Friends in Las Vegas, please check in.

[BeardedOne]

I'm watching the news from Vegas and the carnage from the area around Mandalay Bay and all I could think of was all the people we know in the area.

Just got a note from Kylie Maria assuring everyone that she is safe. Can we please get similar notes from the rest of our friends in Vegas?

[Ts RedVeX]

NO! Luckily most people aren't communist enough to be whoring out attention from events like this by pretending how much they care about folks who they have never, most likely never will, or never would have met in their lives. If you know and care about one, you can surely call or visit them yourself.

[Ben in LA]

NO! Luckily most people aren't communist enough to be whoring out attention from events like this by pretending how much they care about folks who they have never, most likely never will, or never would have met in their lives. If you know and care about one, you can surely call or visit them yourself.

Well since I live in Los Angeles and will be in Las Vegas later this weekend, I indeed WILL be visiting as many of them as time permits (it’s a work trip). However, many of the people Bearded One is referring to I (and other folks on this forum) know personally and they have already checked in via the various social media accounts, mainly Facebook and Twitter. Two young ladies even called ME to let me know they’re fine.

Fortunately almost all of said people in Las Vegas don’t live anywhere close to the Strip; pretty much all of them live on the west side and were in bed when the terrorist act occurred. All of them were grateful that people are worrying about how they are doing in this situation. Hell, some of them actually DID receive calls...multiple ones in fact.

Lots of people in the industry (and this scene in general) happen to live in an internationally known city that just witnessed a horrible act. Jumping on a person for worrying about the well-being of someone, whether they’re a stranger to that person or not, is kinda shitty. Believe it or not not all of the people here are just chasers glossing over the girl with the biggest dick; some of us actually ARE considerate of how they’re doing in the real world...and this evil act unfortunately IS the real world.

[Stavros]

NO! Luckily most people aren't communist enough to be whoring out attention from events like this by pretending how much they care about folks who they have never, most likely never will, or never would have met in their lives. If you know and care about one, you can surely call or visit them yourself.

So I guess Solidarity just ain't your thing?

[brummie]

With Redvex being brought up in a communist dictatorship she will know about Solidarity not the fake tears, hashtags and petitions we have after these atrocities
She is right in her post

[ed_jaxon]

Sorry, but Red Vex is absolutely wrong. I have been on this forum over 10 years and have made a lot of friends on here. This would be the first place I would check for news that some people are ok.

I know Ben well and while I have not met B1 irl, I consider him a friend. His concern is genuine. I met Ruby on here and found out information about her passing here. Yeah I met her irl as well.

I literally have made scores of friends on here who I have then met, partied with, had over to my house or been to their house.

Ain't shit fake about our concern and our friendship.

I know Red Vex is friends with Nikki so I assume she is cool. But in this case, wrong.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Well, that took a surprising turn.

[Ts RedVeX]

Friends do not need boards like this, or any public boards for that matter, to check on each-other.

As for Solidarity, it was just another communist con aimed at making people believe something was changing and calm things down. There is a nice sketch about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqA_Ao8mpBQ but you need to speak Polish and know a bit about history to understand it. Wordplay in this one is a masterpiece...

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Looks like we have a rebel in here. How edgy. *rolls eyes*

[Stavros]

Friends do not need boards like this, or any public boards for that matter, to check on each-other.

As for Solidarity, it was just another communist con aimed at making people believe something was changing and calm things down. There is a nice sketch about it but you need to speak Polish and know a bit about history to understand it. Wordplay in this one is a masterpiece...

Your dismissal of Solidarity as a 'communist con' is verifiable rubbish. You are free to use social media like HungAngels when it meets your needs, and to dismiss it as an irrelevance when it does not.

[Ts RedVeX]

Would you verify that it is rubbish then for us, please?

[Stavros]

Would you verify that it is rubbish then for us, please?

When I offered a riposte to your cynical post dismissing HA as a conduit for anyone caught up in the dreadful events in Las Vegas, it was intended to suggest you might want to show more empathy and solidarity for them. I did not intend it to become a vehicle for your bizarre re-interpretation of history. In fact, before you were born, I was outside the Polish Embassy on Portland Place on that Sunday morning, December 13 1981, to protest against Jaruzelski's declaration of Martial Law, standing next to a Polish comrade from the Labour Party and others from other parties and none, and a week or so later marched in London to support Solidarity. It means nothing to you or the ghosts of Gdynia, but it meant something to me. A year after it was formed in 1980, Solidarity could boast a membership of 10 million, compare that to the current membership of the Labour Party of Great Britain, c517,000 and the largest in Europe.

10 million people broke the mould of Polish politics, they broke the back of the Polish United Workers Party and paved the way for the free society in which you once lived. That the governments of a free Poland have made peace with former Communists and not shut them out of politics is part of the process of healing. You are, of course, free to support Kaczyński, but please acknowledge that Solidarity -without whom he would not be in politics- has made it possible. Kaczyński is hostile to the European Union, perhaps you are too. But without Solidarity and the EU you would not be free to live and work in the UK, free to pay taxes and enjoy the benefits they provide, such as the right to vote in local elections, and, unlike in Poland, the right to marry anyone you want. I welcome you to the UK because I welcome everyone, is Poland so welcoming under Kaczyński?

Solidarity means something, it meant something in Poland, just as it means something today when we stand with the people who went to a three-day long, Route 91 Harvest festival of country music to enjoy themselves and not fall victim to the lunacy of gun violence.

[BeardedOne]

....

[BeardedOne]

Yet Kylie, who lived up the road from me and Lisa, who I had a very close relationship with, are not people I should care about?

Anyone ever tell you what a complete shitdrizzle of a 'human being' you are?

Fuckwad.

I'm worried about my friends and people I care about. You, clearly, care about no one.


NO! Luckily most people aren't communist enough to be whoring out attention from events like this by pretending how much they care about folks who they have never, most likely never will, or never would have met in their lives. If you know and care about one, you can surely call or visit them yourself.

[jdlo56]

its just so sad to hear about this senseless loss of life due to gun violence.....this country needed sensible gun control NOW

[Ts RedVeX]

1. You wrote "Solidarity" rather than solidarity, so no, you were indeed referring to the party rather than solidarity or empathy. I do feel sorry for the people who got injured or slaughtered in the massacre. They believed the communist propaganda that discouraged them from exercising their constitutional right of bearing a gun and even being able to try and defend themselves.

2. Originally, Solidarity, was called PPS (Partia Pracownicza Solidarnosc) and itwas indeed a communist labour party of comrades. There isn't much resources in about that one so that people don't have many opportunities to know it even existed. The Solidarity that was formed in 1980, NSZZ Solidarnosc (Niezalezny Samorzadowy Zwiazek Zawodowy Solidarnosc), after PPS had been dissolved, was merely a medium for transferring power from the state to someone the state could easily control, e.g. by blackmail, so to agents of the Secret Police, SB (Sluzby Bezpieczenstwa), and petty snitches like Lech Walesa. Such operation was necessary as people had enough of "the system" and would not trust anyone related to it (such as gen. Jaruzelski). They would however trust an simple electrician from the shipyard.

General Wojciech Jaruzelski's decision about overthrowing the communist regime by introducing martial law was a partially successful attempt to liberate Poland. Otherwise, NSZZ Solidarnosc, which consisted of gen. Czeslaw Kiszczak's agents, would have taken over. Unfortunately no reforms took place under Jaruzelski's reign until 1988.

If any of you thinks that building your points of view solely around free (communist) Wikipedia's resources or posts from people who are for taking one's liberty to carry a gun around is a good idea, then you should probably think again.

[Sheepwash]

I haven't got this from Wikipedia, but the final sentence of point 1. above is seriously stupid.

[blackchubby38]

1. You wrote "Solidarity" rather than solidarity, so no, you were indeed referring to the party rather than solidarity or empathy. I do feel sorry for the people who got injured or slaughtered in the massacre. They believed the communist propaganda that discouraged them from exercising their constitutional right of bearing a gun and even being able to try and defend themselves.

2. Originally, Solidarity, was called PPS (Partia Pracownicza Solidarnosc) and itwas indeed a communist labour party of comrades. There isn't much resources in about that one so that people don't have many opportunities to know it even existed. The Solidarity that was formed in 1980, NSZZ Solidarnosc (Niezalezny Samorzadowy Zwiazek Zawodowy Solidarnosc), after PPS had been dissolved, was merely a medium for transferring power from the state to someone the state could easily control, e.g. by blackmail, so to agents of the Secret Police, SB (Sluzby Bezpieczenstwa), and petty snitches like Lech Walesa. Such operation was necessary as people had enough of "the system" and would not trust anyone related to it (such as gen. Jaruzelski). They would however trust an simple electrician from the shipyard.

General Wojciech Jaruzelski's decision about overthrowing the communist regime by introducing martial law was a partially successful attempt to liberate Poland. Otherwise, NSZZ Solidarnosc, which consisted of gen. Czeslaw Kiszczak's agents, would have taken over. Unfortunately no reforms took place under Jaruzelski's reign until 1988.

If any of you thinks that building your points of view solely around free (communist) Wikipedia's resources or posts from people who are for taking one's liberty to carry a gun around is a good idea, then you should probably think again.

Regarding point #1: I can guarantee that a majority of the people in that audience not only believed in their constitutional right of a bearing gun and being able to defend themselves, some of them probably had a weapon on them that night. There's just no defense when you're being gunned down by some psychopath on the 32 second floor of a hotel.

