'm not going to put that on the administration. As for your other polices, our entire legislative branch is broken so no meaningful policy can be passed. Blaming supply side inflation is the free market's fault, not the Biden administration's.
The rest I can generally agree with. Biden is a feckless, relic, and a fading member of the old guard of the Democratic party. His VP is managing Dan Quayle levels of public gaffes on a weekly basis. Unless the overturning of Roe galvanizes a lot more Dems by November, there will be an enormous wipeout of vulnerable Dems, and the GOP will cruise. And if you want my opinion, if the Dems don't DO SOMETHING or ANYTHING by November, they're going to lose the youth vote (ha) to apathy, and they will absolutely deserve it.
Yup, yup
-
How many more people are dying because of the fentanyl pouring in at our southern borders?
Zero.
-
After watching the Highland Park shooting mess, there's a whole group of questions that needs answering as we move forward. In no particular order, they are:
1) What is the justification for allowing civilian ownership of high-powered assault weapons? I don't get what we need these weapons in civilian hands for. If some hunter out there can explain what we hunt for with assault rifles, I'm all ears. We ban very dangerous weapons such as explosives, hand grenades, nuclear bombs, from private ownership, so why not high-powered assault rifles?
2. In the "what was he thinking category," Why would a father whose son has shown known emotional issues sponsor the son's FOID application? I'm all ears on this one.
3, In Illinois, billions are wasted on everything from consultants, to cost overruns, to gold plated pensions to patronage employees. If Indiana can do it for $1.00, Illinois will spend $10 on the same thing. So, Why wasn't the State Police FOID Database Upgraded? Apparently, Highland Park reported the disturbances caused by Robert Crimo III to State Police but evidently, there was no centralized database that was easily accessible for the State Police to review Mr. Crimo's fitness for gun ownership.
With the Exception of Item 1 (which is sorely needed), the laws are on the books. Not sure any gun law can resolve Item 2 without Item 3. And I guess Item 3 never happened because there wasn't enough juice in it to excite a corrupt Chicago politician!
Here's some answers:
2) The father apparently didn't know about the incidents at the Mother's home. I find that hard to believe but, absent any knowledge to the contrary, I'll take him at his word.
3) ISP said late yesterday that they had the evidence Highland Park sent them but it did not meet the standard in Illinois for Red Flag protection. I'll buy that as well but suggest ISP needs to have far more discretion. It may be time for more legislation.
-
So anyone who has voted for a Republican, ever, is "part of the problem". Got it. That's a real rational take.
And if you vote for Biden again things will be great for everyone with chocolate rivers, gumdrop smiles, and everything completely under control.
Neither of these are things anyone said. I consider Biden has been disappointing so far and hope to see him step down in 2024. I also wouldn't favor VP Harris following him at this point (she wasn't my candidate in 2020, either).
But the point isn't about how you voted in the past, it's about how you vote this year. One party has virtually no interest in passing laws to try to stop gun homicides, individual or mass. If this is something you are interested in, you can make a decision based on that in November. Biden isn't on the ticket. This is a choice between what future we want. Do you want to expand rights for guns and enable more homicides, or do you want to protect American life?
We'll all have that decision to make, and we will all personally own the repercussions of that vote. At the end of the day, it comes down to the decisions of millions of voters. We'll blame the courts, the politicians, the gun manufacturers, but ultimately it will be the individual voters. If you want to be "part of the problem" as you said, vote Republican. Just do so recognizing that voting that way means you are personally casting a vote in favor of mass shootings like the ones dominating our headlines on a daily basis.
-
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2022/07/07/wife-of-killed-detroit-officer-he-loved-being-a-police-officer-but-he-also-loved-being-a-dad/
RIP Detroit Officer Courts. Killed by subject with an AR-15. Father was a retired Officer and Officer Courts volunteered to do double shift. He was killed on the second shift.
-
Neither of these are things anyone said. I consider Biden has been disappointing so far and hope to see him step down in 2024. I also wouldn't favor VP Harris following him at this point (she wasn't my candidate in 2020, either).
