Cenk Uygur & Ana Kasparian Don't Care For Pro Gun Rally at VT

[RSillsbee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyJWbNhEI08

The Virginia Citizen's Defense League is planning a pro-gun rally on the Virginia Tech campus on November 17th 2011. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on TYT University.

I am amazed at the number of Brady talking points Ana hits in 4 minutes. This was originally posted under political videos but i didn't want it to die unnoticed

[msongs]

1. will the police be there to arrest them like they do for OWS rallies? nt

[RSillsbee]

3. Arrest Cenk and Ana? Why? NT

[PavePusher]

5. Heh....

We couldn't get that lucky. But it does fall under the rules-of-hoyt...

[virginia mountainman]

7. I will let you know!

I intend to have "first hand" experience of the event....lol............

[SteveM]

77. For having a rally on a university campus? Why would they do that? nt

[rl6214]

2. Surprising?

Not at all.

[PavePusher]

4. Every time I see or hear Cenk, I think "Jersey Shore wanna-be chuckle-head"...

and then I need a strong drink to get the taste out of my mouth.

[rl6214]

6. Isn't he getting a little long in the tooth to be a young turk?

[_ed_]

55. Check the definition of Young Turk

you might learn something.

[rl6214]

103. Idiom Definitions for 'Young Turk'

A Young Turk is a young person who is rebellious and difficult to control in a company, team or organisation.


Again, isn't he getting a little OLD to be called a young turk?

Maybe you need to look up the definition of what "long in the tooth" means. You might learn something.

Yup, born in 1970. That's not young to me.

[Hoyt]

8. Maybe because the "talking points" make sense to the hundreds of millions who don't believe guns in

public are good for society or a college campus.

[gejohnston]

10. but they

are just that. There is no empirical evidence that they are bad.

[Hoyt]

12. Yea sure, guns are just wonderful.

[Simo 1939_1940]

16. So feel free to rebut any *one* of the counter-arguments

from the Students for Concealed Carry against banning guns on campus with empirical evidence. We'll wait - but we won't hold our breaths.

tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock......................

http://www.concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php

[Hoyt]

17. Don't really care to debate a bunch of Young TBaggers (aka Young Republicans) who are into guns.

When I was in school -- and still today -- I had a lot of other things on my mind beside friggin guns.

[PavePusher]

23. Completely beneath your abilities, eh?

:rofl:

[Hoyt]

47. Yep, no matter how you try, you can't convince folks like that the "earth is round."

[spin]

64. As usual you are wrong again, the earth is not round ...

Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

It may seem round when viewed from space, but our planet is actually a bumpy spheroid
By Charles Q. Choi | April 12, 2007 |


OBLATE SPHEROID is not as easy to remember as "round," but it is the truth. Image: © Kativ/iStockphoto

As countless photos from space can attest, Earth is round—the "Blue Marble," as astronauts have affectionately dubbed it. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Planet Earth is not, in fact, perfectly round.

This is not to say Earth is flat. Well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Aristotle and other ancient Greek scholars proposed that Earth was round. This was based on a number of observations, such as the fact that departing ships not only appeared smaller as they sailed away but also seemed to sink into the horizon, as one might expect if sailing across a ball says geographer Bill Carstensen of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

Isaac Newton​ first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles.

***snip***

To keep track of Earth's shape, scientists now position thousands of Global Positioning System receivers on the ground that can detect changes in their elevation of a few millimeters, Gross says. Another method, dubbed satellite laser ranging, fires visible-wavelength lasers from a few dozen ground stations at satellites. Any changes detected in their orbits correspond to gravitational anomalies and thus mass distributions inside the planet. Still another technique, very long baseline interferometry, has radio telescopes on the ground listen to extragalactic radio waves to detect changes in the positions of the ground stations. It may not take much technology to understand that Earth is not perfectly round, but it takes quite a bit of effort and equipment to determine its true shape.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

Sorry, I just couldn't resist posting this.

[Simo 1939_1940]

42. So in other words - you've got nothing. As usual. NT

[Hoyt]

49. Ah a newbe, or olde with new name. I try to avoid right wing sites like the one linked above.

You guys ought to as well. Again, you can't explain anything to Young Tbaggers/Republicans.

[Simo 1939_1940]

67. Actually, you employ the genetic fallacy in a hapless

attempt to disguise the fact that you have no facts to support your "argument".

And everyone who reads what you write recognizes this.

So thank you - sincerely - for your weak attempts to promote gun restriction. In doing so you undermine your cause, which in turn provides a service to the Democratic Party. (the service being the ultimate death of the emotion-based notion of gun control)

[iverglas]

120. yeah, snork, "as usual"

I guess I haven't been around enough since October 19 to observe your attentive observance of all things Hoyt ...

:rofl:

[Union Scribe]

131. Doesn't take long to figure out the depth of a puddle.

[Simo 1939_1940]

134. +100 NT

[Simo 1939_1940]

133. I mentioned in an early post that I've been lurking here

for quite a long time. Laugh all you want.

[iverglas]

139. "Laugh all you want."

I did and I shall!

[Simo 1939_1940]

142. Hence you shall appear as a two year old, since I made it

clear that I've been following conversation in this forum for quite some time, Ms. Hippo Crate. (see ---- I'm even aware that you whine about incivility while comporting yourself in as uncivil a manner as anyone in the forum.)

[PavePusher]

143. Heh, you have been browsing. n/t

[iverglas]

146. snork

None of which refutes my hypothesis.

[Simo 1939_1940]

151. No, but generally it flushes your credibility down the loo. NT

[RSillsbee]

45. I can hear the "Jeopardy" music in my head NT

[iverglas]

140. yeah, me too!

The outcomes we're waiting for are probably different, though.

:rofl:

[RSillsbee]

141. I didn't know y'all had Jeopardy in Canada NT

[iverglas]

145. it's amazing, isn't it?

We get ABC and NBC and CBS and Fox a load of stupid US specialty channels, and BBC World News and TV5 (that's France) and CNN and that's all on just basic cable; if we pay, we get FoxNews and MSNBC and DeutscheWelle and other international news sources, and so on and on. Cosmopolitan is us. We don't have a domestic version of Jeopardy, not having a big enough market to support it in competition with the US version, but Canadians often appear on the show. In fact, a Cdn DUer was a winner a couple of years back. I believe his final jeopardy win was on one of those seriously US-centric questions. ;)

Just fyi, Alex Trebek is Canadian and began his TV career on the CBC, although he has US citizenship as of 1998.

