|
Post by ltdc on Feb 27, 2013 18:28:19 GMT -6
got booted off my local newspapers discussion board. it seems that you cannot refer to whiny,azz,crybaby,delicate and fragile souls as heterophobes. who knew?
anyway it was on a death penalty article. seems a colorado attorney was mentioning that colorado was doing away with the death penalty. I said too bad colorado is no longer serious about murders.
he responded with, the death penalty did not prevent the Aurora movie shooting now did it? I said no it didn't, but what a great opportunity for you to explain how LWOP prevented that shooting? oh, and by the way, you might take notice that it WASN'T ted bundy who shot the place up, now was it? silence
others chimed in to call me a moron and the same question was posed to them. silence.
at least up until the time I got booted nobody would address it.
oh well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2013 20:41:38 GMT -6
Sorry, about that. Don't sweat it! If they won't let you speak your mind there then it's hardly worth your time anyhow...
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 28, 2013 10:30:57 GMT -6
Sorry, about that. Don't sweat it! If they won't let you speak your mind there then it's hardly worth your time anyhow... yeah I know, but I do miss the sport
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 28, 2013 11:47:28 GMT -6
On the bright side, at least you were able to respond to their questions while they offered nothing but silence. So good on you and I liked your responses. It's a shame though, you could of had a good debate going but they chose the "you're a moron, I'll stay silent" approach.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 28, 2013 18:38:15 GMT -6
yeah I know, but I do miss the sport Libs generally have no sense of humor and don't react well to reasoned arguments. They're entertaining, it's true, but brittle.
|
|
|
Post by Tracy on Mar 2, 2013 20:54:05 GMT -6
Well done ltdc..getting the boot is a badge of honor around here (most of the time) :-)
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 2, 2013 22:35:17 GMT -6
I guess they do not get the fact that the purpose for DP is punishment and justice. Deterrence in theory is hard to measure because you cant measure the amount of murderers that were prevented, because of it. Obviously its a chicken versus the egg game. It cant be a deterrent unless it is used often and swiftly. Problem with colorado is that they are like their neighbor south of them, New Mexico. When New Mexico had the DP, it was used seldom. We had murders in the 90's that should have more than qualified for the penalty, but it went to Life which at that time was 35 Year Max. The only time NM used the DP was with a few COP killings. They attempted to give the DP to Mike Astorga, he was last to be eligible under the clause that they could still seek it if the crime happened before the repeal date. The Albuquerque DA which has a good history of screwing up cases lost the DP because Astorga's POS attorney was change of venue to Santa Fe where the left wing in that city makes a moderate progressive like me look like a Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck "Tea Bagger." So he obviously got LWOP. Luckily the LWOP provision did apply so he will get out of jail at least. Although I would have liked see him hang at the town square like old times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2013 22:39:32 GMT -6
got booted off my local newspapers discussion board. it seems that you cannot refer to whiny,azz,crybaby,delicate and fragile souls as heterophobes. who knew? anyway it was on a death penalty article. seems a colorado attorney was mentioning that colorado was doing away with the death penalty. I said too bad colorado is no longer serious about murders. he responded with, the death penalty did not prevent the Aurora movie shooting now did it? I said no it didn't, but what a great opportunity for you to explain how LWOP prevented that shooting? oh, and by the way, you might take notice that it WASN'T ted bundy who shot the place up, now was it? silence others chimed in to call me a moron and the same question was posed to them. silence. at least up until the time I got booted nobody would address it. oh well. I don't understand the Ted Bundy reference. (I am aware that Ted Bundy was awaiting trial on the charge of murder in Aspen? but he escaped and eventually headed to Florida where he played out his endgame) I think it is just worth it to put the defendant on trial for his life because simply walking into a theatre and shooting a stack of people just cos is an outrage and executing the person will send a message to others that it is an outrage that will not and never be tolerated! As far as gun control issues go. This case would suggest that background checks need to go further then a criminal record and mental health check. Perhaps if Americans oppose the banning of semi-automatic assault rifles it would be a deterrent if background checks only allowed people to own assault rifles if they have already a demonstrated interest in shooting as a sport. For example if someone wants to buy a gun for the first time, they can't buy an assault rifle. That is only allow people with a history of demonstrated responsible gun ownership to own such a weapons. You need to remember the 2nd Amendment predates the invention of such weapons, perhaps if the 2nd amendment was written today it maybe worded differently.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 2, 2013 23:50:45 GMT -6