But the point isn't about how you voted in the past, it's about how you vote this year. One party has virtually no interest in passing laws to try to stop gun homicides, individual or mass. If this is something you are interested in, you can make a decision based on that in November. Biden isn't on the ticket. This is a choice between what future we want. Do you want to expand rights for guns and enable more homicides, or do you want to protect American life?
We'll all have that decision to make, and we will all personally own the repercussions of that vote. At the end of the day, it comes down to the decisions of millions of voters. We'll blame the courts, the politicians, the gun manufacturers, but ultimately it will be the individual voters. If you want to be "part of the problem" as you said, vote Republican. Just do so recognizing that voting that way means you are personally casting a vote in favor of mass shootings like the ones dominating our headlines on a daily basis.
[/quote
If you vote for progressives that want to defund police departments are you also part of the problem? Personally, I don't understand why anyone needs an A-15. A gun person would know why it's seemingly so popular and women like these weapons for protection. I'm not at all against legislation that would lead to a national registry, raise the age limit, and make it far, far, more difficult to purchase a firearm.
All this said Brew we're not getting to the point where the 2nd Amendment is going to be overturned. It's not happening. Gang members and drug dealers illegally getting firearns have to be part of this discussion as well. Single mom's insisting on owning a firearm to protect themselves and their children also need to be part of the discussion. I will concede that when it comes to making it more difficult for people to acquire guns many Rebublicans and the NRA seemingly won't budge and that's wrong and a big problem.
-
If you vote for progressives that want to defund police departments are you also part of the problem? Personally, I don't understand why anyone needs an A-15. A gun person would know why it's seemingly so popular and women like these weapons for protection. I'm not at all against legislation that would lead to a national registry, raise the age limit, and make it far, far, more difficult to purchase a firearm.
All this said Brew we're not getting to the point where the 2nd Amendment is going to be overturned. It's not happening. Gang members and drug dealers illegally getting firearns have to be part of this discussion as well. Single mom's insisting on owning a firearm to protect themselves and their children also need to be part of the discussion. I will concede that when it comes to making it more difficult for people to acquire guns many Rebublicans and the NRA seemingly won't budge and that's wrong and a big problem.
If defunding the police means less inefficient operations like we saw in Uvalde and redirecting that money toward 21st century protective services that include dispatching appropriate personnel to emergencies rather than using the police as a hammer for every situation, I would say no. Defund the police was a poor slogan, but it's worth looking into the plans that were actually behind it and how it was more about reimagining public safety than simply decreasing budgets and spending the leftovers on booze and party hats.
And I'm sorry, but self-defense is not in the Constitution. And perpetuating the idea that you need a firearm because the criminals or your neighbor has one doesn't fix the problem, it exacerbates it. And while I don't expect a 2nd Amendment repeal, we only need to look at every other country ever that has dealt with these types of issues to see how effective it is. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England, none of them have the firearm problems we do because they took definitive action. Will it be harder here because we have basically treated guns like an Oprah Winfrey show, with the NRA screaming "You get a gun, you get a gun, EVERYBODY GETS A GUN!!!" Yes. But just because a problem is hard to solve isn't a reason to refuse to solve it, or worse, grow the problem behind the auspices of that being the solution.
If the 2nd Amendment was treated as it was written and had been from the start, we wouldn't have the issues we do. But for generations, we've seen NRA-fueled lawmakers with the more recent assistance of the Supreme Court pour guns into the hands of any citizen that wanted one, which naturally led to more guns in the hands of people that really shouldn't have them. Proverbially speaking there's a giant mess because the ketchup is out of the bottle and instead of trying to wipe it up, we go get more bottles of ketchup and start squirting them in hopes it will clean up the problem.
The only way to fix the problem is to do the hard work of addressing and fixing the problem. It will be difficult, it will be messy, and it won't happen overnight, but we're here because we have continually tried to fix our problems with more problems, and it hasn't worked.
-
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding (as many seem to) of what defunding the police means. You should look into it, and I'm just here to help.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/
I've said it for a long time, there needs to be a national gun registry.
-
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding (as many seem to) of what defunding the police means. You should look into it, and I'm just here to help.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/
I've said it for a long time, there needs to be a national gun registry.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on both sides to be honest.