I think he was probably talking about the Cdn DUer here:

http://entertainment.aol.ca/article/alex-trebek-and-jeopardy-come-home/309583/

(Q) That's where I thought the Canadians might suffer, with American-based questions.

(A) Well, you'd be surprised. We had a Canadian on recently, and he was very knowledgeable about American history. Not just the superficial aspects of it, but all of it. He knew it. And that's one of the differences between Americans and Canadians. Canadians are more likely to know about American history than the other way around.

[RSillsbee]

152. Hell y'all might even have indoor plumbing before too long. NT

Actually, any coubntry that can produce Moose McGlade can't be too backward

[iverglas]

154. in the national igloo even?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSN4fnXwKM

It must be time for Trailer Park Boys again by now. I'm sure there are many here who haven't had the pleasure.

Season 1, Episode 1, Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DRyDVPg6DY

and you can go on from there.

[krispos42]

19. Of course talking points make sense... that's why they're talking points

Designed and crafted to lodge right in your brain and make you say "oh, yeah". Or to divert you away from the real issue. Hopefully, both.

You see, that's why we have to lower the tax burden on the job creators and make sure everybody pays their fair share.

;-)

[SteveM]

79. You aren't opposed to debate over guns on a university campus, are you?

[DissedByBush]

135. Those damn inconvenient rights

We need to get rid of those ones we don't like.

Spewing Brady Bunch lies only helps recruit the ignorant to your anti-rights cause.

[iverglas]

9. was there really any more evidence needed ...

The Virginia Citizen's Defense League is planning a pro-gun rally on the Virginia Tech campus on November 17th 2011.

... of the fact that gun militants are total assholes?

[PavePusher]

11. How about the U that renders people defensless and refuses to be held liable...

for their failures in security?

Speaking of "total assholes"...

[Simo 1939_1940]

18. Aw, c'mon PP --- the answer to guns is *not* more guns!

Which is why police respond to calls of "shots fired" with slingshots.

[iverglas]

27. how about the fact that no one is compelled to go onto the university premises?

Let the assholes set up their own schools.

[TPaine7]

39. In their own countries and states? n/t

[iverglas]

57. great idea!

For once.

[gejohnston]

13. on the other hand

the tragedy showed the absurdity of the so called AWB. It also has something to do with the fact the police do not use transporter beams. Maybe it had to do with our younger generation being sheep, armed or not. Not knowing the positions of the victims, (in large groups or individual targets of opportunity.

this one looks easy:

Lépine sat for a time in the office of the registrar on the second floor. He was seen rummaging through a plastic bag and did not speak to anyone, even when a staff member asked if she could help him. He left the office and was subsequently seen in other parts of the building before entering a second floor mechanical engineering class of about sixty students at about 5:10 p.m.<1> After approaching the student giving a presentation, he asked everyone to stop everything and ordered the women and men to opposite sides of the classroom. No one moved at first, believing it to be a joke until he fired a shot into the ceiling.<15>
Lépine then separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave.<9> Speaking in French, he asked the remaining women whether they knew why they were there, and when one student replied "no," he answered: "I am fighting feminism". One of the students, Nathalie Provost, said, "Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life." Lépine responded that "You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire on the students from left to right, killing six, and wounding three others, including Provost.<9[/div>

Has there ever been a conversation in Canadian society why these 59 did not do shit? Why did the 50 guys meekly walk out? Out numbering him 59-1, they did not have to be armed to prevent the disaster, just rushed him from multiple directions. At best, he could have gotten of two shots, most likely none. When 50 guys simply left the room, and left the nine women behind did it occur to any of them what was probably next? If not, they must have cheated on the entrance exams. Not blaming the victims, just beyond my comprehension.
The shooter was fucked in the head. The questions is 50 male students fucking stupid? Closet misogynist that secretly sided with the shooter? Just fucking cowards? Some combination of all three?
Honest question. It is something I have never been able to wrap my head around. I don't but the right wing "emasculation" theory, because none of the female staff and students resisted either. Yeah you are going to yell about something me not having a point or yammering. But I do think it is worth a larger discussion about urban and suburban society being disconnected. Disconnected from what, I can't define.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

[iverglas]

28. disgusting

Just purely disgusting.

[gejohnston]

35. what is?

50 people meekly walks out the door without doing shit, knowing (if they had half a brain) what was likely to happen next. Yes, that was pretty disgusting. By doing nothing they have some moral responsibility for the murders.

[Simo 1939_1940]

43. +1,000 NT

[iverglas]

54. you and Mark Steyn

You may know the piece of right-wing shit in question.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/05/excusing-the-men-who-ran-away/

The event occurred in 1989. The people in question were mostly about 20 years old. What was happening was more than beyond their experience; it was beyond the experience of anyone they had ever met. It is unlikely they had ever even read about any such thing happening. The idea that Lépine was going to kill the women in the room would not likely even have occurred to most of them.

Let's take your notions to their logical conclusion.

Let's blame the women who were killed for their deaths, which were obviously the result of their own stupidity and cowardice. Why did they not try to run out, why did they not rush Lépine? Obviously they were no less free agents, no less responsible for their actions, than the men in the room. It was their lives at stake, so they are the ones who bear ultimate "moral responsibility" for their deaths.

Like I said: disgusting.

[gejohnston]

68. I have no idea who

in the fuck Mark Steyn is and no it is not blaming the victims. They are the ones dead, so it is not their moral responsibility.
You said in other posts that if you lend a car to your brother in law, who gets drunk and kills someone with your car, you are held partly liable. Is that or is that not Canadian law? You said if even a bank vault is defeated and guns are stolen, the victim is should still be charged with unsafe storage (which he was). Is that or is that not Canadian law?
Of course will not see that as the same, but it is. It is still a matter of public safety.
In this case, the 50 guys' inaction is an action counter to public safety.

But then, you equate the NSSF with the drug cartels,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x124088#124099

[iverglas]

70. what the fuck??