[ed_jaxon]

B1 your thread has been totally hijacked.

[Ts RedVeX]

Regarding point #1: I can guarantee that a majority of the people in that audience not only believed in their constitutional right of a bearing gun and being able to defend themselves, some of them probably had a weapon on them that night. There's just no defense when you're being gunned down by some psychopath on the 32 second floor of a hotel.

Of course there isn't, if you don't have a gun and know how to use it yourself.

[Stavros]

B1 your thread has been totally hijacked.

Indeed, and I apologise to all for sending this thread in the wrong direction, it was a play on the word Solidarity/solidarity and has not led to any insights on contemporary Poland or the cause and effect of the massacre in Las Vegas.

[Aticus100]

Of course there isn't, if you don't have a gun and know how to use it yourself.

The sheer stupidity of this statement is only made worse by it seeming to come from someone we might otherwise assum to intelligent.

What do yo suggest the crowd should have done? Opened return fir in the Mandalay Bay Hotel?

I’m not trying to seem confrontational or abusive, but the stupidity of your comments are remarkable.

[broncofan]

I think that this thread came from a place of decency after a really inhumane attack. No matter what economic system we have people will be able to voluntarily show concern for one another. That is not the same thing as forced economic egalitarianism. It is not on the pathway to it either as it lacks compulsion, and has nothing to do with ownership of assets.

And it is amazing that given the number of these attacks and the number of other Americans who own guns, a person shooting the assailant is almost unprecedented. In this case, it's not even worth discussing. In other cases, where it's possible, there are reasons it so rarely happens and someone carrying a gun is more likely to accidentally shoot someone else or if he has a short fuse, do it intentionally.

Anyhow, I think the thread is a great idea...even if I don't know someone personally, if I've heard of them or spoken to them online, I am interested to hear they're alright.

[broncofan]

If any of you thinks that building your points of view solely around free (communist) Wikipedia's resources or posts from people who are for taking one's liberty to carry a gun around is a good idea, then you should probably think again.
So your definition of Communism is so broad it includes any collective endeavor or crowdsourced service.

I had a bunch of friends help me move one time instead of hiring movers. When they were placing the furniture down at my new apartment one of them said, "where do you want the couch?", and I responded, "in the corner comrade, and you mean where do WE want the couch." I know you lived under a Communist system but if you define it so broadly it precludes any cooperation or sense of broader community.

[Ts RedVeX]

My definition of a communist, to put it simple, would be something like "a greedy successful capitalist who started lying to gain even more profit"

Coming back to my defense of your rights.. Look at the terror attacks that had taken place in France, where people do are not allowed to carry guns around, where the terrorists simply walk into a restaurant or a nightclub, and open fire. No need to look for locations beyond range of an average guy with a pistol. If anything, this attack is a call for changing your pistols to rifles, and definitely not having your gun rights taken away or restricted.

Hypothetical situation. Maybe you are a communist standing behind the attack. You are not sure whether the inconvenient person who was supposed to attend that gig was silenced. How do you check whether your henchman did a good job? - Let's use some idiot, preferably the target's friend or acquaintance to ask on social media!

[peejaye]

Not sure where this thread is going?
A quote from Twitter reads;
Number of Americans killed by firearms since 1968 stands at 1,516,863 !
Source Richard Bacon. Works for BBC & lives in LA.

[Aticus100]

Redvex, all your hypothetical “what if the more good days had bigger guns” theories fall complexity apart when you look at the most basic of stats.

The American example simply proves that more guns = more innocent people killed.

As for the rest of you last post, you have complexity entered into the tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theory realm there so clearly sensible discourse with you is pointless.

[peejaye]

If anything, this attack is a call for changing your pistols to rifles, and definitely not having your gun rights taken away or restricted.



That's the problem Vex. It's exactly what is happening there! Gun-sales have risen dramatically since the shooting!
One and half million lives lost in almost 50 years :smh

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Of course there isn't, if you don't have a gun and know how to use it yourself.

Sean Hannity basically said the same stupid thing you said regarding the shooting.

[Ts RedVeX]

Here are two random articles with deceptive titles, that at some point actually state that stricter gun rights do not mean fewer deaths:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/05/obamas-claim-that-states-with-the-most-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/?utm_term=.bc79b172e65b
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/50-state-study-more-gun-laws-fewer-deaths/

I do agree that trying to hit a guy 100 metres away, during an ambush in the middle of the night is probably a bad idea without the right equipment and training. I just totally don't get those of you who want to waive their rights! Why make it easier for terrorists to get you? Do you really believe terrorists or communists of other type will obey your strict gun rights? I'd say get stricter laws, some more censorship or "political correctness" - as people like to call it these days, invent a few more homophobias and racisms to divide society and prevent people from trusting each-other, and you will have to add another "S" in the "USA" and change those stars into tiny hammers and sickles.

[Aticus100]

Redvex, interestingly you are not responding to any of the comments made but are simply "sticking to your guns" and insisting that somehow arming the populace will make the world a safer place.

In countries (like ours) where stricter gun laws have been enforced, mass killings have gone down. It's that simple.

The ridiculous notion that terrorist (or lunatic) attacks are somehow a fair fight where the average citizen can take effective action is Hollywood bullshit.

You cant treat these attacks in isolation. Sure, in every individual instance then if the right person were in the right place at the right time with a gun then the attacks could be stopped sooner.

But this is on such a scale that it comes down to statistics. And statically speaking, if guns are less available, then lunatics find it harder to acquire them and are therefore less effective on the whole.

All this "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun" falls flat on its face when you consider that until the point when he decided to murder 58 people and wound hundreds more, Stephen Padock, a mild mannered, law abiding, retired accountant would have been the NRA's poster boy example of a good guy with a gun.

Even in your unrealistic world where someone in the crowd spots a gunman in a window 32 stories up and manages to pull off a very improbable shot to defend the crowd, an assault rifle would be of little use.

Assault rifles are intended to lay down maximum rounds in minimum time against multiple targets. So owning one for self defence in bollox unless you actually believe in a Russian invasion, alien attack or zombie apocalypse.

The only reason anyone needs an AR is to compensate for their own self-perceived inadequacies.

I do not speak from a position of ignorance and please feel free to debate this rather than regurgitating pro-gun propaganda and soundbites.

[BeardedOne]

Meh. Story of my life. :/

I've heard from Kylie and Crona and haven't heard anything =bad= about anyone I know out there, so I'm less worried now than I was earlier.

After hearing of Ruby's passing not more than a day after I'd been chatting with her I've been a bit edgy. :(


B1 your thread has been totally hijacked.

[Ts RedVeX]

Redvex, interestingly you are not responding to any of the comments made but are simply "sticking to your guns" and insisting that somehow arming the populace will make the world a safer place.
- I am responding, and I do think you should stick to your guns.

In countries (like ours) where stricter gun laws have been enforced, mass killings have gone down. It's that simple.
- You will see that is not true if you read more than just the news' headlines.

The ridiculous notion that terrorist (or lunatic) attacks are somehow a fair fight where the average citizen can take effective action is Hollywood bullshit.
- If I was to get shot dead I would personally at least be able to take any action at all.

You cant treat these attacks in isolation. Sure, in every individual instance then if the right person were in the right place at the right time with a gun then the attacks could be stopped sooner.
- I agree (and your statement does contradict your previous statement about lack of efficiency).

But this is on such a scale that it comes down to statistics. And statically speaking, if guns are less available, then lunatics find it harder to acquire them and are therefore less effective on the whole.
- This is complete nonsense. If gun restrictions are in place, a lunatic or criminal who wants a gun is more likely to get one than an average law-abiding person.

All this "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun" falls flat on its face when you consider that until the point when he decided to murder 58 people and wound hundreds more, Stephen Padock, a mild mannered, law abiding, retired accountant would have been the NRA's poster boy example of a good guy with a gun. - I have no idea who this guy was and I assume that neither do you.

Even in your unrealistic world where someone in the crowd spots a gunman in a window 32 stories up and manages to pull off a very improbable shot to defend the crowd, an assault rifle would be of little use.
- I agree. I am no expert, but a rocket launcher would probably be better.

Assault rifles are intended to lay down maximum rounds in minimum time against multiple targets. So owning one for self defence in bollox unless you actually believe in a Russian invasion, alien attack or zombie apocalypse.
- or multiple targets, e.g. if you are dealing with a bunch of gangsters in a car. Rifles also have longer range. Again, I am no expert on firearms.

The only reason anyone needs an AR is to compensate for their own self-perceived inadequacies.
- One may as well get a bigger car for that purpose.

I do not speak from a position of ignorance and please feel free to debate this rather than regurgitating pro-gun propaganda and soundbites.
- There was not much to debate apart from gun-related statements.

My negative stance on attempting to make people check-in on social media remains.

[Aticus100]

There was not much to debate apart from gun-related statements.

Your suggestion that if the crowd in Las Vegas had been batter armed they could have defended themselves?

You suggestion that if the populace in general were better armed there would be less mass killings?

You could choose to offer some reason to support your point of view. You might even change my mind.

[Ts RedVeX]

If everyone was walking around with weapons, people would know what responsibility and respect mean. There would be no bullying because even a group of thugs could be taken out by a cripple. Communists would know better who they offer free rooms to - even if it were only for the possibility of having to rebuild a few rooms which blown up with bazookas in self-defense...

