I've had my share of social blunders in the past. I think we all have.
When I proceed to bugger things up for myself, at some point I begin to realize it. It's around that point where I stop the train wreck and admit to fault. Typically, I'll admit to the error of my way and retreat with whatever dignity I might have at that point saying something like, "Shit. You know what? This president just really gets to me. He never did the job I hoped he would. When I get pissed thinking about that poor job I think he has done... I go off- which I just did. I never really intended to slam a bunch of good people here with my venomous tirade, but I'm getting the impression I just did. That wasn't my intention."
GF... honestly... this seems to be a bit of a meltdown for you: very confrontational, very antagonistic, and very unrelenting even in the face of a persuasive argument.
I think you are much better than what you have presented here. Ease off, man. I realize I'm sounding like a wise old man trying to give advice to his son. I'm not trying to come across as condescending- I could easily take much from you under different circumstances. I'm just trying to throw you a life raft here.
(Sorry for the shitty posts mocking your grammar and religion. I don't know why I jumped in the mud with you there? Sincerely now... have a good day!)
Yeah TB throw in the towel on DP. Know you want to.
As for this "if you're collecting SSI" thing.... I haven't been following that part of the conversation very closely, but from what I've gathered, I think that could open some iffy doors. Just because someone is collecting SS disability, it doesn't even come close to suggesting that the disability is related to mental illness, which should be the only concern here. As far as I know, older people are no more susceptible to mental illness that young people are, assuming you are including depressing in there as a mental illness (which it is). I think there needs to be specific indication of mental illness for anyone. Of course, if they are collecting disability, then I should think the government would know what that disability is, so it should be pretty easy to weed them out, just as it would be for someone of any age who is collecting disability. The social security aspect is neither here nor there, is it??
If I read correctly, the issue is with people on SS who have someone else handle their money because they are deemed unable for different reasons.
Ah, I see. Well then yes, I would think that anyone who has to have someone else handle their money is either completely incapable of properly holding and firing a gun, or completely incapable of being trusted to make a good decision about who or what the gun is pointing at. Honestly, once someone is in the position where someone else has to take over for them and they still want to shoot guns, they are probably pretty far gone mentally. Just the request would seem nuts at that point. I think zooming in on this particular point is splitting hairs. What difference does it make if they're determining one's mental state by looking at whether or not someone is handling their money (including their SS) or by looking at how much time they just spent in a mental hospital? Whatever is the most efficient way to determine mental illness should be okay IMO. And in the case of those who collect SS and have someone else managing it for them, that statistic is the easiest indicator to pinpoint. Great. People under the age of 65 or whatever the age is will be identified in some other way (like someone else is collecting their disability cheques for them, etc).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As for this "if you're collecting SSI" thing.... I haven't been following that part of the conversation very closely, but from what I've gathered, I think that could open some iffy doors. Just because someone is collecting SS disability, it doesn't even come close to suggesting that the disability is related to mental illness, which should be the only concern here. As far as I know, older people are no more susceptible to mental illness that young people are, assuming you are including depressing in there as a mental illness (which it is). I think there needs to be specific indication of mental illness for anyone. Of course, if they are collecting disability, then I should think the government would know what that disability is, so it should be pretty easy to weed them out, just as it would be for someone of any age who is collecting disability. The social security aspect is neither here nor there, is it??
If I read correctly, the issue is with people on SS who have someone else handle their money because they are deemed unable for different reasons.
Ah, I see. Well then yes, I would think that anyone who has to have someone else handle their money is either completely incapable of properly holding and firing a gun, or completely incapable of being trusted to make a good decision about who or what the gun is pointing at. Honestly, once someone is in the position where someone else has to take over for them and they still want to shoot guns, they are probably pretty far gone mentally. Just the request would seem nuts at that point. I think zooming in on this particular point is splitting hairs. What difference does it make if they're determining one's mental state by looking at whether or not someone is handling their money (including their SS) or by looking at how much time they just spent in a mental hospital? Whatever is the most efficient way to determine mental illness should be okay IMO. And in the case of those who collect SS and have someone else managing it for them, that statistic is the easiest indicator to pinpoint. Great. People under the age of 65 or whatever the age is will be identified in some other way (like someone else is collecting their disability cheques for them, etc).