They are the ones dead, so it is not their moral responsibility.

What sense does that make? Does no one ever bear "moral responsibility" for their own death??


You said in other posts that if you lend a car to your brother in law, who gets drunk and kills someone with your car, you are held partly liable. Is that or is that not Canadian law?

Well, are you or are you not the Chief Inquisitor?

Crap almighty, put words in my mouth and then make demands that I acknowledge that the words represent the law? Quite a tactic you have there. Quote me, Jack.

You said if even a bank vault is defeated and guns are stolen, the victim is should still be charged with unsafe storage (which he was). Is that or is that not Canadian law?

Lather, rinse, repeat.


Of course will not see that as the same, but it is.

You are absolutely right. I see it all as the most bizarre dog's breakfast of the day.


But then, you equate the NSSF with the drug cartels

WTF is the NSSF?

Oh yes, I see you playing the game that "analogy" = "equation". Sometimes I start to expect better ... is it intellectual honesty that's in short supply, or just intellect?


Meanwhile, try addressing something I said.

Like the fact that the crap you spewed was identical to the crap spewed by right-wing piece of shit Mark Steyn.

Your ignorance of him is of no relevance. A simple google will find you all you need to know. Here, I'll guide your mouse. Presumably he is the main author of this blurb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn

Mark Steyn (born December 8, 1959) is a Canadian-born writer, conservative-leaning political commentator, and cultural critic.<1> He has written five books, including America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, a New York Times bestseller. He is published in newspapers and magazines, appears on shows such as those of Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, and Sean Hannity. ...

Those bedfellows just won't stay hidden under the blankies, will they?

[gejohnston]

75. How about

you calm down and actually discuss the subject without ranting that anyone that disagrees with you are " right wing gun misogynist militants". Much of the time you don't say anything worth addressing.
You lecturing me on intellectual honesty? Please give me a break. It is not my responsibility to look up who these people are. Guilt by association and genetic fallacy doesn't do shit more me.

[rl6214]

107. "WTF is the NSSF?"

Your ignorance of the NSSF is of no relevance. A simple google will find you all you need to know. Here, I'll guide your mouse. Presumably the first thing listed is what he is talking about.

http://www.nssf.org/

Your feigned ignorance is astounding.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

121. Oh, pay attention now will you

"Is there an iverglas memorial library somewhere that I have not been given access to? Who the fuck would pull that little gem out of their bum and dump it into a thread in 2011 to which it has not the slightest relevance? How would someone even find that? An index crossreferencing iverglas and ... what?"

Obviously you think there should be:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=474637&mesg_id=474973

"It's your ignorance of who I am that amuses."

Your quote:
"WTF is the NSSF?"

Are you that unable to hold a thought for two seconds?

"See the link? I did. So after first wondering what was being yammered at me now, I clicked on it."

So,"WTF is the NSSF" was really unnesseccary.


"What IS relevant here is the fact that the only people who ever spew shit in public like gets spewed around here are mouthpieces for the ugly far right wing."

Keepin it classy as always and within the forum rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Well, the dead and injured would be at least as 'responsible' as the men that filed out.

They too, outnumbered the gunman, moreso when the men were still in the room, and they too failed to charge and attack the gunman. They had the same opportunity, and the same appreciation of risk.


I Disagree with Iverglas on one point, that the men might not have known what was coming. I've never heard this story before, and when I got to the line about the men being leg go, I said to myself 'oh shit, I bet he executes the women'. Sorry to see the hunch was right.

Once a shitbag starts moving victims around, isolating them, etc, your window of opportunity to fight back is swiftly closing. People are about to die. I can think of only one exception to that rule, based on news stories I have seen throughout my life. One fast food incident, where the employees were herded into a managers office, tied up and left alive. The rest (that I am aware of) have all ended horribly.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. My martial arts instructor corroborated this advice.

He said that once an assailant begins manipulating the people he is assaulting, he is doing it to enable what he really wants to do, which is almost never good. So if a carjackers starts trying to make you drive someplace, you can be sure it won't be to drive to someplace safe for you. Fasten your seatbelt and drive into the nearest immovable object.

[iverglas]

96. you've never heard of the Montreal massacre before??

That's pretty weird, given how many times it's been discussed in this forum, and the fact that it was the impetus behind the firearms registry finally being created in Canada. Lépine used a Ruger Mini-14, which is still a non-restricted weapon, and therefore will be exempt from registration once the long arms registry is abolished.

This was 1989, in Canada. What reason would a bunch of young engineering students in Montreal have to expect that someone who walked into their classroom was actually going to kill a lot of women? It's pretty easy, over 20 years and dog knows how many mass killings in schools and elsewhere later, to think "oh shit, I bet he executes the women" ("executes" not actually being the right word; they had not committed, let alone been convicted of, any wrongdoing).

See "School Massacres" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

The only modern incident before the Polytechnique murders in North America was Whitman in Austin, before the Montreal Polytechnique students were born. Columbine was a decade later, Dunblane nearly that much later.

Simply, no one there had any frame of reference for thinking about the situation.

And in point of fact, I am very certain there have been many incidents where someone with a gun has directed people to move to another location and not killed anyone. And actually, in 1989, Montreal was known as the bank robbery capital of the world:

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-14/news/mn-42710_1_bank-robbery

And unlike the Hollywood image, most bank holdups are done by one robber with little planning. Robbers carry guns but seldom fire them, experts say.

"They can use the gun, but they usually fire into the wall to make their point," Police Director Andre Tessier said. "It's very rare that they fire on somebody."

So that was really the frame of reference for the people in that room.

[ileus]

104. I love my Mini 14....

it's a dandy little shooter...it's also my 9yo daughters favorite firearm to plink with when we go out. On the other hand my 7yo son loves his mom's AR....I'm out ammo either way.

[iverglas]

108. if any further evidene were needed ...

You already said you'd be parading around with the assholes in question, I think.

[ileus]

110. I don't know about that....I do hope to attend this VCDL event.

Be kind of silly not to attend and show my support for basic civil rights of my fellow Virginians. It's only 45 minutes away so there's no reason I shouldn't be there...