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

If everyone was walking around with weapons, people would know what responsibility and respect mean. There would be no bullying because even a group of thugs could be taken out by a cripple. Communists would know better who they offer free rooms to - even if it were only for the possibility of having to rebuild a few rooms which blown up with bazookas in self-defense...

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Everyone having guns doesn't instil respect or responsibility. Most people having guns would be a reactive thing. People all over the world test other people/groups who carry weapons all the time. and not everyone who owns a gun now would even be responsible enough or have enough control over their emotions and adrenaline to effectively use their weapon. You think it's as easy as drawing your weapon in a video game. Firing at a gun range is not the same as firing at an active shooter and remaining calm and still effective. Just like punching a heavy bag doesn't mean you'll be effective in an actual street fight.

Also a GROUP of thugs being taken out by someone who is crippled? If we're turn into a society where everyone is armed, what makes you think a group of thugs won't be?

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Also, try having your gun out trying to take out an active shooter on a campus. If you aren't law enforcement, you will get shot on sight.

[Ts RedVeX]

Finally someone starts to agree with me, in saying that firing a gun at a shooting range - with helpless targets that can maybe move around a bit - is not the same as shooting a target that can actually retaliate.

By saying "...everyone was walking around with guns" I meant that "potentially, anyone could be walking around with a gun". That is your freedom. Nobody tells you that you must walk around carrying a gun and nobody should tell you that you must not be carrying a gun. If you are an irresponsible individual, then maybe you had best not walk around with a gun. If you are irresponsible then maybe you had best at least show some respect and not undermine your constitution.

[MrFanti]

Ah never mind.....

[Aticus100]

Finally someone starts to agree with me, in saying that firing a gun at a shooting range - with helpless targets that can maybe move around a bit - is not the same as shooting a target that can actually retaliate.

By saying "...everyone was walking around with guns" I meant that "potentially, anyone could be walking around with a gun". That is your freedom. Nobody tells you that you must walk around carrying a gun and nobody should tell you that you must not be carrying a gun. If you are an irresponsible individual, then maybe you had best not walk around with a gun. If you are irresponsible then maybe you had best at least show some respect and not undermine your constitution.

And yet you have chosen to come and live on the UK where the most stringent of gun laws mean that there are very few gun incidedents.

There are plenty of parts of the world where any idiot with a few dollars can arm themselves to the teeth and where innocent people being shot is a dailey occurrence. And yet here you are in what, according to your reasoning should be a violent anarchic state where know one respects anyone and people kill others with no fear of retribution all the time. You are living proof that you are wrong.

[Ts RedVeX]

Guns and legal restrictions regarding possession of firearms in America are directly related to this thread's subject. At least in my opinion. I had not even considered those restrictions, which is only one tiny aspect of living in the UK, when I was moving here.

It is very common that when someone says "everyone should be allowed to have a gun" some communist is going to spin it into "everyone will have a gun". That gets sold to the public as "everyone will be shooting everyone" because they will have means to do it. This is total nonsense. If you say "every male has a dick, therefore he will be raping others" you will probably get laughed at. "Every cook (the non-professional ones like your wives too) has a knife so they will be walking around the kitchen stabbing people" is another one... I really do not get your logic.

[Aticus100]

At the point that you are unable to make any comment without blaming communists for something I will remove myself from the debate. You make no sense. That’s probably the fault of the communists.

[Ben in LA]

Try open-carrying while black. Oops...forget it.

[MrFanti]

Try open-carrying while black. Oops...forget it.

Actually, here in Texas, quite a few Blacks open carry. I don't myself but I work with quite a few of us who do.
Perhaps in part because Texas has a huge military and former or retired military populace.

[Ts RedVeX]

There you go. Texas has normal, decent people who do not like communists, and the problem does not even exist. - Logic.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Texas has normal people as opposed to any other state?

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Finally someone starts to agree with me, in saying that firing a gun at a shooting range - with helpless targets that can maybe move around a bit - is not the same as shooting a target that can actually retaliate.

By saying "...everyone was walking around with guns" I meant that "potentially, anyone could be walking around with a gun". That is your freedom. Nobody tells you that you must walk around carrying a gun and nobody should tell you that you must not be carrying a gun. If you are an irresponsible individual, then maybe you had best not walk around with a gun. If you are irresponsible then maybe you had best at least show some respect and not undermine your constitution.

You should've clarified that in the beginning or just said it this way in the beginning. You can't speak in absolutes and then expect someone to know that you were implying that they "potentially" could own guns. Your phrasing plays it as an actually possible scenario. If everyone "potentially" could carry guns, which they already can, bad people with guns would still try people regardless because it happens all over the world where people confront others who knowingly have guns on them, so it wouldn't matter much how you explained it. The outcome would likely be the same.

[Stavros]

There you go. Texas has normal, decent people who do not like communists, and the problem does not even exist. - Logic.

1032395

1032396

[MrFanti]

There you go. Texas has normal, decent people who do not like communists, and the problem does not even exist. - Logic.

Texas is growing at a rate more than most other states!

[peejaye]

There you go. Texas has normal, decent people who do not like communists, and the problem does not even exist. - Logic.

Normal? 3,200 people, last year, were killed from gun-related incidents! It seems to be rising year by year....surprise-surprise!

http://www.txgunsense.org/gun-violence-facts

[Ts RedVeX]

Oh dear.. Has there been any Vegas-style concerts in Texas recently? Have commies abandoned their little United Soviet States of Europe project already and moved on?

[MrFanti]

Redoing this one...

[MrFanti]

Nevermind again......

[MrFanti]

Normal? 3,200 people, last year, were killed from gun-related incidents! It seems to be rising year by year....surprise-surprise!

http://www.txgunsense.org/gun-violence-facts

You know, if you were in the US, I'd take some stock in your statement....but since you aren't, I'm not....

[peejaye]

Listen; I would never be a citizen of a country which allows firearms to be sold to people age 18 but won't sell beer to them until they reach the age of 21 :nervous:
Fucking lunatics!

[MrFanti]

Listen; I would never be a citizen of a country which allows firearms to be sold to people age 18 but won't sell beer to them until they reach the age of 21 :nervous:
Fucking lunatics!

And your answer here is EXACTLY why I didn't take any stock in your previous statement - thank you for confirming!

[peejaye]

Oh dear! So much for the wonderful world wide web then :ignore:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_the_United_States_by_state

[Ts RedVeX]

Hmm.. Can anyone help me find the stats for killings? Murder is when you assault. What about stats about those who defended themselves?

[peejaye]

Hmm.. Can anyone help me find the stats for killings? Murder is when you assault. What about stats about those who defended themselves?

Good luck with that one!
Apologies to any US citizens who don't support the "Gun lobby" for generalising in an earlier post :ignore:

[broncofan]

There you go. Texas has normal, decent people who do not like communists, and the problem does not even exist. - Logic.
https://www.cp-texas.org/

Uh-oh:) Are you and Mr. Fanti members? Do you know anyone who are members? If so when did you know?

[MrFanti]

Rapper Ice-T (who is a US citizen and Democrat) understands what it's all about.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ice-t-guns-are-last-form-defense-against-tyranny-not-hunt

[Ts RedVeX]

There is a simple test on how to tell a communist from a normal person:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=fallout+communist&&view=detail&mid=788FAB64EEC2A935487E788FAB64EEC2A935487E&FORM=VRDGAR

[MrFanti]

Listen; I would never be a citizen of a country which allows firearms to be sold to people age 18 but won't sell beer to them until they reach the age of 21 :nervous:
Fucking lunatics!

Not sure why you bother to even continue to comment then....Unless of course you have a self-centered complex....

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Hmm.. Can anyone help me find the stats for killings? Murder is when you assault. What about stats about those who defended themselves?

Murder and assault are two different things.

[broncofan]

Murder and assault are two different things.
Assault is a lesser included charge of murder. Every murder involves an assault which is usually not charged because the murder is the primary charge. She's saying she wants statistics that show self-defense rather than criminal use of weapons.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Assault is a lesser included charge of murder. Every murder involves an assault which is usually not charged because the murder is the primary charge. She's saying she wants statistics that show self-defense rather than criminal use of weapons.

Wanting those statistics is understandable but phrasing murder how she did is just misleading. It's like saying rape is when you commit battery.

I'll try to find those stats.

[SanDiegoPervySage]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Justifiable homicide makes up a very small percentage of all gun related deaths.

[Ts RedVeX]

Small percentage?!

Let's consider 2010...

table 15: 232 justifiable homicides by private citizens;
table 14: 385 justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers;
table 11: 8775 murders by means of firearms;

So you have killings out of which 6.6% are justified homicides out of which almost 38% are done by private citizens and just above 62% are committed by law enforcement.

I don't know about you but my opinion is that private citizens are doing a damn good job defending their own asses with their guns.

[last_stop]

Good luck with that one!
Apologies to any US citizens who don't support the "Gun lobby" for generalising in an earlier post :ignore:

Yeah. Some of us are still sane.

[MrFanti]

Yeah. Some of us are still sane.

BINGO!!!
It's the INSANE person - not the weapon that commits the crime!

Thanks again for confirming this!

[MrFanti]

There's marijuana and poppers deaths also.....You guys want to ban those too?

