rules for radicalsTrump talking about safe spaces? ack
"Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules"
The left have to make the hard decision of attacking the idea of safe spaces or attacking the people who invaded Pences "safe space".
That Trump tweet is master level trolling.
James Asher (the guy who confirmed Hillary lackey Blumenthal was the one who started floating the birther stuff) better have a panic room like fort Knox if he doesn't want to commit "suicide".
I really need to ask everyone over the age of 30 what is going through their head when they read this thread.
1.kek
2.kek
3.kek
4.kek
The answer to your question is #1.
The Hillary campaigns understanding of the Internet is deplorable. This is an irredeemable mistake by her campaign manager.
The reason for the failure of the keystone XL is because Buffet does not want it. He owns BNSF rail which ships the oil now, and the line would hurt him. No racism nothing just good old crony politics.
Politicians
You're thinking of Scotland.
But anyway, as I understand it, the concept of wearing trousers is basically because men needed to ride horses in battle (otherwise they could ride side-saddle like the ladies of the time). Do you happen to ride a lot of horses? I know I don't. Do we think Danny Shelton is any less manly for wearing a lava lava? I certainly wouldn't call him out on it, and good luck to the first UDFA that does so!
I'm assuming everyone's ok with girls wearing trousers?
The reason as I see it, was because of feminism. Females demanded a Change in cultural norms, they wanted it to be acceptable that they were doing a "male" job and filling a "male" role. And that it was to be championed if they did or were interested in something masculine.
Males never had a cultural revolution demanding the same things and we largely still enforce the old norms on ourselves.
his Vp, Spiro Agnew criticized the press once. And all hell broke loose
about him being a threat to our free press.
Now? Obamao and Holder go AFTER the entire AP and Fox News...
and most libs don't even whisper in objection.
I have the utmost faith that the Teflon Don will walk out of this smelling like roses. He has every other time. He is just not as easy a target as W. Bush was (that man could bumble the alphabet). And the media is partially to blame for this they spent so much time shrugging off anybody who had a gripe with Obama off as racists or R's with a grudge. They made it hard to actually pin blame on him when something comes up that effects them, now they cry foul and the Obama supporters just write it off as criticism from the usual suspects. Time for them to enjoy a bit of their own bitter medicine.
The group that confuses me is the Jewish targeting. Considering the huge blocks of democrat voters why would you target them. seems like putting a round off in your foot. It seems that you should play nice with the jewish comunity as much as possible if you were a Dem.
I don't care either way to be honest. I was just illustraring the point that even though we can love animals we don't give a shit about them when there's money to be made.
You are just following biological protocol.
We as a species are hardwired to like new and technological things like tools, toys, etc. its how we secured our role as an apex species so we prize them in our mating habits. Securing a nice house, a nice car, and nice toys and the best tools is attractive. Currency is the system we use to gain those items. So yes most healthy functional humans would sell out some worm in the brazil for their own imediate biological urges. The ability to see the scope of our effects as a species is a new concept, and it goes against some of our deeper urges.
I'm just going to keep going because now I'm laughing.
What's your argument for letting someone like that legally purchase a firearm? I mean, I could make one. I'm not sure I'd believe it, but at least I could make the argument.
Can you think of one? It doesn't seem that you can. Which is another way of saying, "Okay, I agree with you, I just don't want to say I do, or admit I do."
I agree that this is funny. You want to try and ignore the part where she said she was going to use rope and hang herself. But please go on, If the firearm was never invented she would still be dead and you would still have no point.
If she was in such danger that she would be put on a list so as not to purchase a firearm for fear that she may harm herself. Why was she allowed out of the hospital in the first place?
And we're aware that serious mental illness and depression will sometimes lead to suicide in the future. Yes, I think we're aware of that. That's not the argument we're having.
So tell us, since you've ignored it 5 or 6 times, what's the argument for letting someone with that type of mental history purchase a gun?
Why stop at guns? She was a danger to herself. She should be denied access to anything deemed dangerous to her, including herself.
I think what we're seeing here isn't an argument, but a reflexive impulse to defend one's side. In this world, even common sense restrictions that vast majorities of American agree should be in place, like not allowing the mentally ill to purchase firearms, become yet another battle in the culture war, which leads one to defend any change in the existing law for no good reason at all.
Or a disingenuous concern in order to move along your political point of view. just remember to ban all of the things.
My brother, just set aside your one tired argument for a second and look at this story as an example of one person with serious mental illness who was allowed to purchase a firearm, and without much ado. Secondly, note that this firearm was not purchased for any of the reasons we give when we talk about the right to bear arms. She purchased it for the sole purpose of using it to shoot someone, in this case herself. Of course, in other cases, the mentally ill people are buying the firearms so that they can shoot someone else.
Now, you tell me why that kind of mental history should not be part of a background check system that would have prohibited her from buying that gun. Make that case.
Why do you think someone with her mental history should be allowed to buy a gun?
Go.