I hope I don't run into any of the assholes you mention, it could darken the festive mood of the event. Hopefully the supporters of the event will be able to drown out the assholes you speak of.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. It has been recognized about as long as I have been alive

that once the attacker starts herding people, and isolating them, bad times are afoot. I didn't have the context of that instrument. Most bank robberies in fact, do not move victims around. Isolate them, etc.


Just for the record, my post may have left it unclear, but I do not put the onus to fight upon the men or women, as a moral failing. I would prefer if they HAD fought back. Some likely still would have died. Possibly more would have lived. But I do not fault them for failing to charge a man with a long rifle. I was just corroborating your point, that the women had equal onus, in that distasteful context. They just didn't make it out alive, or intact because they were the target.

I wasn't really familiar with that incident. I'm surprised a Mini-Ruger was used. Mine feels like a beautiful, finely crafted instrument to me, akin to a fine guitar or violin. The idea of going on a mad godamn killing spree with it or one like it just seems so incredibly alien to me, regardless of the morality involved.

[jmg257]

138. You can envision 20yr old students fighting back because they should know what is coming,

but you can't envision someone using a mini-14 to commit mass excution-type murder?

It's a comparatively cheap, lightweight and compact semi-auto with big external magazine capacity, uses easily accesible and affordable ammo, and is built sturdy and reliable.

What's not to like?

[AtheistCrusader]

148. The cartridge is not suited to killing deer, let alone humans.

It's actually illegal for deer hunting in most states. Generally you want .30 cal for something big as or bigger than a human.

That aside, it just doesn't strike me as a murderer's weapon. I know, it's just a perception, but it's how I feel.

[iverglas]

149. murderers seem not to agree

Anders Breivik liked his for the job.

Another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

And a 1983 incident involving the killings of some US marshalls by a Posse Comitatus type, from what I can tell:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_domestic_terrorism_tmln&haitian_elite_2021_interventions=haitian_elite_2021_law_enforcement_actions

I would have to guess there are other more common or garden incidents where the weapon's name doesn't make the news.

[AtheistCrusader]

150. There are always exceptions.

Still not a commonly used rifle for nefarious purposes. I don't think i've EVER seen one on a police 'trophy' table, for instance. Very recognizable firearm.

Maybe a couple 'sporterized' versions.

[ileus]

153. old turdblower in norway worked over several with a mini 14 not to long ago.

I use my AR in WV to hunt deer with 75gr hornady stuff....seems to work on Whitetails pretty good. My next two are the 270 and 7mm08 followed up by my 308 for hunting here in Va.


Oh and I love my mini14 I just don't hunt with it.

[ileus]

51. Excellent post...

[rl6214]

26. Is there really any more evidence needed...

...of the fact that anti-gun zealots are total assholes?

Fixed it for you.

[iverglas]

30. can you point me to that evidence?

[TPaine7]

40. Are you a vampire? n/t

[rl6214]

41. Ah but it is against forum rules to call out members here.

[rl6214]

109. Read here on these pages daily

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Some of the teachers that died, trying to protect their students, were quite capable of managing a

firearm. They died unarmed, by policy. If they had the option, but chose not to carry, fine. But they did not have the option. Nor did the other students who were over 21.

They should have had the choice.

[iverglas]

76. how dare you?

They died unarmed, by policy.

Tell that to the husband of the Canadian instructor who was killed.

Please. I want to know what he says.

Or just find the slightest evidence to support your statement.

Anything at all to show that POLICY was the reason they were "unarmed".

For all you know, the policy in question was a reason why they chose that school to work at.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. "They had no choice"

That's the problem. As I said, if they had the choice and chose not to, I have zero issues with that. I do not think less of people who choose, freely, not to carry a firearm.

I do not know if even a single one of them would have carried a firearm, if they had the option. I do not need to. The question at hand is the policy, not an attempt to force instructors to carry guns or whatever.

Only to give those that are eligible, the choice.

[iverglas]

90. they had every choice

They had the choice of working somewhere else.

They had the choice of carrying a firearm contrary to the rules.

I do not have the choice of jumping off a bridge at the moment, there being no bridge in my office.

Will you tell me that the REASON I am not jumping off a bridge is that I do not have the choice of jumping off a bridge?

The question at hand is the policy, not an attempt to force instructors to carry guns or whatever.

No, it's your assertion that the policy is the reason that anyone was "unarmed".

You know perfectly well that a tiny fraction of any student or faculty body would choose to carry firearms if they were permitted to do so.

I have never seen the least evidence that any of the victims of that particular mass shooting would have been carrying firearms had policy permitted.

So they were no more "disarmed" by the policy than I am prevented from jumping off a bridge by the absence of a bridge in my office.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. My assumption about law abiding gun owners is, that they are law abiding.

To carry in defiance of the policy, would be to commit trespassing.

So, the policy is principle cause. We don't even get to ask 'what if' one might have chosen to carry, because they were not allowed to carry. We can't exactly ask the dead, either.


If you were prevented, by force of law from jumping off a bridge, and there were consequences, such as the anti-jumper stuff we've installed on the Aurora Bridge, you could not be assumed to be able to freely choose whether to jump off a bridge or not. Remove the barriers, and then we know for certain, whether you might freely choose to do so, and the decision would be entirely your own.

Given a large enough sample population, it is not unreasonable to assume at least ONE adult might have carried with good intentions, inside that school. If that were a lawful option.

[iverglas]

119. there were no "barriers"

There was a policy. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that any of the victims, or anyone else present, disagreed with that policy, let alone would personally have carried a firearm to class if it had been different.

I understand that there are laws in the US against attempting suicide (such laws were repealed in Canada decades ago). People still attempt suicide. As people do all sorts of things there are policies, as expressed in laws, against.

I'm still gobsmacked that you would say anything like the policy is principle cause. Were I in the US, the law prohibiting suicide attempts would simply NOT be the "principal cause" why I do not attempt suicide. Really.

Given a large enough sample population, it is not unreasonable to assume at least ONE adult might have carried with good intentions, inside that school.

I think it's quite unreasonable. Regardless; it is an assumption and nothing more.

It is also an assumption to assert that permitting the carrying of firearms in classrooms will ever have any effect on anything in future, since it simply cannot be assumed that anyone in any such classroom will be carrying a firearm.

In any event, we are told here repeatedly that people do NOT carry firearms in order to protect other people.

