When is a Sandy Hook Dad not a Sandy Hook Dad?

Prince Of Dorkness

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

they care more for the guns than they do for the nation's children.

Not good.

That's because they generally don't give a shit about anything but themselves. It's why we'll never really be able to have any real progress in this country... there are too many people who won't vote for anything unless it benefits them personally. They'll vote AGAINST anyone else getting something, even if it doesn't affect them at all.

It's just what we have to accept. We're a country of selfish brats.

Jeanwah

whgarrett wrote:

You are correct Jeanwah. I apologize. :oops: I do, however, believe in principle, the Second Amendment(encompassing semiautomatic weapons with 30 round clips) is more important than 30 children's lives. It sounds harsh, but my truth. I was merely responding to what Brian said about the fake Sandy father who cared more about the 2nd than kid's safety.

The other thread is something else altogether, but I do acknowledge I have a tendency to be trollish.

I will work on it.

At least you admit it, I'll give you that. Just remember that they ban people for being trolls on here, so think twice about instigating people (basically what you're doing). I think your opinions in both threads are for sensational value only.

JimmyV

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

they care more for the guns than they do for the nation's children.

Not good.

That's because they generally don't give a shit about anything but themselves. It's why we'll never really be able to have any real progress in this country... there are too many people who won't vote for anything unless it benefits them personally. They'll vote AGAINST anyone else getting something, even if it doesn't affect them at all.

It's just what we have to accept. We're a country of selfish brats.

Rights matter. Responsibility and damage done to others does not. This is true for far too many in this country.

aerial

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

they care more for the guns than they do for the nation's children.

Not good.

That's because they generally don't give a shit about anything but themselves. It's why we'll never really be able to have any real progress in this country... there are too many people who won't vote for anything unless it benefits them personally. They'll vote AGAINST anyone else getting something, even if it doesn't affect them at all.

It's just what we have to accept. We're a country of selfish brats.

What exactly do you want to progress too?

Prince Of Dorkness

aerial wrote:

What exactly do you want to progress too?

At this point I'd be happy to progress to a bill making it to the floor for a vote by the people we elected to represent us.

Sadly... The Republicans are a bunch of pathetic cry babies who won't allow anything to get done because they're a bunch of crybabies who lost an election. Well... a couple of elections, I guess.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

whgarrett wrote:

Hey man. It's just an opinion. Everyone has one, right?

I suppose. But so do racists and so does the Taliban and so do... ah forget it.

Depressing. This is what I debated against on this forum? This is the mentality of the pro-gun crowd? No wonder so many were so stubbornly opposed to gun restrictions- they care more for the guns than they do for the nation's children.

Not good.

I highly doubt even the pro-gun crowd would align themselves with this ideology.

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

...He himself said his daughter "was in lockdown" and that "her classmate’s little sister was murdered in Sandy Hook that day." Which would lead you to think (and this isn't an accident) that he had a daughter at Sandy Hook. ...

im gonna play devils advocate here. his daughter could have been in lock down in another school and her classmates little sister could still be a sandy hook student regardless of whether or not his daughter was a sandy hook student. ive had my kids enrolled at different schools concurrently.

Prince Of Dorkness

catefrances wrote:

im gonna play devils advocate here. his daughter could have been in lock down in another school and her classmates little sister could still be a sandy hook student regardless of whether or not his daughter was a sandy hook student. ive had my kids enrolled at different schools concurrently.

Well of COURSE that's the truth.

But the way that he said it, the way that the fake ring-wing media reported it makes it very clear what they wanted people to believe.

He's a "Sandy Hook Dad." (But didn't have a daughter at THAT school. No need to mention that.)

She was "in lockdown." (at another school, was never in danger, no need to mention that part.)

Classmate had a sister killed. (True, and people assume they go to the same school... let's not tell them any different.)

He was talking "on the hill." (that part is totally made up, he wasn't even in Washington DC)

You see how they omit all the right parts to mislead people into thinking he was someone he wasn't and was speaking to people he wasn't?

catefrances

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

catefrances wrote:

im gonna play devils advocate here. his daughter could have been in lock down in another school and her classmates little sister could still be a sandy hook student regardless of whether or not his daughter was a sandy hook student. ive had my kids enrolled at different schools concurrently.