But zooming in on that one point is the purpose of this proposal, isn't it? Maybe I read it wrong, but I think that is the entire argument behind the proposed change.
But isn't that just the solution for that particular segment of the population? I don't take that to mean they wouldn't come up with similar, equal solutions for others as well. I think they're just portioning it off in ways that make sense in order to make the whole thing manageable, and this is the starting point.... I could be wrong, but that's what I'm assuming, since I have seen nothing at all to suggest that there is a big push towards ageism in this context.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
cover your own ass? off topic kinda but who do you guys think is responsible for selling more guns and ammunition....liberal politicians that say they're going to introduce restrictive legislation, or conservative politicians that say the liberals are coming for guns you better stock up?
Post edited by goingtoverona on
if you think what I believe is stupid, bizarre, ridiculous or outrageous.....it's ok, I think I had a brain tumor when I wrote that.
cover your own ass? off topic kinda but who do you guys think is responsible for selling more guns and ammunition....liberal politicians that say they're going to introduce restrictive legislation, or conservative politicians that say the liberals are coming for guns you better stock up?
That's an easy one...they did this same crap when Clinton was president. Scare the rednecks into thinking the gubmint is goin ta git yer gunz and it never happens....ever....yet they keep saying it over and over.
Edit: I still can't believe people put up the whole "being able to fight off tyranny" mantra regarding the need to have multiple guns. As if they will be any match for drones and tactical nukes.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
cover your own ass? off topic kinda but who do you guys think is responsible for selling more guns and ammunition....liberal politicians that say they're going to introduce restrictive legislation, or conservative politicians that say the liberals are coming for guns you better stock up?
That's an easy one...they did this same crap when Clinton was president. Scare the rednecks into thinking the gubmint is goin ta git yer gunz and it never happens....ever....yet they keep saying it over and over.
Edit: I still can't believe people put up the whole "being able to fight off tyranny" mantra regarding the need to have multiple guns. As if they will be any match for drones and tactical nukes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
I asked the same thing: don't anticipate an answer!
And Godfather, how do you not understand? You have said twice INCORRECTLY that Obama's admin stated people on SS - they stated people on SS who are INCAPABLE OF COLLECTING THEIR OWN DISABILITY CHEQUES AND REQUIRE REPRESENTATIVES TO DO SO ON THEIR BEHALVES, IMPLYING MENTAL OR PHYSICAL ILLNESS TO A DEBILITATING POINT WHERE (as the theory goes) ONE IS ALSO CLEARLY NOT FIT TO CARRY A FIREARM.
So, Godfather, can you humour WhatYouTaughtMe and myself and give one single situation where someone would wrongfully have the right to bear arm stripped? All it takes is ONE instance and you have a leg to stand on.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
cover your own ass? off topic kinda but who do you guys think is responsible for selling more guns and ammunition....liberal politicians that say they're going to introduce restrictive legislation, or conservative politicians that say the liberals are coming for guns you better stock up?
That's an easy one...they did this same crap when Clinton was president. Scare the rednecks into thinking the gubmint is goin ta git yer gunz and it never happens....ever....yet they keep saying it over and over.
Edit: I still can't believe people put up the whole "being able to fight off tyranny" mantra regarding the need to have multiple guns. As if they will be any match for drones and tactical nukes.
GOP sells that brsnd of fear. Dems another kind.
it's better to have a gun and not need it rather than need a gun and not have it.
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
Godfather.
Sure, but people who have developed these issues without any prior history wouldn't be flagged from owning a gun. This might be one of the only ways to catch some people. Even if it's a fairly small number of people in relation to our population, wouldn't you want them to be prevented from owning a gun if they have issues that prevent them from making simple everyday decisions?