So no one who chose not to carry a firearm would have any reason to expect that they would be protected by anyone who did, or even that anyone would be carrying a firearm in any given place at any given moment.

What kind of ludicrous plan is that, when it comes to averting deaths and injuries?

What I might quite reasonably assume is that anyone who chose NOT to carry a firearm around with them in these situations actually preferred not to have firearms in their classrooms.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. That policy would make a criminal out of anyone who carried in defiance of the policy.

Trespassing is a crime. It would have been wierd if someone HAD been carrying, given the policy, and would be prima facie evidence of a crime.


The policy is a sine qua non to the question of whether or not anyone WOULD have carried, had the policy been otherwise. We cannot honestly raise the question, until the policy matter is resolved.


These students are engaged in the democratic process of trying to get the policy changed. Bravo for them. If they fail, well, they fail, so be it. At least they have tightened up the mental health reporting requirements in that state that might have prevented the shooting in the first place. Better than nothing.


As to carrying to protect others, well, that's part of why I do carry. Without rancor, I'm not sure who else has said they don't carry for the protection of others. I have no DUTY to protect others, so, in the case of the IHop shooting, the guy with the handgun backing down when faced with an active shooter with a rifle across the parking lot, is no serious moral failure. He ventured as much risk as he could, wasn't enough for the task at hand. Ok. But I don't think I know of anyone who carries who absolute simply will NOT intervene on the behalf of others in need.

I carry a lot more than just firearms for that purpose, such as training, first aid materials, etc.

[iverglas]

123. NO

The policy is a sine qua non to the question of whether or not anyone WOULD have carried, had the policy been otherwise.

It is NOT.

The sine qua non is the intentions and wishes of the individuals in question.

And unless and until someone has some evidence of them -- other than the plain evidence in several cases that they would NEVER have been carrying a firearm -- this is all just ... bad. Just bad.


As to carrying to protect others, well, that's part of why I do carry. Without rancor, I'm not sure who else has said they don't carry for the protection of others.

You seem to miss a lot in this forum. ;)

It's still of no never mind to anyone else whether you carry a firearm, or when or where or why you do it.

Unless you or the marching militants can guarantee that someone with a firearm will be there when someone else is in danger, and will act to protect them -- and will actually protect them, anybody militating about this is kicking up their fuss in their own perceived interests only. And nobody else is under any obligation, really, to let them have their own way.

If they don't want to be somewhere where they are not allowed to have their gun, that's their choice.

If the vast majority of people using the place in question do not want guns being carried there, as is obviously the case, the gun militants lose. Tough.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. I respectfully disagree.

I do agree, some of the victims were quite known to be non-willing to carry under any circumstances. But the policy prevents any meaningful analysis of whether any of the victims, alive or dead, might have one or two or more, willing/able to carry. There were quite a lot more people in the building than just the dead victims.

Only two things seem to stop an active shooter:
1. Shooter accomplishes goal
2. Armed opposition

Most of these active shooters self-destruct upon encountering either of those conditions.
And of course, I can cite non-police officer opposition to such shooters that saved lives. Both clear-cut 'wins', as well as opposition that came at great personal cost to the responder.

The only obvious takeaway; if policy forbids law abiding citizens with guns, and the university provides no armed security/police, option 2 above, is impossible.

I encourage the protestors to continue pushing for a change in policy. That they are outnumbered is no interest to me.

[spin]

83. The fact remains that one armed individual in a class room could have stopped the massacre ...

at Virginia Tech. Lets look at a portion of the incident.

Virginia Tech massacre

***snip***

Norris Hall shootings

About two hours after the initial shootings, Cho entered Norris Hall, which houses the Engineering Science and Mechanics program among others, and chained the three main entrance doors shut. He placed a note on at least one of the chained doors, claiming that attempts to open the door would cause a bomb to explode. Shortly before the shooting began, a faculty member found the note and took it to the building's third floor to notify the school's administration. At about the same time, Cho had begun shooting students and faculty on the second floor; the bomb threat was never called in.<1><20> Within one or two minutes of the first shots, the first call to 9-1-1 was received.<21>

According to several students, before the shooting began Cho looked into several classrooms. Erin Sheehan, an eyewitness and survivor who had been in room 207, told reporters that the shooter "peeked in twice" earlier in the lesson and that "it was strange that someone at this point in the semester would be lost, looking for a class".<22> Cho's first attack after entering Norris occurred in an advanced hydrology engineering class taught by Professor G. V. Loganathan in room 206. Cho first shot and killed the professor, then continued shooting, killing nine of the 13 students in the room and injuring two others.<1> Next, Cho went across the hall to room 207, in which instructor Christopher James Bishop was teaching German. Cho killed Bishop and four students; six students were wounded.<1> Cho then moved on to Norris 211 and 204.<21> In both of these classrooms, Cho was initially prevented from entering the classroom by barricades erected by instructors and students. In room 204, Professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor, forcibly prevented Cho from entering the room. Librescu was able to hold the door closed until most of his students escaped through the windows, but he died after being shot multiple times through the door. One student in his classroom was killed.<23> Instructor Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and student Henry Lee were killed in room 211 as they attempted to barricade the door.<24>

Cho reloaded and revisited several of the classrooms.<21> After Cho's first visit to room 207, several students had barricaded the door and had begun tending the wounded. When Cho returned minutes later, Katelyn Carney and Derek O'Dell were injured while holding the door closed.<26><27><28> Cho also returned to room 206. According to a student eyewitness, the movements of a wounded Waleed Shaalan distracted Cho from a nearby student after the shooter had returned to the room. Shaalan was shot a second time and died.<29> Also in room 206, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan may have protected fellow student Guillermo Colman by diving on top of him.<30> Colman's various accounts make it unclear whether this act was intentional or the involuntary result of being shot. Multiple gunshots killed Lumbantoruan, but Colman was protected by Lumbantoruan's body.<31><32>

Students, including Zach Petkewicz, barricaded the door of room 205 with a large table after substitute professor Haiyan Cheng and a student saw Cho heading toward them. Cho shot several times through the door but failed to force his way in. No one in that classroom was wounded or killed.<33><34><35>...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

The students and instructors in several classrooms were well aware that a shooter was in the building and had time to prepare in case he broke in their room. If just one student or instructor had been armed, after the door was barricaded he could have taken cover behind a desk. When Cho managed to break through the door, the armed individual would have had time to be certain that the person entering was the shooter before he shot. At close range from a rest, the armed individual should have been able to hit Cho several times before Cho returned fire.