That alcohol ban worked real well......

Maybe to be on the safe side, we should ban alcohol again since alcohol related death numbers are HUGE!!!!!

[broncofan]

Small percentage?!

Let's consider 2010...

table 15: 232 justifiable homicides by private citizens;
table 14: 385 justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers;
table 11: 8775 murders by means of firearms;

So you have killings out of which 6.6% are justified homicides out of which almost 38% are done by private citizens and just above 62% are committed by law enforcement.

I don't know about you but my opinion is that private citizens are doing a damn good job defending their own asses with their guns.
A few things to consider: most of the unjustified homicides were probably committed by private citizens. Therefore the fact that justified killings were 2.6% of the total number of murders is not that impressive. Overall, for every time a gun is used to kill an assailant, there are about 15 unjustified murders with a gun. And that's including both the police officer and private citizen numbers.

I will also point out that the 8775 number only includes murders and doesn't seem to include manslaughter. If we're talking about the usefulness of guns it would also be relevant to include the number of accidental killings with guns and suicides, which drives down your 2.6% even more.

[broncofan]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

I believe it was cdc numbers that says there were 606 accidental firearm deaths in 2010. According to Pew Research (link above) 19,392 people committed suicide with guns in 2010. Of course some of those people would have found other ways to kill themselves if they did not have guns, but many would not have. Attempts to commit suicide with a gun are successful over 95% of the time, whereas other means have much lower success rates. And many people who fail don't try to kill themselves again.

Finally, just to put the above number of justified killings in perspective: more than twice as many people died from accidental gun discharge than by justified killing by a private citizen in 2010! Not too promising!

[broncofan]

A few things to consider: most of the unjustified homicides were probably committed by private citizens. Therefore the fact that justified killings were 2.6% of the total number of murders is not that impressive. .
Sorry I didn't make this clear. The 2.6% is 232/8775, so I'm talking about justified killings by private citizens. That's not a high percent, particularly as I said above that 606 people were killed in 2010 by shmucks accidentally discharging their guns.

[MrFanti]

Upon much deliberate thought, how about everyone meet at the middle of the road here.

Since alcohol kills approximately 3 TIMES as many Americans as guns do, why don't we just ban both alcohol and guns?
http://anonhq.com/alcohol-kills-nearly-3x-time-more-american-each-year-than-gun/

If folks are really concerned about "senseless deaths" then banning both alcohol and guns should be an easy decision for you folks....

[MrFanti]

Yep the data is out there. Alcohol kills way more Americans than guns do...
http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html

So those "sane" folks that say guns should banned logically should also be advocating for the ban of alcohol too!

[broncofan]

Upon much deliberate thought, how about everyone meet at the middle of the road here.

Since alcohol kills approximately 3 TIMES as many Americans as guns do, why don't we just ban both alcohol and guns?
http://anonhq.com/alcohol-kills-nearly-3x-time-more-american-each-year-than-gun/

If folks are really concerned about "senseless deaths" then banning both alcohol and guns should be an easy decision for you folks....
Previously everyone was arguing over whether guns save lives. I'm glad you've given up on that argument and are comparing it to an addictive substance. I'm also glad you deleted the marijuana article you posted that you thought discussed marijuana deaths but which actually said it's one of the least toxic substances available.

Arguing that alcohol is also harmful doesn't really suggest guns are not. Nobody is suggesting guns should be banned, only regulated. If there were a way to make alcohol consumption safer, and there are a few ways (see Dram Shop Acts) I would be all for it.

[filghy2]

Yep the data is out there. Alcohol kills way more Americans than guns do...
http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html

So those "sane" folks that say guns should banned logically should also be advocating for the ban of alcohol too!

Alcohol is actually regulated to try to reduce these risks, which is what sensible people are proposing to do with guns. Most obviously, it's illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol, which is one of the main causes of alcohol-related deaths. There's also a bunch of restrictions on the sale of alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States

[SanDiegoPervySage]

Small percentage?!

Let's consider 2010...

table 15: 232 justifiable homicides by private citizens;
table 14: 385 justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers;
table 11: 8775 murders by means of firearms;

So you have killings out of which 6.6% are justified homicides out of which almost 38% are done by private citizens and just above 62% are committed by law enforcement.

I don't know about you but my opinion is that private citizens are doing a damn good job defending their own asses with their guns.

The point isn't about whether or not civilians are doing a good job at defending themselves. The point is 6.6 percent is a small percentage, which you didn't really dispute with any useful information. If 10 percent of that 6.6 percent were justified homicides by civilians, you'd probably still say they're doing a good job.

[filghy2]

The most telling data are international comparisons of murder rates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
In the US in 2015, 4.88 people were murdered for every 100,000 inhabitants. The next highest among countries generally classified as advanced was Belgium with 1.95 murders per 100,000 people. Most have even lower rates, eg Canada 1.68, Australia 0.98, UK 0.92, Germany 0.85, Japan 0.31. So an American is 4-5 times more likely to be murdered than people in most other developed countries.

These data include all murders, which covers the argument that people will use other weapons if they don't have guns. However, the UNODC data shows that about 60% of murders in the US involve guns, a far higher percentage than in other developed countries. https://data.unodc.org/ So If we include only gun murders, the disparity between the US and other countries is even greater. The US also has the highest rate of gun ownership by far - around 1 gun per person, which is 3-4 times higher than other developed countries. http://www.gunpolicy.org/

Would any of you gun nuts care to explain how this can be consistent with your contention that widespread access to guns makes people safer?

[MrFanti]

Arguing that alcohol is also harmful doesn't really suggest guns are not. .

So when I filter out the BS, what you're essentially saying is this:

"Don't take away MY alcohol - I don't care how many innocent people have to die, I want to drink!"...

[MrFanti]

Alcohol is actually regulated to try to reduce these risks, which is what sensible people are proposing to do with guns. Most obviously, it's illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol, which is one of the main causes of alcohol-related deaths. There's also a bunch of restrictions on the sale of alcohol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.
So are you ready to stand up for lives and move to ban both or are you going to stay hypocritical so you can enjoy your beverages - while a few innocent people get killed by drunk drivers tonight, or a few people die from alcohol induced cirrohsis of the liver?

[MrFanti]

Every day, 28 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This is one death every 51 minutes.1 The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

And what's incredible is that some folks around here want to ban guns but DON'T want to ban alcohol - this is hypocrisy defined - and they call themselves "sane" too!

[filghy2]

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.
So are you ready to stand up for lives and move to ban both or are you going to stay hypocritical so you can enjoy your beverages - while a few innocent people get killed by drunk drivers tonight, or a few people die from alcohol induced cirrohsis of the liver?

Spare us the crocodile tears. It's obvious you are just using one of the gun lobby's classic diversionary tactics. The merits of more regulation of guns don't depend on the merits of more regulation of alcohol (or vice versa).

[filghy2]

And guns are regulated too. Yet regulated guns and alcohol both cause unnecessary deaths.

Guns are barely regulated at all in the US, mainly because the NRA has lobbied strongly against any efforts to make regulation effective. From what I've read, Stephen Paddock may not even have broken any laws in acquiring his arsenal. In any case, the fact that regulation is not effective is not an argument for not having any. The fact that people still get killed by drunk drivers does not mean we would be safer without any drink-driving laws.

There is also a big difference between people choosing to harm their own health, which we don't normally regulate, and people harming others. The inherent purpose of a gun is to inflict or threaten harm, which is not the case with alcohol.

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti, to be fair you have well and truly called out here on you attempt to feign concern for the mis-use of drink or drugs to justify owning a gun.

If you want a gun, at least just stand up say “fuck it, I just want one”

There is no comparison to be made between gun deaths and drink/drug/car/horse riding/lawn mowing/ whatever the fuck deaths.

A death by these other means is an accident caused by mid-use.

A gun death is not mis-use. It is as a result of the gun being used for the only purpose it was designed.

[peejaye]

Yep the data is out there. Alcohol kills way more Americans than guns do...
http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html

So those "sane" folks that say guns should banned logically should also be advocating for the ban of alcohol too!

Unbelievable! Thank fuck I live 4,500 miles away from you!

[broncofan]

So when I filter out the BS, what you're essentially saying is this:

"Don't take away MY alcohol - I don't care how many innocent people have to die, I want to drink!"...
The very next sentence of my post said that neither alcohol nor guns should be banned but both should be regulated. In the politics forum I discuss how guns can be regulated, even according to Scalia, without violating the second amendment. In addition to constant strawman arguments you also seem to change the subject repeatedly, in a way that is similar in spirit to the tu quoque fallacy.

Let me help you out. What about nuclear disarmament? Why regulate guns when there's still the possibility of a nuclear war which would kill millions of people? You've been awfully silent on that. What about heart disease? Every year people die of heart disease which could be prevented by more exercise. You seem more concerned about guns than preventing heart disease. What about ebola? If it spreads, it could kill everyone and you don't have nearly the interest in that as you do in guns.

Ultimately it just looks like childish excuse making. But I'm glad you admit that it seems a little funny to argue that guns make people safer when more than twice as many people accidentally kill someone as intentionally kill a bad guy. So for every time someone saves the day with their handgun, two little kids accidentally get shot, or some other nightmare scenario. For every bad guy a private citizen shoots, there are nearly forty murders...

[peejaye]

BINGO!!!
It's the INSANE person - not the weapon that commits the crime!