got booted off my local newspapers discussion board. it seems that you cannot refer to whiny,azz,crybaby,delicate and fragile souls as heterophobes. who knew? anyway it was on a death penalty article. seems a colorado attorney was mentioning that colorado was doing away with the death penalty. I said too bad colorado is no longer serious about murders. he responded with, the death penalty did not prevent the Aurora movie shooting now did it? I said no it didn't, but what a great opportunity for you to explain how LWOP prevented that shooting? oh, and by the way, you might take notice that it WASN'T ted bundy who shot the place up, now was it? silence others chimed in to call me a moron and the same question was posed to them. silence. at least up until the time I got booted nobody would address it. oh well. I don't understand the Ted Bundy reference. (I am aware that Ted Bundy was awaiting trial on the charge of murder in Aspen? but he escaped and eventually headed to Florida where he played out his endgame) I think it is just worth it to put the defendant on trial for his life because simply walking into a theatre and shooting a stack of people just cos is an outrage and executing the person will send a message to others that it is an outrage that will not and never be tolerated! As far as gun control issues go. This case would suggest that background checks need to go further then a criminal record and mental health check. Perhaps if Americans oppose the banning of semi-automatic assault rifles it would be a deterrent if background checks only allowed people to own assault rifles if they have already a demonstrated interest in shooting as a sport. For example if someone wants to buy a gun for the first time, they can't buy an assault rifle. That is only allow people with a history of demonstrated responsible gun ownership to own such a weapons. You need to remember the 2nd Amendment predates the invention of such weapons, perhaps if the 2nd amendment was written today it maybe worded differently. I think agreeyou a 100%. I think there should extensive checks on ownership. we have alot of loopholes in the private transaction of arms. You can go to a guns show and walk away that day with an AR-15 or SKS without having scrutiny placed on the buyer. I do not understand why the gun lobby is so adamantly against this. It only makes sense. If there restrictions on purchasing at gun shows or private transactions it would reduce, not eliminate most of the issues we have had. If some gun owners would have been more responsible and had them locked in safes then the Connecticut, shooting and the Griego massacre would not have happened. On another note prosecuters need to do their job as well enforcing the laws on the books. Felons should get a stiff penalty for violating their restrictions to weapons, but all too often this gets ignored they get slapped on the wrist, go get a gun and shoot up a place or rob a liqueur store. I think the training and care for a weapon should be the same for the average citizen as it is for the Armed Forces. I think if people want to own guns then they should be subject to extreme scrutiny on their purpose and intent to use these arms. Will this solve future theater shootings or Dorner style assaults 100%? No of course not. But if the level of exposure is reduced and the accountability is higher, then it only makes sense that other gun crimes would go down as well. they will be gone one hundred percent. I agree I think if the framers of the constitution wrote it today they would have specified a more restrictive stance IMO. They obviously wrote this in during a time when the idea of the United States was fragile and had the chance to be torn down. They wrote this when the standard weapon was a cumbersome musket or flintlock pistol. They obviously had no idea about stinger missiles, Compact semi auto rifles, RPG's or any weapons that we use in war today.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 4, 2013 13:43:50 GMT -6
got booted off my local newspapers discussion board. it seems that you cannot refer to whiny,azz,crybaby,delicate and fragile souls as heterophobes. who knew? anyway it was on a death penalty article. seems a colorado attorney was mentioning that colorado was doing away with the death penalty. I said too bad colorado is no longer serious about murders. he responded with, the death penalty did not prevent the Aurora movie shooting now did it? I said no it didn't, but what a great opportunity for you to explain how LWOP prevented that shooting? oh, and by the way, you might take notice that it WASN'T ted bundy who shot the place up, now was it? silence others chimed in to call me a moron and the same question was posed to them. silence. at least up until the time I got booted nobody would address it. oh well. You need to remember the 2nd Amendment predates the invention of such weapons, perhaps if the 2nd amendment was written today it maybe worded differently. the first amendment predates this computer, libs never really whine about that over here. what you need to remember about the second amendment is that "well regulated" meant "well functioning and equipped". in order to show up and hit the ground running the militia needed to bring their own weapons and equipage, in order to be able to bring their own weapons and equipage, they needed the right to own them. it's pretty basic. everyone but liberals know and understand this. here's the real kicker, did you know that the common man quite often, if not always, owned BETTER guns than the "military" of the day? the kings army, and as a result ours, used smoothbores. the common man typically chose "rifles" which were superior and more accurate at longer ranges. this is mostly because smoothbores were quicker and easier to reload for the purpose of the standard method of warfare back then, of "stand face to face and flock shoot" the opposing side. us vs miller actually supports this. when cops and military choose flintlock smoothbores for their work, you'll have an argument.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 4, 2013 16:39:16 GMT -6
I agree I think if the framers of the constitution wrote it today they would have specified a more restrictive stance IMO. They obviously wrote this in during a time when the idea of the United States was fragile and had the chance to be torn down. They wrote this when the standard weapon was a cumbersome musket or flintlock pistol. They obviously had no idea about stinger missiles, Compact semi auto rifles, RPG's or any weapons that we use in war today. Frankly, you scare the hell out of me. Your ignorance of our history and the great documents that created our nation is startling in one who is allegedly a commissioned officer. Just for your general information, leftist: the Founders left us a method to modify the Constitution. As a matter of fact, that method was used to enact the first ten amendments, including the Second Amendment, which you obviously don't understand and despise. It's called a "Constitutional Convention." If you'd like to modify the document to better suit your repressive views on the Second Amendment, I urge you to petition Congress to call such a convention, and see how far you get.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 4, 2013 17:11:41 GMT -6