People thinking defund means abolish all police..YAY!!! F*** 12!
People thinking defund means getting rid of all police forces and allowing criminals and chaos to reign...NOOOO!!!! We're all gonna die and be raped and pillaged in our homes! BLUE LIVES MATTER
Both are incorrect and both think the other is the problem.
-
Oh for sure, check out the police union's website on the matter and you'll get their version.
And of course there is a large spectrum of what people 'want'. I just don't take seriously the people who say, "Abolish the police!"... they're unreasonable.
-
Oh for sure, check out the police union's website on the matter and you'll get their version.
And of course there is a large spectrum of what people 'want'. I just don't take seriously the people who say, "Abolish the police!"... they're unreasonable.
they are also less than 1% of the population.
-
they are also less than 1% of the population.
Just enough for rocket to get scared.
-
Not sure if this is in the previous 7 pages, but one of the Highland Park victims went to Marquette.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/7/6/23197272/highland-park-mass-shooting-katherine-goldstein-fourth-july-parade
-
The difference is that I am pro-choice. My personal belief is that life begins at conception. As such, I will never encourage another human being to get an abortion, except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. But that is my personal belief. I don't believe that I or the government have the right to impose that belief on anyone else. You have said you are pro-life which means that you believe that the government should have the right to impose that belief on others. You asked me when I thought life deserved to be protected, I answered that I thought viability was a reasonable compromise. I didn't mean that as my personal belief, I meant that as that's where the minimum bar should be set.
So in your own words you believe that life begins at conception and that taking that life is murder but you don’t want to be an imposition so you’re OK with it.
-
So in your own words you believe that life begins at conception and that taking that life is murder but you don’t want to be an imposition so you’re OK with it.
You do realize that it isn't necessary to force your beliefs on others... don't you?
-
You do realize that it isn't necessary to force your beliefs on others... don't you?
On this, we agree. To me, whomever has had an abortion, when it comes to meeting their higher power, whatever and whenever that may be, it is between them.
-
You do realize that it isn't necessary to force your beliefs on others... don't you?
You do realize that forcing one’s beliefs on others is what our legislative officials are elected to do…don’t you? And that as citizens our responsibility is to advocate on behalf of those beliefs.
If someone believes laws restricting gun ownership or abortions will save lives why shouldn’t he or she support such laws?
-
You do realize that forcing one’s beliefs on others is what our legislative officials are elected to do…don’t you? And that as citizens our responsibility is to advocate on behalf of those beliefs.
If someone believes laws restricting gun ownership or abortions will save lives why shouldn’t he or she support such laws?
Nuance here, Legislative official are elected to "force" the beliefs of their constituency, not their personal beliefs. Also, judicial should not be forcing anyone's beliefs on anyone.
-
You do realize that forcing one’s beliefs on others is what our legislative officials are elected to do…don’t you? And that as citizens our responsibility is to advocate on behalf of those beliefs.
If someone believes laws restricting gun ownership or abortions will save lives why shouldn’t he or she support such laws?
Believe it or not Lenny, there is the ability to accept that your beliefs don't supersede the rights of others in this country.
You can believe that abortion is wrong, but lawdog has the right of it. You can think it is wrong, but leave it up to the person who has to make the decision and their maker.
-
You do realize that forcing one’s beliefs on others is what our legislative officials are elected to do…don’t you? And that as citizens our responsibility is to advocate on behalf of those beliefs.
If someone believes laws restricting gun ownership or abortions will save lives why shouldn’t he or she support such laws?
Actually, that's not what are legislative officials are elected to do AT ALL. That is a radical misinterpretation of what they are elected to do. They are elected to represent and advocate in the best interests of their constituents. All of their constituents.
This is where the right has completely lost the plot. Instead of advocating for the people they represent they simply push minority positions in a manufactured culture war.
-
So in your own words you believe that life begins at conception and that taking that life is murder but you don’t want to be an imposition so you’re OK with it.
No, I recognize that my belief that life starts at conception is not based on fact but on my faith. I or the government have no right to impose that belief on others.