Do you take issue with the DMV determining if people are capable of driving cars?
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
Godfather.
wait....so you advocate a mental health test for ANYONE who wants a gun permit rather than weeding out those who have already admitted it through SSI benefits?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
"The law requires gun stores to run the names of prospective buyers through the computerized system before every sale.
The system's databases contain more than 13 million records, which include the names of felons, immigrants in the U.S. illegally, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service members, drug addicts and domestic abusers.
State agencies, local police and federal agencies are required to enter names into the databases, but the system has been hampered by loopholes and inconsistent reporting since its launch.
The shortcomings became clear in the wake of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, in which Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. Cho had been declared mentally ill by a court and ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but at the time the law did not require that he be added to the databases.
Congress expanded the reporting requirements, but Social Security determined it was not required to submit records, according to LaVenia LaVelle, an agency spokeswoman."
I really am left dumbfounded when I hear about gun rights activists who wish for background checks which only target those who have been 'marked' as unfit to bear arms, as though someone mentally unsound enough to potentially destroy for destruction's sake could possibly be under the radar of the impervious checks and balances in the American health industry.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
Godfather.
Which includes that medical background. Fully and exhaustively documented.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can't believe people actually take godfoxer serious enough to try and reason with him, to debate him, and attempt to alert him to reality.
Give it up.
Based on his reponses I don't take it seriously, but I don't mind if he keeps invalidating his own argument by presenting no reasonable position.
good for you, how do not understand ? I have said twice that obamas admin stated PEOPLE ON SS.. .. and that is just opening the door to restricting people from owning guns because of thier age, what part of that do not understand ? it was a simple fucking statement, what if he had said black or brown people who can't control thier affairs can't own a gun...what would you think about that ? or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
So I will post again, hoping for an answer from the OP. In what circumstances would someone unable to handle their own business affairs be able to responsibly carry a firearm? I'm really asking without my mind made up. Is there any situation you would deem this to be safe? Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
that would depend on the person, but really anybody with all those problems that obama identified already have been blocked from gun ownership, it just pissed me of that he would use SS as a baseis to restrict gun ownership on anybody. but to answer your question I believe anybody with violent mental issues should not own a gun but the only way to find that problem is to do a medical or criminal background check.......not target people bassed on the source of thier legal income.
Godfather.
wait....so you advocate a mental health test for ANYONE who wants a gun permit rather than weeding out those who have already admitted it through SSI benefits?
I personally DO advocate for that. I don't think it's too much to ask that ANYONE applying for a gun permit/buying a gun must undergo some kind of test to determine if they are minimally mentally fit to own a gun. Such tests wouldn't be infallible, obviously, but they could at least weed out the real nutzos. Of course, doing this would require building a real infrastructure. It's not like someone could just snap some fingers and voila, there is a way to administer tests of mental stability to everyone who wants a gun. Anyway, I see absolutely no problem with gun owners having to jump through hoops to own guns. If they think it's so important that they have them, then they should be willing to get through the red tape. There is shit loads of red tape to get a LOT of shit done, so why not for gun ownership??
That said, since that kind of system isn't the case, I think using flags like people (old and young alike) collecting government benefits through someone else because they're incapable is a perfectly reasonable place to start.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
he's not after mine...I don't own any...I don't need to "compensate."
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
he's not after mine...I don't own any...I don't need to "compensate."
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
Simply this: because he's da godfadda. Nobody gonna mess wi' da godfadda.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
he's not after mine...I don't own any...I don't need to "compensate."
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
Because GOP double standards. It's why republicans throw a hissy fit over Benghazzi et all but have no problem with thousands dying over the Haliburton war and Katrina because white and rethuglican makes Ivy League C grade student from Texas magically hands clean.
he's not after mine...I don't own any...I don't need to "compensate."