I agree I think if the framers of the constitution wrote it today they would have specified a more restrictive stance IMO. They obviously wrote this in during a time when the idea of the United States was fragile and had the chance to be torn down. They wrote this when the standard weapon was a cumbersome musket or flintlock pistol. They obviously had no idea about stinger missiles, Compact semi auto rifles, RPG's or any weapons that we use in war today. Frankly, you scare the hell out of me. Your ignorance of our history and the great documents that created our nation is startling in one who is allegedly a commissioned officer. Just for your general information, leftist: the Founders left us a method to modify the Constitution. As a matter of fact, that method was used to enact the first ten amendments, including the Second Amendment, which you obviously don't understand and despise. It's called a "Constitutional Convention." If you'd like to modify the document to better suit your repressive views on the Second Amendment, I urge you to petition Congress to call such a convention, and see how far you get. You obviously don't know me bro. No I am well aware of how the framers of the constitution set it all up. No I understand the second amendment perfectly. I never said that people do not have the rights to their Guns. I think if the Gun lobbies keep fighting tooth and nail on reasonable controls then you probably will see a change. I imagine a few more public shootings with the weapon of the day, will force even the republicans to I think it is absurd to think that you will be able to fight a government that has firepower beyond you AR-15's and SKS's. Even more so I think, its straight up "tin foil hat" paranoia that the government is going to come after you. Unless of course you give them a reason i.e. belong to an active organization with the intent of overthrowing said government. I gather my insight on the government from my Military experience. 7 Deployments to Al Udeid Qatar doing aerial refueling missions for both OIF and OEF. I was stationed at Grand Forks AFB in 905th ARS. And I have 2000 hours staring through a screen of a MQ-1B Predator UAV from Creech, AFB in Indian Springs, NV and some time in your hood flying with the CAANG at March ARB in Moreno Valley, CA, in the Inland Empire. One last deployment deployment in Iraq doing launch and recovery operations of the MQ-1B at Balad, AB FKA Ali Bacher AB. I am shocked that someone like you who allegedly served in Vietnam would have such narrow minded view of a modern society. I suppose I could post a copy of my DD-214 to prove that I am a separated captain in AD, but considering I could give two rats on what you think its not worth the security risk. BTW I wen to Vance AFB in 2003 for flight school at the same time former Lt. Chris Dorner was still on the base, waiting to be transferred for washing out due to air sickness.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 4, 2013 19:06:56 GMT -6
You obviously don't know me bro. And based on your posts on this issue, neither would I want to. Your previous posts say differently. Ah, the arrogance of youth. Actually, I don't beliee that. But it is possible, and for that reason I think your remarks are specious, poorly thought out, and ignorant of history. Just for chuckles, can you name a guerilla war that was lost? So you laid on your stomach and passed gas while three officers flew you around? MMmmm, the First Chairborne brigade. Did you manage to hear a shot fired in anger, or get fired upon yourself? And if so, what did you do? Reach for your weapon, maybe? Don't bother. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that the quality of officer being recruited now is of great concern to me. Well, we agree on something, then. Yeah, so what?
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Mar 4, 2013 20:44:26 GMT -6
You obviously don't know me bro. And based on your posts on this issue, neither would I want to. Ditto! Were not doing too bad in Afgahnistan, even with our heavy ROE's. If we had no ROE we would have devastated that country by now. Isreal seems to be holding their own against palestine. Actually it's 2 officers and one enlisted boom operator. I have a form 8 Checkride document with the qual of Aircraft commander to prove it. Yeah I suppose that would be an insult. I saved more than enough of ground pounder types doing CAS while sitting in air conditioned comfortable chair with my coffee next to me. Actually yes, we got IDF (Indirect Fire) attacks every night at Balad Iraq if you must know. Granted they could not hit the front side of a barn from 2 feet. NO, never drew my weapon, they would fire and run. I am sure you would have made great officer. So far the lack professionalism in your tone really makes think you would have been awesome in your day. Its funny how you can sit there and insult me, when I have not done the same to you. At the same time you're insulting me saying that I have not come up with an substantive thoughts, well Mega dittos back at ya, pal! Sounds like. I guess I drink coffee and can think for myself and you drink Glen Beck and Rush's tea
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Mar 5, 2013 1:42:30 GMT -6
I haven't heard anything about Colorado trying to abolish the death penalty. The spotlight seems to be on Maryland at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 5, 2013 13:51:32 GMT -6
got booted off my local newspapers discussion board. it seems that you cannot refer to whiny,azz,crybaby,delicate and fragile souls as heterophobes. who knew? anyway it was on a death penalty article. seems a colorado attorney was mentioning that colorado was doing away with the death penalty. I said too bad colorado is no longer serious about murders. he responded with, the death penalty did not prevent the Aurora movie shooting now did it? I said no it didn't, but what a great opportunity for you to explain how LWOP prevented that shooting? oh, and by the way, you might take notice that it WASN'T ted bundy who shot the place up, now was it? silence others chimed in to call me a moron and the same question was posed to them. silence. at least up until the time I got booted nobody would address it. oh well. I don't understand the Ted Bundy reference. it's about 100% effective deterance.
|
|