Thanks again for confirming this!

I'm sure Stephen Paddock, as a successful accountant, was very sane when he bought his Arsenal of weapons!
You never heard of mental health?

[Aticus100]

I'm sure Stephen Paddock, as a successful accountant, was very sane when he bought his Arsenal of weapons!
You never heard of mental health?

Exactly. This is what makes the whole “the best defence against a bad guy with a gun is a good with a gun” such nonsense.

Everyone who has a gun thinks they are a good guy with a gun, right up to the point they start shooting innocent people.

[Aticus100]

The other thing that makes the argument about “alcohol kills more people than guns do” such bullshit is that ultimately we are all responsible for our own actions and our actions are ultimately the only ones we really can be responsible for.

And with that in mind, it’s really fucking difficult to drink someone else to death.

[Ts RedVeX]

Ban life. Statistics show that 100% of living human beings die...

But seriously, statistics are statistics, and the argument is completely irrelevant. No matter how many per cent of people use their guns rightfully, I personally would like to have the capability of defending myself. I don't care if that would constitute to 10% of 0.1% of all killings. It is about principles. If a terrorist, whether he is a Chinese communist, American communist, or Martian communist is trying to restrict my freedom, I would like to be able to oppose to it by any, preferably the most effective means.

If an idiot shoots themself accidently, then he is making a favour to all the other people as he decreases the overall number of idiots. If an idiot commits murder, then death is the correct penalty for them. That is how natural selection works. If you try to change those basic laws of nature, sooner or later you end up in a situation where nature is going to have to purge all the idiots who had not been able to follow its basic laws. We have seen that in Mandalay Bay the other day: the idiot died, but not before taking dozens of lives of people who were most likely not other idiots. - That is the cost people who believe they are protected by the police or state or whatever other institution had to pay. And by idiot here, I mean anyone who thinks they can control another's life as much as they like - in this case by taking it.

[MrFanti]

we are all responsible for our own actions and our actions are ultimately the only ones we really can be responsible for.


Which is exactly why banning guns is bullshit - People and their actions are responsible for killing, not the gun...
Thanks for proving my point! :wiggle:


And with that in mind, it’s really fucking difficult to drink someone else to death.


Try and use this point of yours to parents of the children killed by drunk drivers each year....

The hypocrisy is strong here!!!!

[MrFanti]

Spare us the crocodile tears. It's obvious you are just using one of the gun lobby's classic diversionary tactics. The merits of more regulation of guns don't depend on the merits of more regulation of alcohol (or vice versa).

Spare us your hypocrisy!
You claim to want to save lives and yet because you want to drink you don't want to ban alcohol that kills more per year than guns.....Why don't you bring your hypocritical argument to not ban alcohol to this woman...



Woman’s family killed by drunk driver,

http://fox8.com/2015/09/21/drunk-driver-kills-womans-family-now-her-heartbreaking-plea-is-going-viral/

Or talk to the parents of this toddler and great grandmother.....
http://fox13now.com/2017/03/13/police-drunk-driver-crashes-into-family-home-kills-toddler-great-grandmother/

All this carnage and death by drunk drivers but you ONLY want to ban guns so you can enjoy your drink......

[MrFanti]

But I have learned one thing.....it's definitely ludicrous to debate with hypocrisy so I'll leave you folks to continue now without me....

[Ts RedVeX]

Mr Fanti makes probably the most sense of all of you lot.

- regarding gun or drug misuse
A death caused by murder is indeed an example of gun misuse (almost 9k cases in 2010)
A gun death caused by proper use of gun, or justified homicide (less than 700 in 2010)

Guns are already regulated: you need to have been 18 years old to get one. This is of course another example of a bad, communist restriction because as most of us know, being a certain age is not exactly equal to being mature. It is also caused by the fact that the state believes parents are to dumb to not allow their kids to get guns at an earlier age.

[peejaye]

Then maybe you should leave us all in peace too RedVex.....
Oh & Vex; Don't be tempted to buy a gun whilst residing in the UK, we will miss your presence on here for a couple of years :tongue:

[Ts RedVeX]

Since the UK has decided to leave the crazy EU communists, the temptation is much lower.:party:

[Stavros]

We have seen that in Mandalay Bay the other day: the idiot died, but not before taking dozens of lives of people who were most likely not other idiots. - That is the cost people who believe they are protected by the police or state or whatever other institution had to pay. And by idiot here, I mean anyone who thinks they can control another's life as much as they like - in this case by taking it.

Translation: if the State creates a police force the citizen must pay taxes to maintain it, but citizens can defend themselves when armed, so why demand taxes for the police force? There is no justification for a State, no justification for an army or a police force and the taxes needed to maintain them, we live in a world of individuals and only individuals can make decisions that affect themselves. Thus Spake Ayn Rand, the pseudo-philosopher whose roots were in...Marxism:

In her description of the American state, Rand nearly reiterates the Marxist interpretation: It is not a body representing the interests of the majority which selects the leaders of the state and the legislature, but a tool in the hands of evil forces. Orthodox Marxists consider it to be the capitalists; Rand considers it to be all sorts of demagogues and “robbers.”
https://shlapentokh.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/the-marxist-and-bolshevik-roots-of-ayn-rand%E2%80%99s-philosophy/

[Stavros]

Since the UK has decided to leave the crazy EU communists, the temptation is much lower.:party:

Would that be the same 'Communist' EU that has given you the right to move freely from Poland to live in the UK where you can work legally, buy a house and a car, vote in local elections, and marry the person you love without regard to their gender status or sexuality? You don't have to love either the UK or the EU to give thanks for the freedoms we have given you and not dismiss what we have as 'communism' as if that in itself were pure damnation.

[Ts RedVeX]

Stavros, comrade. As one would expect, you are jumping to conclusions and twisting my words. The state is and should be there to protect its people, who support it, from other states' barbaric acts of vionence against its people - e.g. barbaric attack of communist Germany on Polish civilians on 11th August 1939. The state is not there to restrict its peoples' freedom.

If I wanted to move to the UK without the EU I would have done it anyway. The EU may have made it easier for me but that is not the reason why I should support all of its evil ideas, like further intervention of the state into marriage.

As for buying a house, I cannot really say much - I haven't really tried that yet.

[Stavros]

Stavros, comrade. As one would expect, you are jumping to conclusions and twisting my words. The state is and should be there to protect its people, who support it, from other states' barbaric acts of vionence against its people - e.g. barbaric attack of communist Germany on Polish civilians on 11th August 1939. The state is not there to restrict its peoples' freedom.


Your post is confusing. The State is not there to restrict its peoples' freedom but according to you cannot defend it either, which is why you justify gun ownership, but you cannot justify gun ownership as a means of self-defence when it is the job of the State to defend you within the boundaries of the State, and not just from external enemies. Or are you saying the State exists to defend you from external aggression, but any internal aggression you must deal with as an individual, because the State cannot or will not -or is simply incompetent in its attempts to - defend you? I think the citizens who went to the concert in Las Vegas, had they been asked, would have believed the State, at Federal and local level, had both the right and the means to defend them against attack. If a critical component of the legitimacy of the State is that it alone has a monopoly on the use of violence, I don't see how the State can relinquish this monopoly to individual citizens while claiming to be their legitimate representative, indeed, the very issue that is at the heart of the 'Sovereign Citizen Movement' in the USA.

[Ts RedVeX]

My post is confusing for you because you think that the state must have monopoly for using violence. Never have I stated that.

- The state needs to protect its citizens - yes - but on top of that, citizens should be free to protect themselves.

[broncofan]

But I have learned one thing.....it's definitely ludicrous to debate with hypocrisy so I'll leave you folks to continue now without me....
This is why I pointed to the tu quoque fallacy which is basically an argumentative technique where you claim to demonstrate the merits of your argument by showing your opponent is a hypocrite. The literal application in this case would be to say your opponent is arguing against assault weapons but has a stockpile of them, which would not make his argument invalid, but would challenge his character.

You seem to concede that both guns and alcohol are dangerous but insist everyone is a hypocrite for not taking the same attitude towards both. In order to do this, it seems necessary for you to mischaracterize everyone's argument by saying they seek a ban of guns and not regulation. The only one who has talked about a blanket ban on gun ownership is you. You now leave because you were dishonest and called out on it. I still want you to post that marijuana article you had started with:).

Redvex seems to think the Nazis were Communists which is unbelievably offensive. The Nazi society was highly bureaucratic and stratified and they had no plans to create a society where people collectively owned the means of production. Besides, who were they fighting on the eastern front in that war?

One of the defining features of the Nazis was their delusional anti-Communist rhetoric, in which they would cast every global enemy of theirs as Communists or agents of Communism.

I am also happy that our society has moved past the social darwinism and eugenics arguments she is making and that we don't allow kids to own guns which I swear I saw someone recommend. Now if only we could do something about felons and the severely mentally ill and military style weaponry.

[Ts RedVeX]

Mr Fanti has not made any fallacies. If you are so concerned with people losing lives because of guns then if you want to ban or regulate guns for that reason you should also regulate other things causing death.

Nazis, Fascists, Communists.. - Not far away of an apple-tree does an apple fall.

What would you suggest doing about the mentally ill?

[broncofan]

Mr Fanti has not made any fallacies. If you are so concerned with people losing lives because of guns then if you want to ban or regulate guns for that reason you should also regulate other things causing death.

