Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:17pm PT
|
Kathy Griffin speaks only for herself and no one else
she exists and profits in America because she is controversial just as Ann Coulter is
her action of holding the fake head of President Trump should be repulsive to everyone
she did the political left no favors by creating the False Equivalence of see they both do it crap
she deserves all the sh#t she is getting
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:25pm PT
|
Did you shun and ridicule the right?
Yes and yes. Still do. Doesn't make what Griffin did right. Today's event is exactly why we need to put the petty bickering aside and find common ground upon which we can build compromise. Each side is guilty of divisiveness and over-the-top 2nd grade temper tantrums.
I'm all for exposing collusion and back room deals that don't benefit the American citizenry. We just need to lead by positive example and quit the social media syitstorm that serves no purpose other than to give me job security when people blow a gasket and need medical attention.
Carry on!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:33pm PT
|
Alas. Another sexist paunched male I have no interest screwing
Is that alas for you or for him? I assume you refer to the mysterious Norton. He certainly does not look paunched in that photo of himself climbing the giant overhang. And to think we thought him merely a wandering politard.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:39pm PT
|
photo of himself climbing the giant overhang
Anyone that believes that's the politard Ňóřtóň is insane ......
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 07:44am PT
|
Roughly 1/4 of all workplace deaths are categorized as roadway incidents by OSHA.
Workplace violence now accounts for roughly 1/10 of the pie chart (including domestic incidents that happen at the workplace).
Cancer and heart disease still take more people than guns ever will.
But sure, keep tapping out your blame of the guns on your mobile phone while you're sucking down the double whopper with cheese doing 85 on the 105 during the morning commute, bitching about how insensitive and divisive that other party is who just can't open their minds to your superior political point of view.
Maybe the conservative party will see their way clear now to enact some sensible gun control measures, like banning all sales to registered liberals. Or maybe they'll expand concealed carry.
Maybe they'll wage a war on guns, 'cause, well, you know... it's working for drugs. Riiiigghhht?
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 08:27am PT
|
Yeah, Obummer gonna take yer guns yet. Better go fill the bunker with guns, ammo and spam.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 08:29am PT
|
Are we sure it wasn't a False Flag event to do just that!!
You notice no one was killed, it may have been staged by Obama as part of his evil agenda to take our guns away....
I better stock up on more guns and ammo so I won't be caught without the fire power needed to keep my God Given Guns!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:18am PT
|
The left wanted to restrict guns to people that shouldn't have them.
The right said F*#k off!
You can ask madbolter, that's his answer to restricting guns.
Since you're quoting me, how about getting it right?
And your earlier "doesn't make sense" post itself didn't make sense. Let me help you out....
You see, whether a state is open-carry or concealed-carry really doesn't matter. You see, the vast, vast, VAST majority of people carrying concealed guns are safer to be around than cops (numerous studies have shown that concealed carry permit holders are involved in about 1/6 the number of crimes as are cops). And in States that don't allow open-carry, the criminals are concealed carrying illegally. So, you see, whether the criminal is carrying open because he can or concealed because he must, he remains a criminal. And the vast, VAST majority of people that are legally carrying will never commit any crime. You cannot differentiate at a glance who is legal and who is not, and that's the fact whether the State is open-carry or concealed-carry.
You see, we live in a society, thankfully, in which NOBODY (not the cops nor anybody else) is legally allowed to shoot somebody that has not yet started attacking others. So, you see, it makes PERFECT SENSE that nobody got to open fire on the attacker UNTIL he became an attacker.
That's how it PROPERLY works among law-abiding citizens. And NOTHING works among criminals and nut-jobs like this attacker.
Got it now?
Oh, and quote me correctly if yur gonna bother. My statements and attitude regarding such tragedies as this one are about as far from "F*#k off" as possible. And who are "the right" to which you refer? Be specific, if you can. And, if you can, you'll quickly reveal that all of your recent posts are painting with a ridiculously broad brush.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:20am PT
|
Liberals and Obama will surely use this event as a reason to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
Oh yeah, Obama the shadow president.