-
Believe it or not Lenny, there is the ability to accept that your beliefs don't supersede the rights of others in this country.
You can believe that abortion is wrong, but lawdog has the right of it. You can think it is wrong, but leave it up to the person who has to make the decision and their maker.
So can you then believe that owning an AR-15 is wrong but you choose to leave that decision to other individuals and their maker.
Everyone here assumes the abortion debate is all about religion. I’m an agnostic, haven’t been a practicing Catholic for pretty much the last 50 years. My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with any church. I believe we should support a culture of life, not death. I don’t see how advocating for that (against abortion, against capital punishment) is unduly pushing my beliefs on others any more than the pro capital punishment, pro abortion crowd is pushing theirs.
-
So can you then believe that owning an AR-15 is wrong but you choose to leave that decision to other individuals and their maker.
Everyone here assumes the abortion debate is all about religion. I’m an agnostic, haven’t been a practicing Catholic for pretty much the last 50 years. My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with any church. I believe we should support a culture of life, not death. I don’t see how advocating for that (against abortion, against capital punishment) is unduly pushing my beliefs on others any more than the pro capital punishment, pro abortion crowd is pushing theirs.
Because pro-life is trying to take the option away from people and only allow their belief. Pro-choice is trying to leave it up to each individual. No one is trying force anyone to have an abortion. Pro-lifers are trying to force people to not have abortions.
-
So can you then believe that owning an AR-15 is wrong but you choose to leave that decision to other individuals and their maker.
Everyone here assumes the abortion debate is all about religion. I’m an agnostic, haven’t been a practicing Catholic for pretty much the last 50 years. My opposition to abortion has nothing to do with any church. I believe we should support a culture of life, not death. I don’t see how advocating for that (against abortion, against capital punishment) is unduly pushing my beliefs on others any more than the pro capital punishment, pro abortion crowd is pushing theirs.
Except an AR-15 is a killing machine, and affects OTHERS... like the 7 dead plus 20+ injured on 7/4 or the 19 dead at Uvalde. A woman having a private medical procedure done in a clinic is none of my business since it doesn't impact me at all. That is the simple difference.
You don't have to be religious to be anti-abortion, but you're still imposing your belief system upon women. I'm all for supporting a culture of life as well, I just don't believe that life starts until viability. Also, if we are being completely honest, men shouldn't have a say. We aren't the ones carrying the child to term. We don't sacrifice our lives, bodies, or careers. So, why should we demand that women have to?
-
I'm all for supporting a culture of life as well, I just don't believe that life starts until viability.
So you're good with abortion at 21-22 weeks?
-
Because pro-life is trying to take the option away from people and only allow their belief. Pro-choice is trying to leave it up to each individual. No one is trying force anyone to have an abortion. Pro-lifers are trying to force people to not have abortions.
Forcing people is what many laws do - they can expand or limit freedoms as the legislators see fit. If one feels life begins at conception they SHOULD advocate for stringent limits on abortion. If one feels life doesn’t begin until the baby is born they SHOULD advocate for no limits on abortion. And if there aren’t enough people on either side to win the day our lawmakers should come up with compromises. As is the case with most issues at the federal level, most lawmakers don’t have the courage to do that - it might cost them their job. So they punt to courts or states to do their work for them.
-
So you're good with abortion at 21-22 weeks?
Not in love with it, but I'll default to the, "I'm not a woman". I've said in previous posts that I'm okay with a line in the sand at some point as a means of compromise, but it's not my body.
I wouldn't do it, but I also wouldn't stop a woman from making that decision on their own.
-
Not in love with it, but I'll default to the, "I'm not a woman". I've said in previous posts that I'm okay with a line in the sand at some point as a means of compromise, but it's not my body.
I wouldn't do it, but I also wouldn't stop a woman from making that decision on their own.
Fair, I didn't mean it to be combative. I'm just curious wiht people when it comes to the whole viability line in the sand. As I said, there is a 4-5 week period period before the generally accepted viability benchmark that makes me uneasy. I'm not a woman either, I realize its complicated, but thats well beyond the "time to think on a decision" "women don't always know they are pregnant right away" level for me.