He made at least two that I've counted. First, he insisted people want to ban guns when they don't. Mischaracterizing someone's argument is still a fallacy. Second, he brought up alcohol without any interest in how people felt about its regulation. His assumption was that people are hypocrites for not wanting to ban alcohol when nobody suggested banning guns. And the third one if you want to get technical is assuming that if you demonstrate your opponent does not treat all similar things the same way you have proven your point with respect to the issue in question. In fact, you've only showed that your opponent has not been consistent. One could just as easily suggest you achieve consistency by regulating both guns and alcohol.

And no Nazis are not like Communists. They have different ideological principles, want to organize society in different ways, and were mortal adversaries. I don't see what use it is to call everyone who you disagree with a Communist, any more than it's useful to use any other word you think is pejorative.

What to do about mentally ill? Help them get treatment. But I do not think someone with schizophrenia should own a gun. I'm sorry if that seems medieval or cruel. At least I'm not suggesting that we should create a better society by allowing people to kill each other leaving behind only the strong and the armed...

[broncofan]

What to do about mentally ill? Help them get treatment. But I do not think someone with schizophrenia should own a gun. ..
I also don't think someone with dementia or alzheimer's should own a gun. Nor should someone who doesn't have the capacity to form a contract.

[filghy2]

If an idiot shoots themself accidently, then he is making a favour to all the other people as he decreases the overall number of idiots. If an idiot commits murder, then death is the correct penalty for them. That is how natural selection works. If you try to change those basic laws of nature, sooner or later you end up in a situation where nature is going to have to purge all the idiots who had not been able to follow its basic laws. We have seen that in Mandalay Bay the other day: the idiot died, but not before taking dozens of lives of people who were most likely not other idiots. - That is the cost people who believe they are protected by the police or state or whatever other institution had to pay. And by idiot here, I mean anyone who thinks they can control another's life as much as they like - in this case by taking it.

So by the same logic the high rate of gun deaths in the US must be nature's way of trying to eliminate a nation of idiots with a dangerous fixation? (Pity about the collateral damage of people who are not gun nuts.)

Your posts are perversely entertaining, but you really are a complete fruit loop. The disturbing thing is that you seem to have put a lot of thought into your bizarre philosophy - unlike Mr Fanti who is probably just recycling arguments he read somewhere.

One thing this thread has established is the futility of trying to reason with people with a monomaniacal fixation on one idea.

[filghy2]

I don't see what use it is to call everyone who you disagree with a Communist, any more than it's useful to use any other word you think is pejorative.


“When I use a word,” RedVex said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Stavros, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said RedVex, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Through the Looking Glass (with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

"Curiouser and curiouser", said Alice.

[Ts RedVeX]

I am sure that Mr Fanti by wrote about banning guns where he actually meant regulating it - just like when referring to alcohol which is actually not banned but regulated. It does not matter whether you limit one's freedom completely by banning or only to some extent by regulating. Both are bad and no state should intervene here at all. It is your reasoning that is illogical as you oppose to treating deaths caused by regulating or banning alcohol otherwise than deaths caused by regulating or banning guns. Both are caused by misuse and should be treated the same. You don't see that our arguments are on a totally different level than yours. You think that state should regulate things while we, or at least I do, say that id should regulate as few things as possible. Following your concept, why would you not ban people with Alzheimer's from possessing matches in case they try to build a bonfire in the middle of their room when they feel cold? If you have a family member who requires constant supervision then is your own and your family's responsibility to keep them safe. Who cares more about those people family or some minister?

Also my words obviously do not mean what I choose them to mean - at least to some people here - the words mean to them what they chose understand.

I never said anything about destroying the whole nation but only the idiots within it. - That natural selection will take place one way or another. The sad part is that if you do not allow this process to happen naturally, it will probably influence many more people, who would have naturally prevail in normal conditions.

- Yes - around the idea of freedom - in my case.

[broncofan]

It is your reasoning that is illogical as you oppose to treating deaths caused by regulating or banning alcohol otherwise than deaths caused by regulating or banning guns. Both are caused by misuse and should be treated the same.
It's not illogical to say that similar things should be treated the same. It is only illogical to say that if your opponent has not applied a principle consistently the principle is wrong.

For instance, let's say the principle is that "things that are dangerous and kill people should be regulated." Now let's say your opponent believes guns should be regulated but alcohol should not be. Does this prove that dangerous things should not be regulated? No, it proves your opponent has not applied the principle consistently.

In reality, this type of argument is usually used to say that your opponent does not have a sincere interest in banning dangerous things but a special animus with respect to the thing in question. This type of argument is valid in implying bias or inconsistency, but not in discussing the merits of the issue. It's even more suspect when it uses strawmen so that the general principle under examination is not even accurately stated.

[MrFanti]

For the hypocrites ....



De Pere man charged in crash that killed mother and daughter


http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Two-women-killed-by-car-on-Lawrence-frontage-road-440967713.html

[MrFanti]

One more for the "sane" folks that think guns should be banned and not alcohol even though alcohol kills MORE people than guns....



Jennifer Neville-Lake lost ALL of her children to a drunk driver,


https://foreverymom.com/mom-gold/you-killed-all-my-babies-mom-shows-a-heartbreaking-photo-of-the-reality-of-drunk-driving/

[Sheepwash]

A drunk walking home tends not to wipe out families.

[Ts RedVeX]

Not quite, broncofan: if similar things should be treated the same, then if one doesn't do so they are a hypocrite.

The principle may be applied consistently or not. It does not say anything about the principle.

The principle in question - freedom to drink and use guns - has been clear throughout the last few pages of this discussion. Fanti called hypocrites those who say that one lethal thing should be regulated while another doesn't, and he was right to do so.

[broncofan]

Fanti called hypocrites those who say that one lethal thing should be regulated while another doesn't, and he was right to do so.
Now we're on the same page. But here's the problem. It's a null set. There are exactly zero people who have done that. He is talking about nobody. Nada. Zilch.

There are some people who have argued that alcohol is different dimensionally than guns, but nobody has said it should not be regulated. Also, nobody has said guns should be banned. May I suggest it was just a red herring, a distraction. He tried to post an article about marijuana deaths, then read the article which said it's nearly impossible to overdose. Just a diversion.

I actually have nothing against you two despite disagreeing strongly. I consider myself a liberal, whereas you I think are a libertarian bordering on anarchist. Nothing in our Constitution says the government cannot regulate public risks. This includes the safety of any number of things. We had a farmer on here who insisted the government was encroaching by requiring him to pasteurize milk from his cow. But if they don't, then we might have ecoli in our food supply. The government can take reasonable actions to safeguard health and safety without us turning into a communist totalitarian state.

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti (and Redvex although sensible discourse seems to be pointless with her),
I call bullshit in your hypocrisy claims.

As has been pointed out far more eloquently than I can ( yet you have chosen to ignore) no one has made their beliefs on the regulations of alcohol or drugs known here so you don’t get to assume you know what they are before laying a claim of hypocrisy.

Besides, there is no correlation between the regulation of an item intended only for the purpose of killing and the regulation of item that causes harm only when abused.

And as for your claims of hypocrisy Redvex, as you enjoy the very many freedoms granted to us all by living in a democracy and decriing everything and everyone around as Comunist, if it weren’t such a sad indictment of own hypocrisy it would be laughable.

[Stavros]

My post is confusing for you because you think that the state must have monopoly for using violence. Never have I stated that.
- The state needs to protect its citizens - yes - but on top of that, citizens should be free to protect themselves.

When I say the State should have a monopoly on the use for violence within the State, I am referring to most theories of what the modern state is, whether it is in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan or Max Weber's Theory of the Modern State, or two contrasting studies such as John Rawls' A Theory of Justice and Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, as well as most contemporary jurists. In a modern liberal democracy, such as the USA, the UK and Poland, the State cannot tolerate the existence of an alternative source of armed power, which is why, when there is such a lack of the monopoly of force, it is in a 'failed state'.

The key trade off between State and Citizen lies exactly in the relationship to violence: the citizen gives up a degree of individual liberty so that the State guarantees the liberty of all, through both the rule of law, and the application of the law through law enforcement agencies and the justice system. And it works, because even in the USA, the majority of citizens abide by the law and are, in return, protected by the agencies of the State. It is not wrong for a person under threat to call 911, that is how the system works, but it is wrong for a citizen to decline to call 911 and take on the intruder or the mugger on his own.

The murder of Trayvon Martin is an example of what happens when an armed citizen decides to reject the advice of law enforcement, to enforce his own version of the law, which resulted in a death that could have been avoided, but is the scenario of confrontation and resolution that you imply is the 'survival of the fittest' embedded in some warped version of 'natural law'.

You want the state to regulate as little as possible so that freedom can become a reality for individuals, but you also want the state to protect you from external attack. George Washington was reluctant to transform the Continental Army into the standing army of the USA because he did not want to levy taxes on citizens to fund it, which is one reason why the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of a 'militia' to bear arms, at a time when the threat of an invasion by the British was very real, as indeed happened later in 1812. Firearms were utterly different in 1812 from what they are today, and it is simply beyond dispute that no individual citizen in the USA needs to own a semi-automatic or any military grade weapon, because responsible agencies of the State can provide protection for citizens using such weapons. The terrorist who murdered innocent people in Las Vegas could not have achieved his aim without military grade weapons, had he been denied the right to own such weapons, the massacre would not have happened. The best way to prevent such massacres happening again is to ban the sale and ownership of the terrorist's weapons of choice.