It would have also helped if the other students in the classroom did something as simple as throwing their books, chairs and backpacks at Cho to distract him.

Not all students in a college environment are irresponsible drunken teenagers as portrayed in the video in the OP. Many are older and more mature individuals who are taking college classes to improve their education. They may live off campus and hold jobs and be married. Some may have served in the military and are attending to college under the GI bill. Of course, each classroom had an instructor.

[iverglas]

97. and the actual fact remains

that no one has ever, to my knowledge, named one individual in those rooms who would have been "armed" if not prohibited from carrying firearms on the campus.

If wishes were horses ...

[spin]

101. Even if concealed carry would have been legal on the VT campus ...

and not one student or instructor in those classrooms would have chosen to carry a weapon, that doesn't alter the fact that at sometime in the future another massacre like VT will be attempted on a college campus where concealed carry is legal and will be ended by a legally armed individual.

It is also possible that a shooter will not consider attacking a college campus as he knows he might face armed individuals that will shoot him before he can rack up a high score.

[iverglas]

106. "fact"?

the fact that at sometime in the future another massacre like VT will be attempted on a college campus where concealed carry is legal and will be ended by a legally armed individual.

That's some crystal ball you got there.

[spin]

112. Is your Canadian crystal ball any more accurate? (n/t)

[DanTex]

113. And if this vigilante fantasy of yours ever comes true...

...I suppose that, to you, it will have been worth all of the people who have died due to the fact that our lax gun laws make it so easy for any nutcase or criminal to get a gun.

[spin]

129. Once again you forget all the people who have been saved by the fact that they ...

owned a firearm and were able to use it for self defense. That includes my mother and my daughter who both successfully used handguns to stop an attack.

I will agree that firearms do often cause tragedy but will you ever admit that they also can save a person's life or health? Somehow I doubt it.

Perhaps your dislike of firearms was caused by a tragic incident that involved someone you know. If so I offer my condolences. However, I have no intentions of changing my personal view that firearms do more good than harm and if they were banned and confiscated, the criminal element in our society would be empowered to engage in more mayhem than they do today.

I have proposed many times in this forum that our gun laws can be improved, especially the NICS background check system. President Obama agrees with me on this issue, but I even go further then he does. I would like to see the NICS background check be required for ALL gun sales in our nation. That could reduced the number of "nut cases and criminals" who can "easily" acquire firearms.

(Ref: President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1cPTIuG1F

I also would like to see all of our current guns laws enforced and anyone caught carrying or owning an illegal firearm should spend a lengthy period of time in prison. To free up space, I would release all people imprisoned on simple possession charges and would stop the war on drugs. Ex-President Carter agrees with me on stopping the global war on drugs.

(ref: Call Off the Global Drug War By JIMMY CARTER http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17carter.html)

What practical measures have you proposed?

[gejohnston]

132. that is hardly vigilante

try looking up what the word means before you copy and paste from talking points.

[ileus]

14. Count me in as attending....

Take the wife and kids down kick around a little while then do some shopping and eat. We normally hit the bike trails of the summer at VT.

[slackmaster]

15. I've heard of Cenk Uygur but not Ana Kasparian

And I have no idea why I should care what either of them say about anything.

[PavePusher]

20. Well, since they are both pretty much fact-free dip-sticks...

you shouldn't.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. +1 :) n/t

[Remmah2]

48. They just read the script.

It's a day job.

[_ed_]

56. The show is unscripted

But, sure, keep shooting your mouth off about stuff you don't know.

[Remmah2]

81. Unscripted?

That would qualify as incoherent babbling then.

[RSillsbee]

128. Like Cenk and Ana do? NT

[DanTex]

50. They are hosts of The Young Turks, a progressive internet talk show.

Cenk was on MSNBC for a while. TYT is smart and solidly progressive, so naturally it is despised by gun militants, who prefer fellow lunatics like Beck and Limbaugh.

[slackmaster]

66. Today's militant gun prohibitionists have much in common with the temperance fanatics of the 1920s

About half of the Democratic Party found itself in bed with the Ku Klux Klan at the 1924 convention. We ended up nominating a milquetoast candidate who nobody had heard of, in order to avoid taking a real stand on repealing the 18th Amendment.

[DanTex]

69. Yes, and the Republicans were the party of Lincoln, another entirely irrelevant fact...

Meanwhile, today, gun militants are largely right-wing nutjobs like Beck and Limbaugh, while most progressives and Democrats and rational people generally understand the need for stronger restrictions on guns in order to prevent things like the VT massacre.

[slackmaster]

71. Like the alcohol prohibitionists, gun prohibitionists think they are trying to save people from...

...themselves. They believe that because some individuals have psychological issues that make them unable to use something responsibly, that everyone should be forced to give up that thing.

It's all for the greater good, for the children.

[iverglas]

72. actually

Advocates of stringent firearms control policies are trying to save people from other people, in large part.

Dog knows what "gun prohibitionists" have to do with anything.

They believe that because some individuals have psychological issues that make them unable to use something responsibly, that everyone should be forced to give up that thing.

Who "they", white man, and what do they have to do with anything here?

That's pretty cute, though, I always think.

Someone who uses a firearm to commit robbery or murder, or to terrorize or intimidate family members or organized crime rivals or their community, is "unable to use something responsibly".

Snork. It does make me chuckle to see that kind of contortion. Have you considered joining the circus?

[rl6214]

111. "Dog knows "

Never took you to be a fan of Dog.

http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/

[Starboard Tack]

156. Do you drink in the street? In the classroom? While driving your car?

Why not? Are you a prohibitionist?

[SteveM]

82. The Dave Clark Five were around before the Dem's first gun-control spasm. nt

[Starboard Tack]

155. It is refreshing to know that we are capable of recognizing our mistakes

and every now and then Amendments that make no sense get repealed.

[Jester Messiah]

21. Just want to throw this out there:

It's a really, really bad idea to let the right wingers have all the guns. So I entreat all my left-wing brethren, don't be anti-gun. Be pro-responsibility.