Explain why its a tired argument. what part of it is not valid?
If her issues were so serious that she was a risk to herself, why did the hospital not step up and prevent her release? She should have been committed for her own protection. Then this whole story would never have happened. I will ask again would you care about this story at all if she did it in any other way?
Go ahead enact all the registration you want, things like this will continue to happen, and people will continue to prop up their dead bodies to further their political agenda.
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point.
what point?
And more rope.
Dude, try again. What reason are you giving us for wanting to allow a person with obvious and serious mental health issues to buy a gun? Why do you want to do that? What's your rationale?
I am asking you questions that you won't answer. How far are you going to go to stop her? And what would having all involuntary committed people on a list have done to prevent this? If she was a such a clear clear risk to her own health why was she released? Are the Hospitals able to commit her involuntarily after she had tried to leave for a voluntary commitment? Why is her suicide the responsibility of the gun?
I am bringing the rope up because you keep trying to dismiss it without any reason other than you don't want to address it. If she went through with the rope like she had stated she was going to, would you be asking for a national registration cross check with every rope purchase? Would you even care about this story if it did not involve a gun?
I want you to give up the rope part because it's irrelevant. It's just a lame argument that we've heard over and over. The (obvious) difference between a rope and a gun is that someone who is seriously mentally ill isn't going to hurt anyone else with rope. And the (obvious) point about her suicide is that she had easy access to rope her entire life, but wanted to buy a gun and shoot herself and we let her.
So again, tell me why we shouldn't have a law that says someone in her mental state shouldn't be flagged and not allowed to buy a gun? What right of hers - or anyone else's - are you trying to protect? Because that's what this is about. Not rope.
Tell me.
You want me to give up the rope part because it does not help your argument. How far are you willing to go to protect someone that does not want to be protected? Are you going to prevent severley depressed people from going to large buildings or bridges or from purchasing lengths of rope?
She was not involuntarily commited so your entire point is moot. Even if every state were to add involuntary commitments to a registry she would still not be on it.
a suicide is a suicide is a suicide, but some people with an agenda love to try and make this about guns.
I'm pretty sure you're missing the point. And I think you can give up with the rope bit.
Also, she was in the hospital voluntarily, which means she doesn't need to be released. She can just leave. Which she did. And then she bought a gun and shot herself. And you think we should let her and other seriously mentally ill people buy guns because ...why? What right are you protecting? The right of a mentally ill person to blow their head off? The right of a seriously mentally ill person to shoot up a workplace, or a Safeway parking lot, or a school?
You're really saying that the 2nd Amendment rights of the seriously mentally ill outweigh the public safety concerns that come with allowing seriously mentally ill people to buy guns? That's what you're saying?
After all, it's not our problem what they do with them, right? As long as it doesn't affect you personally.
You want me to give up the the rope part because it flies in the face of what you are saying. She was suicidal, should she be prevented from buying rope, or going near tall buildings?
And since she was in the hospital voluntarily she would not be put on any gun buying prevent list. Since invountary commitment gets prohibited. So what was your point again?
What are you asking to be done here. If the hospital thought she was a risk I am sure that they have means to keep her involuntarily but I am not sure of the specifics and I am sure that it changes by state as well.
edited for clumsy wording.
What are you, an asshole? Because something doesn't directly affect your family it's not worth caring about? The Boston bombings didn't affect your family directly. Why should you care about those people? What the fuck kind of argument is that?
The woman was mentally ill. It's not that she "did not care to live." She wanted to kill herself because she was mentally ill. Seriously mentally ill, requiring multiple hospitalizations. The question we're discussing is whether or not people who lack the mental stability to own a firearm should be able to purchase one. Clearly, this woman was not well, and bought a gun so she could kill herself with it. Or maybe she might have used it on others. Because she wasn't stable. In other words, she's not exercising her 2nd Amendment right to self-protection. She's trying to end a life because she's not stable.
And you'd like to protect her right to be mentally unstable and to own a gun? Well, I don't want to do that. Because that's fucking nuts.
The question then becomes how do you design a system that keeps people like this from passing that background check and getting that gun. Which is all moot now anyway.
And if she did it with rope what are we doing to prevent that? Would we even have heard about it?
Look I am not trying to be an ass, but really what are we supposed to do when someone wants to kill themselves? We cant go trying to rubber pad the world for people that are willing to do themselves harm. Maybe she should not have been released from the hospital in the first place. it was very clear that she was suicidal. not sure why you are trying to put this is on a gun background check as the failure point here.
And there is no parralel to what happened in Boston because they didn't buy guns to off themselves they made bombs and hurt other people.
And not predictable at all.
Why should we care about the life of someone who did not care to live? Its sad and tragic for the family involved. But what does that have to do with anyone outside of her family? To use suicides as a point for background checks and gun control is foolish. In your own story she had claimed that she was planning on using rope and hanging herself in a barn, if she would have done that none of us would have never have even heard this story. so what was the point of that article?