It is not an historical accident that the first major gun control legislation followed a panic in the South following the civil war when White people believed armed Black people who had been slaves would rob and plunder their way through plantation land in revenge for slavery (it never happened). Nor is it coincidental that when California enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA, with the blessing of the NRA, it followed what at the time was the legal display of arms by members of the Black Panther Party in Alameda Country in 1968 and that it was Governor Ronald Reagan who gleefully signed away the rights of Americas to own and carry certain types of arms. The hypocrisy of gun control in the USA stinks so bad we can smell it from here, and I am far away.
These days the NRA event thinks people on a terrorist watch list should not be denied the right to buy guns, so all this prattle about liberty and the state rings hollow when it is the NRA and its supporters that constitute a bigger threat to the enduring democracy of the USA than was ever posed by the Black Panthers.

Lastly, the Nazi project was grounded in a theory of race for the benefit of the (Aryan) nation; socialism is grounded in a theory of class for the benefit of all.

[filghy2]

One more for the "sane" folks that think guns should be banned and not alcohol even though alcohol kills MORE people than guns....

The number 1 cause of death in the US is heart disease https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm According to your logic, you must be a total hypocrite unless you also support close regulation of people's eating and exercise.

The problem with this logic is that the same argument could be used against addressing any problem, so you end up in the logical dead end that nothing should be done to fix any one problem unless every other problem can be solved simultaneously.

There is actually a very well-established principle governing whether any activity should be regulated. If the harm caused by the activity exceeds the benefits then regulate - if not then don't. Everything else is irrelevant.

[Ts RedVeX]

"Talk to an arse-hole (especially a communist one) and it will shit on you." - RedVex

"Give people democracy and they will start building socialism for you" - Karl Marx

Obviously, you two commies think that the state should have all the power over its citizens while in fact it should be the other way around. It is the citizens who work their asses off to pay tax for the police and military to protect their values from those of other other civilisations' and cultures'. The state should be at its citizens' service.

After reading your comment on Solidarnosc etc. in Poland I already know you have read the wrong history books, so I assume you can save us you lectures. Citizens need to retain their weapons in case bandits like you push it too far...

And really, it doesn't matter who you make your scapegoat - blondes with blue eyes, workers from a shipyard, miners, prostitues, blacks, whites, muslims, jews, women, or members of sexual minorities - intelligent people will always be able to recognise your plans sooner or later.

[peejaye]

That's "The Establishment" for you RedVex! Do as we say, not as we do!

[nitron]

A simple solution would be that all the people who hate guns move to countries that share there sentiments, and those who approve of gun ownership go to there respective ones.

[Ts RedVeX]

As simple as that!

[Stavros]

"Talk to an arse-hole (especially a communist one) and it will shit on you." - RedVex
"Give people democracy and they will start building socialism for you" - Karl Marx
Obviously, you two commies think that the state should have all the power over its citizens while in fact it should be the other way around. It is the citizens who work their asses off to pay tax for the police and military to protect their values from those of other other civilisations' and cultures'. The state should be at its citizens' service.
After reading your comment on Solidarnosc etc. in Poland I already know you have read the wrong history books, so I assume you can save us you lectures. Citizens need to retain their weapons in case bandits like you push it too far...
And really, it doesn't matter who you make your scapegoat - blondes with blue eyes, workers from a shipyard, miners, prostitues, blacks, whites, muslims, jews, women, or members of sexual minorities - intelligent people will always be able to recognise your plans sooner or later.

A) I am not a Communist, and never have been;

B) I don't think the State should have all the power over its citizens, and agree that in fact it should be the other way around -because that is what a social democracy is and should always be. The question is, do you believe democracy is the best form of government, and if not, what do you believe in?

C) I don't know what you think a bandit is, but I am not one, and as I pointed out above it is not about making scapegoats of Black people for carrying weapons in public but defending the public with legal means that are also accountable to the citizens; individuals carrying weapons are not accountable to anyone, that is not freedom from tyranny but a threat to public safety.

D) I am willing to concede you have a different perspective on the transition in Poland, but whereas I have listed at least two sources on the history, I could have listed another 10-20 which I have read over the years, whereas you have cited no sources at all and merely present your interpretation as 'facts' on the basis we should acknowledge your superior argument because, what, you are Polish? I can find Poles who disagree with your version, whose version is the right one? And dare I suggest, as you appear to do, that you will dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as a Communist as if that concluded the argument in your favour?

I will now apologise for an error in my previous post which I wrote from memory and without checking the sources. When California passed a law to prohibit the public carrying of weapons, it was passed in 1967 (the 'Mulford Act') not 1968 as I said, and related to an incident in May 1967 when armed members of the Black Panther Party entered the State Capitol Building in Sacramento. There is an account of the incident and the law here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/black-panthers-california-1967_us_568accfce4b014efe0db2f40

Finally one notes that the current argument pivots on the constitutional right to bear arms and public safety, and whether or not one cancels out the other. Given that enough US citizens have been shown to be a threat to the freedom of others, the case for taking military grade weapons away from all citizens is beyond argument. It does not violate the Constitution, and it protects public safety with more efficiency than what exists at the present.

[nitron]

Sure , why not? If it's important , I mean if one thinks that preserving ones life as much as possible and bent on total safety , then as a personal value , they should move. Even plan for it, save up and leave.
As for myself I don't have a problem with guns, but I can see how other folks get nervous and can't fault them for seeking out strict safety controls. So , why not let them go to such countries.

[MrFanti]

So the bottom line is that it's irresponsible people that are the problem. Not the alcohol nor the guns!

But for the hypocrites that can't see this, and only want to ban guns (even though alcohol kills more people than guns), well here we go again......



Mother killed, passenger, children recovering after crash with drunken driver

http://www.koco.com/article/mother-killed-passenger-children-recovering-after-dui-crash/8555744

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti, your "your can't ban unless you ban that" argument has been shown conclusiveley here for the nonsense it is. You seem to be there only one who hasn't realised that.

RedVex, kinda love the way that you assume that in this anarchic, survival of the first worried you seem to think that you will be one of there survivors.

The probable reality of that world is that some one like me turns up with a bigger gun than you have, murders you and takes everything you have.

Every "anarchist” I ever met looked a lot more like a victim than a victor to me.

[Ts RedVeX]

Stavros you are clearly against liberty, and advocate that the state has all the power over its citizens. It tells people what they can or cannot do - that is not freedom. Freedom is when you decide whether or not to have a gun and whether to shoot clay pigeons or another person with it. You want the state to have monopoly on weapons, and who knows what else. Of course later you say you had only quoted some philosophers.. You advocate social democracy, whose name speaks for itself. - Which is a system where 2 winos from underneath a local bridge have the same vote as 2 educated engineers. Needless to say that probably none of these four have any idea of how to run a country. Personally, I think a monarchy is by far the best system our civilisation has come up with, as if you have a stupid king then at least there chance that the following one is going to be smart. Democracy, is a system where the majority of idiots always has advantage over the minority of the wise.

If there is no need for one to own an ak47 or whatever then they will simply not get one. There is no need to regulate that.

You could link to 100 books about Polish history and it would not make any difference as each and every one of them is also a mere interpretation. You may as well say that you believe in God because The Bible reads there is one, or that you believe in Spider-Man because you read multiple the comics or saw a film about him.

Nazism is also known as German national socialism for a reason. Oh and guess what! It also had to do with worker's party... Calling a pile of shit "poo" doesn't change the fact that it is a pile of shit.

[broncofan]

Redvex I said I had nothing against you but I certainly don't like being called a Communist or a bandit or accused of wanting to violate the civil liberties of minorities by someone with such a dim view of mankind. Since you invoke your background to bolster your bizarre interpretation of European history, I might as well invoke mine.

I'm Jewish and I see much more of a threat to civil liberties from your brand of megalomania, your dehumanizing view that people should have guns so that the strong can devour the weak, your callous statement that people who were murdered simply don't now how to use guns, and your paranoid tendency to see everything you dislike as a Communist conspiracy.

The implication that someone's right to live depends on their ability to fight is much closer to the spirit of Nazism than anything else I've seen here. You mentioned people with Alzheimer's a few pages back. What do you think happens to them if they don't have any surviving family members? Should they starve? Should they be robbed and murdered? Are they untermensch? Two can play the hyperbole game. But then again, I don't insist you take my word on any of this because I'm Jewish. Maybe others can tell you what your pseudo-scientific survival of the fittest argument sounds like...

I'm interested to hear Mr. Fanti, a supposed American patriot, discuss your defense of monarchy. You two do know the United States was founded to rid itself of external control from the British Monarchy? I find it strange that you suggest guns are a tool of liberation and then advocate a system where the entire government is run by one person with unlimited power based purely on family lineage.

[filghy2]

Sure , why not? If it's important , I mean if one thinks that preserving ones life as much as possible and bent on total safety , then as a personal value , they should move. Even plan for it, save up and leave.

Another well-considered contribution to the debate! Your are unaware, I take it, that immigration is heavily restricted? That there already millions of refugees around the world trying to move from dangerous countries to safer ones? I suppose we should also stop worrying about human rights in other countries and just tell those people to move somewhere else if they don't like it.