Well of COURSE that's the truth.

But the way that he said it, the way that the fake ring-wing media reported it makes it very clear what they wanted people to believe.

He's a "Sandy Hook Dad." (But didn't have a daughter at THAT school. No need to mention that.)

She was "in lockdown." (at another school, was never in danger, no need to mention that part.)

Classmate had a sister killed. (True, and people assume they go to the same school... let's not tell them any different.)

He was talking "on the hill." (that part is totally made up, he wasn't even in Washington DC)

You see how they omit all the right parts to mislead people into thinking he was someone he wasn't and was speaking to people he wasn't?

i see clearly. they have an agenda and lets not get bogged down in the details.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

whgarrett wrote:

Hey man. It's just an opinion. Everyone has one, right?

I suppose. But so do racists and so does the Taliban and so do... ah forget it.

Depressing. This is what I debated against on this forum? This is the mentality of the pro-gun crowd? No wonder so many were so stubbornly opposed to gun restrictions- they care more for the guns than they do for the nation's children.

Not good.

I highly doubt even the pro-gun crowd would align themselves with this ideology.

You might be right... but they haven't exactly said that themselves now have they? Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

hedonist

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You might be right... but they haven't exactly said that themselves now have they? Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

Sometimes some shit is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

hedonist wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You might be right... but they haven't exactly said that themselves now have they? Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

Sometimes some shit is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response.

The range of opinion that has been exercised on this forum is very broad. Absurdity is not out of the question.

Do you remember when the following hypothetical situation was presented to the pro-gun crowd: if offered the chance to go back in time, forfeit assault rifles, and be assured the Sandy Hook classroom would be spared... would you do it? Do you remember how they danced around that question- never answering it once... deflecting responses in painful manners that clearly and most definitely revealed the mentality which existed?

WH is not alone- he's just the only one capable of admitting the depth of his conviction.

hedonist

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You might be right... but they haven't exactly said that themselves now have they? Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

Sometimes some shit is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response.

The range of opinion that has been exercised on this forum is very broad. Absurdity is not out of the question.

Do you remember when the following hypothetical situation was presented to the pro-gun crowd: if offered the chance to go back in time, forfeit assault rifles, and be assured the Sandy Hook classroom would be spared... would you do it? Do you remember how they danced around that question- never answering it once... deflecting responses in painful manners that clearly and most definitely revealed the mentality which existed?

WH is not alone- he's just the only one capable of admitting the depth of his conviction.

An array of opinions here, for sure...but when you say "pro-gun crowd", you're talking about one, maybe three, people in these forums. From what I've seen, most folks who support gun rights also are for common-sense checks and balances.

So, silence from the majority isn't as telling as made out to be.

mikepegg44

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

hedonist wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You might be right... but they haven't exactly said that themselves now have they? Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

Sometimes some shit is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant a response.

The range of opinion that has been exercised on this forum is very broad. Absurdity is not out of the question.

Do you remember when the following hypothetical situation was presented to the pro-gun crowd: if offered the chance to go back in time, forfeit assault rifles, and be assured the Sandy Hook classroom would be spared... would you do it? Do you remember how they danced around that question- never answering it once... deflecting responses in painful manners that clearly and most definitely revealed the mentality which existed?

WH is not alone- he's just the only one capable of admitting the depth of his conviction.

the question isn't worth an answer. It is an unfair hypothetical. It would only be fair if the only use for semi automatic rifles was to kill children. It isn't their only use and banning them isn't the only way to keep children safe. It is like saying cars kill thousands every year, would you go back in time and stop the invention of the car? If not, you must not care about all the children that have died in car accidents.

Would I personally give up my access to assault rifles for those 20 people, absolutely...but I wouldn't give up the rights of everyone to have access to them. Civil/criminal liability for a gun I bought/sold being used by someone in a crime? probably for that though as long as a jury of my peers was the one deciding it.