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:23am PT
|
Spare a thought for these heroes who are in the hospital today. The best our country produces. May they recover quickly.
|
|
SusanA
Sport climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 10:07am PT
|
There are so many people with guns who say they need them to fight the government ... do they not understand that this is what it looks like when someone uses a gun for that purpose?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 10:16am PT
|
Liberals and Obama will surely use this event as a reason to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
Even tho 10B already commented on this prize winning wisdom,
I can't resist noting that it is a very typical view of the alt/faux-brained geniuses who handed Trump the presidency.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 10:21am PT
|
States with lax gun laws have more gun crime. In this case IllNoise exported its problem to VA. There are statistical deviations, I will cite Chicago for you gun nuts, but in the big picture, tough gun laws lowers gun violence.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 10:49am PT
|
in the big picture, tough gun laws lowers gun violence
Even if that were true, which it's not been demonstrated, it's irrelevant unless you are crystal clear about what "tough gun laws" really means.
This nation was not designed to be just another European Socialist Democracy. The capacity for violence was "designed in" by our founders, and very intentionally so. Our founders presumed that the vast majority of us would retain the ability to exercise good judgment and basic morality. And, over the centuries since, the indications are that they were correct. The VAST majority of us are well in control over our capacity for violence.
If you prefer to live in a nation like one of the ESDs, then you are free to move to one. This nation is not one of them, and I hope it never will be.
The relative (very) few criminals and nut-jobs are statistically insignificant, that said without in the slightest trivializing the pain of the tragedies they produce. These should not be the basis for national policy or a fundamental change in the most fundamental values of this nation.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:05am PT
|
The Second Amendment has been showing it's age for many years. Not to worry, amending it to better fit the modern world should fix things nicely.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:46am PT
|
No sh#t. Unfortunately the combination of the gun manufacturers and their NRA shills are adroit at driving fat, declining, white, middle-aged, anti-government male hysteria. Guns - probably a better substitute for, and more effective than viagra, at getting to the real problem at the heart of the matter.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:46am PT
|
Donini how would you like that if it was said to you,.......?
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:49am PT
|
If someone can amend (or mend) my tired, out of date, body and bring me back into the modern world I would be all for it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:51am PT
|
To be honest, if it were me, I'd try to find a 12-step program that could cure me of the predominant white-male dick/gun/govt delusion or at least hold it at bay so long as I was vigilant. In my case, though, spending a year six-on / six-off, 24x7x365 in a 5" gun turret (aka a real gun) cured me of the affliction for life.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:55am PT
|
Not to worry, amending it to better fit the modern world should fix things nicely.
Yeah, except for the fact that that wouldn't change the underlying right to which the second amendment refers. The second amendment references a right; it does not grant it nor define it. And any law that does "infringe" on that right is de facto an invalid law, regardless of the verbiage of the second amendment or even if there were no second amendment.
It's of note that many of the founders did not want a Bill of Rights because they worried that our exact state of affairs would come to pass: Instead of seeing the Bill of Rights as a redundant bolt-on, we would come to see it as actually granting and defining the rights that the amendments reference. But ALL of the founders, federalist and anti-federalist alike, did not believe that the initial Bill of Rights GRANTED the rights to which they referred. They had one purpose: To ENSURE that the federal government would NEVER think to touch ("infringe upon") those particular, most dearly-held, rights.
Now, just as they worried, we get all confused and think that those amendments grant and define OUR rights, which they do not. They define ONLY prohibitions upon the federal government. However, those prohibitions were already implied in the enumeration of powers clause, making the Bill of Rights redundant and unnecessary.
It's a core contract-design principle that you avoid redundancy! And that is because of this very sort of later-introduced confusion. You do not want "the same thing" being said multiple ways, because then you get into arguments about "which version" is controlling!
And now, so many of you guys even want to abandon originalism, which means that you want to abandon original intent, making already murky waters even murkier. Fortunately, we do have the surrounding documents to clarify what our founders were thinking and what they intended. We know why the Bill of Rights came to be. And we know what it was intended to accomplish. So we know that it had nothing to do with constraining or defining OUR rights.
Let's say that enough people got together and eliminated the first amendment. Would that suddenly make our actual RIGHT of free speech and the RIGHT of a free press disappear? Or would you (correctly) recognize that any subsequent laws to infringe upon or eliminate the exercise of those rights were de facto invalid laws?
Do you believe that legality produces morality? If so, you have things exactly backwards, and you have no basis upon which to reform or overturn immoral laws. Moral laws enshrine inalienable rights. Such rights are not granted nor defined by laws.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!