[filghy2]

So the bottom line is that it's irresponsible people that are the problem. Not the alcohol nor the guns!

But for the hypocrites that can't see this, and only want to ban guns (even though alcohol kills more people than guns), well here we go again......


I can't read your posts without thinking of this Monty Python scene http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-blkscene.php

[ed_jaxon]

Mods

Move this muthafucking thread to the politics section. Sick of seeing Communist commentary and other political bullshit derail the original intent of the thread.

[nitron]

Move this muthafucking .....2nd the motion!, you 're right.

[filghy2]

Move this muthafucking thread to the politics section. Sick of seeing Communist commentary and other political bullshit derail the original intent of the thread.

I don't care where the thread goes, but why have you got your undies in such a tangle? The original purpose of the thread was limited and seems to have been exhausted early on. The participants are evidently enjoying the discussion, and who exactly is being harmed? Free and open discussion means just that - you or others don't have the right to dictate where the discussion should go.

[MrFanti]

Once again....it's the irresponsible people, not the guns nor is it the alcohol.
But if you want to ban guns and not alcohol you are a hypocrite - especially when "alcohol kills more than guns".

Incredible that you folks are denying it when the evidence is stacked against you...


Mother and daughter killed in Taft Hwy crash, driver arrested for DUI

http://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/two-people-killed-in-taft-hwy-crash-driver-arrested-for-dui

[MrFanti]

Mr Fanti, your "your can't ban unless you ban that" argument has been shown conclusiveley here for the nonsense it is.


You just want to have your drink while you are denial of the facts that alcohol kills more people than guns. Almost twice as many people killed by alcohol than by guns. So where is the nonsense really at?



We value our alcohol much more than those 22,073 people killed by alcohol. But we value some lives. We value those 12,632 people who were shot in 2007,

https://davidkessner.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/hypocrisy-drunk-driving-and-gun-control/

[MrFanti]

I don't care where the thread goes, but why have you got your undies in such a tangle? The original purpose of the thread was limited and seems to have been exhausted early on. The participants are evidently enjoying the discussion, and who exactly is being harmed? Free and open discussion means just that - you or others don't have the right to dictate where the discussion should go.

Well..It's a private forum own for and paid by Grooby. So the folks at Grooby can really do as they please......

[broncofan]

Edit: It's there now apparently so I guess that was the decision.

[filghy2]

Well, it's obviously still here and only a small part of it is in the other section, which makes it hard to sensibly continue the discussion there.

I actually meant that the complainant (ed_jaxon) did not have the right to dictate what the content of the discussion should be.

[Ts RedVeX]

If you don't want me to call you communists and bandits then stop acting like them, advocating restricting people's freedom.

As to my bizzare interpretation of history, do you seriously believe that holocaust would have even taken place if Jews in Germany had guns?! Do you think that Nazi Germany would have even been an issue if people of Europe had guns?!!! What kind of moronic logic is that?! I'll go even further: maybe WW2 would have been avoided all together if people had guns! ... And even if not, then at least people who were barbarically attacked by the Nazis would have died with dignity defending their lives rather than in Nazi slaughterhouses and ghettos!

People with Alzheimer can take care of themselves to some extent. After that there is family, then come all the other kind-hearded people who feel like helping the disabled out. It is up to those people of good will to decide whether or not to help, not some minister of health to decide for anyone else. - Unless the minister want to help by their own private means.

In a monarchy, if the king really fucks up then there are ways to replace him. It is much easier than replacing 51% of a country's population, which is why communists do not like the system.

This discussion has nothing to do with politics. It is about ideologies.

As to the sketch about Arthur and the Black Knight, both the King had a choice to take a longer route, and the Knight had a choice to step aside.

[filghy2]

As to my bizzare interpretation of history, do you seriously believe that holocaust would have even taken place if Jews in Germany had guns?! Do you think that Nazi Germany would have even been an issue if people of Europe had guns?!!! What kind of moronic logic is that?! I'll go even further: maybe WW2 would have been avoided all together if people had guns!


So civilians with guns would have been able to resist the German tanks, artillery and planes, even though the armies of European countries were unable to do so?

[filghy2]

As to the sketch about Arthur and the Black Knight, both the King had a choice to take a longer route, and the Knight had a choice to step aside.

Polish humour might be different, but you are missing the point of the sketch, which is about the black knight being completely delusional. Like some others I can think of.

I'm starting to wonder whether your persona is just a clever send-up and you are just acting out a role here. You almost sound like a Monty Python character.

[Stavros]

Stavros you are clearly against liberty, and advocate that the state has all the power over its citizens. It tells people what they can or cannot do - that is not freedom. Freedom is when you decide whether or not to have a gun and whether to shoot clay pigeons or another person with it. You want the state to have monopoly on weapons, and who knows what else. Of course later you say you had only quoted some philosophers.. You advocate social democracy, whose name speaks for itself. - Which is a system where 2 winos from underneath a local bridge have the same vote as 2 educated engineers. Needless to say that probably none of these four have any idea of how to run a country. Personally, I think a monarchy is by far the best system our civilisation has come up with, as if you have a stupid king then at least there chance that the following one is going to be smart. Democracy, is a system where the majority of idiots always has advantage over the minority of the wise.

If there is no need for one to own an ak47 or whatever then they will simply not get one. There is no need to regulate that.

You could link to 100 books about Polish history and it would not make any difference as each and every one of them is also a mere interpretation. You may as well say that you believe in God because The Bible reads there is one, or that you believe in Spider-Man because you read multiple the comics or saw a film about him.

Nazism is also known as German national socialism for a reason. Oh and guess what! It also had to do with worker's party... Calling a pile of shit "poo" doesn't change the fact that it is a pile of shit.

RedVEx I could answer all of your points in a reasonable manner, arguing for example that it is legitimate for someone with an interest in European and Polish history to rely on the research of others, not least when they have either first hand access to the original sources in Poland or may even be Poles themselves -whereas all you offer is your opinion dressed up as fact with no objective facts in support, but you are of course entitled to interpret history in any way you can, even if it is just fantasy.

Your remark in another post about guns and the holocaust does however raise the question how much do you know about the difference between the Jews of Poland, who were quite different from the Jews of France and Germany with regard to their politics and their social organization. Armed gangs of Jews and armed gangs of Poles wreaked havoc o each other even before the Germans and the Russians piled in to take the country into an even darker place. You also completely ignore the role played by pacifism in the inter-war period whether it is the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 or the simple fact that Europeans were so exhausted by war and the devastation of the Spanish Flu epidemic another war was no desirable nor conceivable, something Hitler exploited to his temporary advantage.

As to the citizen and the state, human beings are collective by nature and communist, if you believe that two people are joined together in matrimonial harmony and share what they have in common.

I believe in individual liberty, just as I believe the state should not have complete power over its citizens so your assertion is the opposite of what I have said before but does imply you are either unwilling to understand the point, or just delight in turning it upside down. I could go on, but I am not sure you want an open debate free of personal abuse. But thank you for responding to my posts, it is comforting to know you have been thinking of me.

[Ts RedVeX]

As we say in Poland: "You can't braid a whip out of horseshit", so I'll just finish with an anecdote:

After World War II a decent and hard-working peasant is found to be in possession of some old rifles by his lazy communist neighbour who, obviously, grasses him up. The peasant is brought before court:
- It is illegal to have guns in our democratic country and we have a witness who confirmed that you keep rifles in your household! What do you have in your defence? - Asks the prosecutor.
- A tank, in my barn. - Replies the peasant.

[Stavros]

1033110

[Aticus100]

Mr Fanti,
A simple question. Do you believe that no problems should be tackled unless, simultaneously, all other problems can be resolved. It’s a simple yes or no.
Anything else will be conceding that you can’t answer it and still remain credible.

Redvex, come your glorious, anarchic, kill or be killed revolution, you would be the first against the wall.
You are the ultimate hypocrite. Thriving in a country that uses restriction and regulation to provide you with the freedom you so strongly excercise to damn the very restrictions and regulation that allow your lifestyle and liberty.

In both cases I assume you will disappear up you own asses as you throw in further confusion and conjecture rather than respond in to simple comments.

[Nikka]

Jesus...................

[Jericho]

Fucking hell B1, what have you started? :dead:

[GroobySteven]

Read the first post - and jumping to the end to comment, I can live without the rest of the rubbish, because honestly, your politics, I really don't give a fuck.

When we're in a fringe group like this, when people often only know each other under names other than their own, and when very little of society give a fuck, then social media like this IS a vital part of checking in on friends. There are people here I know as friends, but if I communicate with them it's usually via here (Ed Jaxon for example, is someone I've had dinner with, smoked with - but I don't believe we have each others numbers, and I contact him thru here, or many of us considered outselves friends with Prospero, even though we hadn't known each other outside the boards). Many of the girls, whom I'm friends with I don't know them through their legal names (although I'm able to find out).

You can be friends, whether we know each other in person from clubs - or online - or if they are part of the broader circle, it doesn't mean you've always got their contact details so a check-in is a really good idea when something like this happens. I've a lot of friends in Vegas, some who were there - and I was checking the reports when they came in.

Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted by Red Vex's outburst - if you didn't like it, then just ignore it and move on but to attack someone and the idea of what they've done, is pretty pitiful. If you can't get with this community and give it the respect, then perhaps this isn't the place for you.