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
Because GOP double standards. It's why republicans throw a hissy fit over Benghazzi et all but have no problem with thousands dying over the Haliburton war and Katrina because white and rethuglican makes Ivy League C grade student from Texas magically hands clean.
bingo!!!
If I had known then what I know now...
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
he's not after mine...I don't own any...I don't need to "compensate."
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
Because GOP double standards. It's why republicans throw a hissy fit over Benghazzi et all but have no problem with thousands dying over the Haliburton war and Katrina because white and rethuglican makes Ivy League C grade student from Texas magically hands clean.
You think the GOP is the only party with their hand in the Haliburton cookie jar??Lets not start putting either of these sides up on a soap box.There is enough wrong doing and dirty laundry from almost all the idiot politicians in both of the above referenced events. The Liberal Elite dosent get a pass.Far from it.
Comments
off topic kinda but who do you guys think is responsible for selling more guns and ammunition....liberal politicians that say they're going to introduce restrictive legislation, or conservative politicians that say the liberals are coming for guns you better stock up?
Edit: I still can't believe people put up the whole "being able to fight off tyranny" mantra regarding the need to have multiple guns. As if they will be any match for drones and tactical nukes.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
or was it my obama name calling that got you and everybody else in a tizzy ?
Godfather.
Yup, a real "tizzy" I am in.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
And Godfather, how do you not understand? You have said twice INCORRECTLY that Obama's admin stated people on SS - they stated people on SS who are INCAPABLE OF COLLECTING THEIR OWN DISABILITY CHEQUES AND REQUIRE REPRESENTATIVES TO DO SO ON THEIR BEHALVES, IMPLYING MENTAL OR PHYSICAL ILLNESS TO A DEBILITATING POINT WHERE (as the theory goes) ONE IS ALSO CLEARLY NOT FIT TO CARRY A FIREARM.
So, Godfather, can you humour WhatYouTaughtMe and myself and give one single situation where someone would wrongfully have the right to bear arm stripped? All it takes is ONE instance and you have a leg to stand on.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Godfather.
Godfather.
Do you take issue with the DMV determining if people are capable of driving cars?
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
"The law requires gun stores to run the names of prospective buyers through the computerized system before every sale.
The system's databases contain more than 13 million records, which include the names of felons, immigrants in the U.S. illegally, fugitives, dishonorably discharged service members, drug addicts and domestic abusers.
State agencies, local police and federal agencies are required to enter names into the databases, but the system has been hampered by loopholes and inconsistent reporting since its launch.
The shortcomings became clear in the wake of the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, in which Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people. Cho had been declared mentally ill by a court and ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, but at the time the law did not require that he be added to the databases.
Congress expanded the reporting requirements, but Social Security determined it was not required to submit records, according to LaVenia LaVelle, an agency spokeswoman."
I really am left dumbfounded when I hear about gun rights activists who wish for background checks which only target those who have been 'marked' as unfit to bear arms, as though someone mentally unsound enough to potentially destroy for destruction's sake could possibly be under the radar of the impervious checks and balances in the American health industry.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Anyway, I see absolutely no problem with gun owners having to jump through hoops to own guns. If they think it's so important that they have them, then they should be willing to get through the red tape. There is shit loads of red tape to get a LOT of shit done, so why not for gun ownership??
That said, since that kind of system isn't the case, I think using flags like people (old and young alike) collecting government benefits through someone else because they're incapable is a perfectly reasonable place to start.
how come godfather is not banned? he can call the prez an asshat and call for him to move back to kenya, yet some of us get banned for kidding with each other
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
Vegas 93, Vegas 98, Vegas 00 (10 year show), Vegas 03, Vegas 06
VIC 07
EV LA1 08
Seattle1 09, Seattle2 09, Salt Lake 09, LA4 09
Columbus 10
EV LA 11
Vancouver 11
Missoula 12
Portland 13, Spokane 13
St. Paul 14, Denver 14
The Liberal Elite dosent get a pass.Far from it.