[gejohnston]

24. That reminds me

I'm a Second Amendment Liberal.. and anyone that isn't has a pre-Bush mentality. It can happen here.
or another one
the problem with being pro-gun rights is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights.

For me, the guns came first (as a kid) with some of the liberalism, the rest came later.

[iverglas]

32. "It can happen here."

I'm a Second Amendment Liberal.. and anyone that isn't has a pre-Bush mentality. It can happen here.

Uh ... what can? Did it? What did gun militants do about it?

Vote for Bush, I think.

Yeah, that was it.

Twice.

[gejohnston]

34. I think

you are capable deeper thought than that. Think about it.

[iverglas]

31. "don't be anti-gun. Be pro-responsibility"

Hokey dokey.

I'm pro assholes with guns being responsible.

That and $2 will get me a cup of coffee, I think.

[Jester Messiah]

86. There are gonna be assholes with guns.

The question is, do you want it to ONLY be the assholes who have guns, or would you like to have a deterrent and means of self-defense?

[iverglas]

91. nah, that's not the question

Not even original.

[Jester Messiah]

94. Originality isn't the issue. It's a valid question.

Do you want only the right-wingers to have guns?

[iverglas]

98. what utter bibble babble

edit ... isn't there a term for those who express such concern?

"Right winger". Yeah.

[Jester Messiah]

125. Bullshit.

My politics are just as left as anyone's. I'm pro GLBT, pro choice, and pro gun. Sorry if that doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of what a liberal is supposed to be.

In any case, you're just dodging the question because you don't have a good answer. You're completely willing to let the teabaggers just roll right over us when they decide they don't like the outcome of the next election. Have it your way, but don't resort to name-calling just because you're out of ammo.

[iverglas]

127. I realize that was not a clear as it might have been

When I said

"Right winger"

I was not referring to you, or saying that was the term for those who express such concern.


I was quoting you when you said "right winger" and snickering at what you had said.


My apologies as I do see that was genuinely unclear.


In any case, you're just dodging the question because you don't have a good answer.

No, truly, I am snickering. Because there is no question.

[ileus]

105. but guns kill and scare people....no one should have them.

I got this one Ivy...nevermind replying.

[aikoaiko]

22. Ana Kasparian = Sue Heck from The Middle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxbXyBwDx6U&feature=fvsr

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. Ha! This one's even more Sue-like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo8NvJq6ik8

All I could think of was the line "Don't cut cross-country- because cross-country would never cut you!"

[DanTex]

25. Remember Westboro church celebrating the death of Matthew Shepard...

I there's a bright side to this, it's that it reminds people of the inhumanity of the extreme right. As Cenk said, its ugly.

[gejohnston]

33. the two are not even remotely related

nor are their motivations and messages.
The only similarity was that people were picketing where someone was murdered. To think the two are similar beyond that exposes some shallow thinking.
The differences is this:
The VT one has more to do with "it would have been as bad if students and staff could defend themselves"
Westboro was "we are glad the fag is dead"

[DanTex]

36. I'm sure the Westboro PR department could find some positive spin for their activities.

Another analogy would be GWBush exploiting 9-11 to justify illegal wars that led to many more innocent deaths. Except that the VT thing is more of a direct insult to the victims' families. Either way, it's right-wingers exploiting innocent deaths to push a political agenda that produces more innocent deaths.

[gejohnston]

37. not close either

Bush was going to invade Iraq 9-11 or not. The VT people are not saying "let's go bomb someplace". That is an even worse analogy.

Except that the VT thing is more of a direct insult to the victims' families.

I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself. I have not seen or heard anything from them on the subject, it is not an issue I have been following. Some probably are insulted, some may be part of the protest. Who knows. Agree or not, their message is their message.
How about if the Wyoming branch of Campus Concealed, or Pink Pistols were to show up at the murders' homes with signs like "we wish Matt had a gun"?

Either way, it's right-wingers exploiting innocent deaths to push a political agenda that produces more innocent deaths.

Based on the 70 campuses that allow it, always allowed it there is no evidence of there being shoot outs in the classrooms, so the rest does not matter. Besides, you are assuming the VT people are all right wing. Some may be, most are probably some place in the middle.

One more thing: Westboro does not have a PR department. The entire "congregation" is Fred's family, and not all of that. If it did have a PR department, they suck because they are upfront what they are about.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemOhio]

58. Well.....

"Based on the 70 campuses that allow it, always allowed it there is no evidence of there being shoot outs in the classrooms, so the rest does not matter." Not sure that is the best argument. We both agree that these cases are rare. It isnt often people go on murder sprees. However, I am not sure that a university allowing people to carry guns is a deterrent for this sort of behavior. To engage in such an action, you are probably crazy at some level. As such, you are not stable enough to say "wait, I am gonna go to a school that has heavy gun restrictions so I cant be stopped." You must likely will be going on the shooting spree because you feel wronged by whatever group and need to seek revenge. The end result of these things is usually the suicide/death of the shooter anyway.


A better argument would be to say that allowing the students/faculty/staff to carry guns will minimize the carnage because the shooter can be stopped before law enforcement has a chance to respond.

Also, I had family in the VT shooting. Not sure if my thoughts on the subject matter. And I dont want to get into an argument where I have to revisit those memories. So I will keep my opinions to myself.

[gejohnston]

65. not a deterrent

but the idea is to minimize the death toll. You are correct. One thing I noticed is that the people around the shooters, like families and SOs, notice them going off the deep end well in advance. The best deterrent would be for those in his or her life alerting the cops and the mental health systems. Increase funding for the county public health systems to include mental health would also help.
You pointed out the primary argument, just the other side tends to bring up the shootout over grades canard.

Sorry for your loss.

[DemOhio]

73. Indeed

"Increase funding for the county public health systems to include mental health would also help."

And there ladies and gents we have a healthy compromise. Thats what separates us from those 'other' sites.

[beevul]

44. And the republican founded republican led organization that created this...

And the republican founded republican led organization that created this:




They're equallt as guilty of exploiting innocent deaths to push a political agenda that produces more innocent deaths.

And yet...not a peep from you about it.


They're also guilty of trying to stoke fear, which, one would imagine is just fine with you, as long as its for reasons you happen to agree with:



All animals are equal, but some more equal than others, eh?

[PavePusher]

53. I'd say VT was the one insulting victims families...

when they refused to take responsibility for their failures.

Pro-restrictionists are well known for this.

[PavePusher]

52. Promoting self-defense options in a place where the Authorities resoundingly FAILED....

to provide security is "inhumanity"?

What Bizzaro World do you come from? Cenk needs to look in a fucking mirror.

[DanTex]

59. I come from the world of progressives and Democrats. You know, like Cenk.

What world do you come from?

Like Cenk and other rational people, I realize that the US is the only developed nation that has this gun violence problem, and our absurdly permissive gun laws are a major culprit. You might want to read about Colin Goddard, who was actually shot at VT, and who has since dedicated himself to trying to prevent these kinds of things from happening in the future, by hopefully making it more difficult for people like Cho to actually get hold of the guns used in this shooting.

And that's why it strikes many people, particularly liberal people, as sick that right-wingers trying to push a pro-gun agenda would do so at the very site of a gun massacre.

[iverglas]

61. and just to add

You mention Colin Goddard; there is also Jerzy Nowaks, the husband of Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, the Canadian instructor who was killed.

http://spring2009.aciajj.org/proceedings/jerzy-nowaks-story-iii-we-started-dreaming-together/

We plan to have 32 peace fellowships supported by 32 endowments, which is symbolic. Interest from the endowment will be used to foster the student activities we’re talking about.

The major challenge in this society, I believe, is securing a safe school environment as a key obligation. We hear about school violence over and over again. This society is destroying itself. We live in a gun culture with media violence and too much crime and guns too readily available. Thus the process of creating a safe schools is more important than ever before in ensuring stress free learning environment.

http://spring2009.aciajj.org/proceedings/about-the-center-for-peace-studies-and-violence-prevention/

The Virginia Tech Center for Peace Studies and Violence Prevention is a student-centered cross-disciplinary undertaking that builds on the academic, cultural, and security initiatives that evolved within the Virginia Tech community after the tragedy of April 16, 2007. Since its inception on July 1, 2008, the Center has adopted three thematic areas:

The prevention of violence
Peace studies
Creation of opportunities for the development of new leaders for this Century

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. Colin Goddard: they guy who did to gun shows what James O'Keefe did to ACORN.

But it was for a good cause, so it justified the means. And only a lout would wonder why the unedited videos have yet to surface...
<sarcasm mode to OFF>

[PavePusher]

93. +1. n/t

[PavePusher]

92. Why did you dodge the entire self-defense and liability issue?

What I am pushing is a pro-self-defense issue. You seem to be against that. I have to wonder... why.

[DanTex]

102. Self defense and liability issue?

If you are pushing some crazy right-wing theory that more access to guns reduces gun violence, you'll forgive me if I don't take you seriously.

It would be like the Koch brothers holding rally right outside a homeless shelter that was just closed down, and defending their actions by insisting that being thrown out on the streets with no food or shelter is actually helpful to the homeless.

I get that there are right-wing theories and justifications for anything, but I think it's ugly when people try to rub them in the faces of the victims of those very same theories.

[iverglas]

118. the idea is ...

Joe surprises a bad guy breaking into his house, bad guy points a gun at Joe, Joe is too fast for him and shoots him dead.

Bad guy's family, in the bad old days and the bad liberal places, now sues Joe for wrongful death. Poor Joe.

Never mind the possibility that even if Joe avoided a conviction by some trick of legislation or reasonable doubt (or worse) in the minds of a jury, there might still be at least an arguable basis for civil liability on his part, e.g. the use of excessive force, or simply the absence of any reasonable belief to justify the use of the force.

It's kind of a fundamental point of, oh, the rule of law that people be able to access the courts to seek redress for wrongs.

It seems to be a fundamental tenet of the gun militant ideology, however, that no one should ever be able to seek redress through the judicial system for any alleged wrong that in any way involves a firearm.

[ManiacJoe]

124. That is a pretty large strawman you have there.

"It seems to be a fundamental tenet of the gun militant ideology, however, that no one should ever be able to seek redress through the judicial system for any alleged wrong that in any way involves a firearm."

Unless you are using an extremely narrow definition of "gun militant".

[iverglas]

126. I'm sorry

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[PavePusher]

136. Dodge. n/t

[Remmah2]

46. 1st Amendment as with the entire Bill of Rights applies equally.

I've never read any clauses in the Bill of Rights about not being offended.

[iverglas]

60. "I've never read any clauses in the Bill of Rights about not being offended. "

And there's nothing there about not calling people engaging in speech assholes when what they are doing is assholish.

C'mon, you can do it.


I guess I should watch the video. Maybe they were calling for the people who attend this demonstration to be arrested.

If that's the case, your comment would not have been as pointless as it appears to be.

[Remmah2]

62. That's right.

Only some people should be allowed to express their opinions.

Only some people should be allowed to vote.

Civil rights should only belong to select groups of people in society.

Are you Bloombergs's nephew?

[iverglas]

63. well it's sad that you feel that way

Only some people should be allowed to express their opinions.
Only some people should be allowed to vote.
Civil rights should only belong to select groups of people in society.

Is this what you learned in school?


Are you Bloombergs's nephew?

Snork.

[Remmah2]

87. It seems that's the type of society you endorse.

Sorry about the Bloomberg crack. He's a short, ugly, dipstick, American mayor and I realize you've never been elected.

[iverglas]

99. it seems that the type of society you endorse

is one where people think that misrepresentation and deceit are how to win.

I'm perfectly aware of who Bloomberg is. It's your ignorance of who I am that amuses.

[rl6214]

114. "It's your ignorance of who I am that amuses."

Snork

[PavePusher]

95. What is "assholish" about a pro-self-defense rally? n/t

[SteveM]

85. We are in agreement? The "pro-gun" rally is legal and should be protected? nt

[ileus]

89. no guns kill people and pro-gun rallys should be illegal.

[iverglas]

100. did someone say otherwise?

Shall we all agree that water is wet, now?

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

147. you make the allegation

Now substantiate.

"vile bigotry"

Quote some, will you PavePusher? Please?