Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 San Bernardino

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
AuthorMessage
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/22/2015, 11:02 am

happy wrote:
Insulting the dead of 911, gun violence, Muslims, dwelling on 911, inadequate national security, terrorism by whites,  JFK, Trump, Star Wars, the Iron Giant, Muslims, the 2nd Amendment, creationists, fossils, 1997 temperature data, Hiroshima, AGW denialism, Muslims, abortion, global warming, hate crimes, racism, law, war, torture, gun control, trans fats, health care, religious freedom, voter fraud and IDs, psychics, Republicans, and, of course, Muslims.
Oh, my.
That’s a lot of area to cover in just a single post.
I don’t even know where to begin.

Oh, apologies.  I was covering several days worth of material.  I should have realized that since its longer (and minus the pretty pictures) than the books you borrow from your children, you'd have difficulty following.  What would be an acceptable word limit be?  10?  30?  Am I already over?

happy wrote:
So I won’t.

Well, I got what I wanted for Christmas, Brave Sir Robin.  Laughing

I wrote:
Resorting to the usual obfuscation and repetition in an attempt to dodge my more relevant questions?  Wasn't expecting that to happen so soon.

I wrote:
I've given you ample opportunity to further the discussion, but you continually pussy out.

I wrote:
It's fascinating how often you prove that to be true.

I wrote:
I'm still amazed you can function in our modern society at all.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/22/2015, 11:48 am

happy jack wrote:
I don’t believe I’ve claimed that restrictions on explosives do work.

Clearly, we all know they do:

Tip Leads Bomb Squad To Man Suspected Of Making Bombs In Richmond Home To Harm Muslims

Quote :
A neighborhood in Richmond had to be evacuated Sunday when police say a man was making explosives in his home with the intent of harming the Muslim community.

Police received a tip from a caller on December 17th who said a man was making the devices and threatening to harm Muslims.

But now, what if this had been the two California shooters a week before the incident, and instead of explosives, it was an army's worth of guns? If they were all legal, and there was no discovered link to terrorism, no harm, no foul?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/22/2015, 6:47 pm

Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I don’t believe I’ve claimed that restrictions on explosives do work.

Clearly, we all know they do:

Tip Leads Bomb Squad To Man Suspected Of Making Bombs In Richmond Home To Harm Muslims

Quote :
A neighborhood in Richmond had to be evacuated Sunday when police say a man was making explosives in his home with the intent of harming the Muslim community.

Police received a tip from a caller on December 17th who said a man was making the devices and threatening to harm Muslims.

But now, what if this had been the two California shooters a week before the incident, and instead of explosives, it was an army's worth of guns?  If they were all legal, and there was no discovered link to terrorism, no harm, no foul?  



Heretic wrote:
happy jack wrote:
I don’t believe I’ve claimed that restrictions on explosives do work.

Clearly, we all know they do:

It wasn’t the law that saved the day – it was the tip.



Heretic wrote:
   
But now, what if this had been the two California shooters a week before the incident ….

It wasn’t.



Heretic wrote:
   
…. and instead of explosives, it was an army's worth of guns?  

It wasn’t.



Heretic wrote:
  If they were all legal, and there was no discovered link to terrorism, no harm, no foul?  

Their long guns were not legal.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/22/2015, 10:22 pm

I knew you couldn't stay away.  

happy wrote:
It wasn’t the law that saved the day – it was the tip.

Which would have been useless had bomb possession not been illegal, leaving him free to murder unimpeded.  It's specifically what allowed law enforcement to intervene rather than just send him on his way.  

happy wrote:
Heretic wrote:
   
But now, what if this had been the two California shooters a week before the incident ….

It wasn’t.

Heretic wrote:
   
…. and instead of explosives, it was an army's worth of guns?  

It wasn’t.

Heretic wrote:
  If they were all legal, and there was no discovered link to terrorism, no harm, no foul?  

Their long guns were not legal.

Quote :
hy·po·thet·i·cal
/ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: hypothetical

  1. of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis.
    "that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"

    • supposed but not necessarily real or true.
      "the hypothetical tenth planet"
      synonyms: theoretical, speculative, conjectured, conjectural, notional, suppositional, supposed, putative, assumed; academic
      "the scenario I suggested was strictly hypothetical"
      antonyms: actual
    • LOGIC
      denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.



noun
noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals

  1. a hypothetical proposition or statement.
    "Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"


I feel silly pointing it out, but it was apparently necessary.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/23/2015, 3:20 am

Heretic wrote:
   

happy wrote:
It wasn’t the law that saved the day – it was the tip.

Which would have been useless had bomb possession not been illegal, leaving him free to murder unimpeded.  It's specifically what allowed law enforcement to intervene rather than just send him on his way.  


I have said numerous times that bombs should be illegal (is there some magic number that I have to reach in order for you to realize that?), but making them illegal does not magically eliminate them.
But since they are illegal, the authorities have something to charge him with.
See how that works?





Heretic wrote:

Which would have been useless had bomb possession not been illegal, leaving him free to murder unimpeded.  It's specifically what allowed law enforcement to intervene rather than just send him on his way.  


He could have murdered unimpeded with or without the law in place.
It was only dumb luck (the tip) that prevented it.


Last edited by happy jack on 12/23/2015, 3:59 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/23/2015, 3:34 am

Scorpion wrote:
   No. What's asinine is thinking that anyone would intentionally "minimize" or "whitewash" the spectacularly horrific events of 911 in any way.  I knew people that died in the attacks, jack.  So Fuck you.

Heretic wrote:
   The terrorist attacks of 9/11 are, unfortunately for you, a statistical outlier that skews the actual trend.

No, there’s no whitewashing involved regarding 911.
It’s been written off as a mere “outlier”, so there’s no point in even acknowledging its victims.
And if you have a problem with that, take it up with Heretic.




Heretic wrote:
   Happy Holidays.  Here's to hoping your family can tolerate another holiday with their crazy, racist, Republican uncle.

I thoroughly enjoy when someone calls someone else a racist (with absolutely zero substantiation, I might add) and goes on to declare himself the winner of whatever debate happened to be underway, based simply upon the fact that he called the other person a racist (or something like that – I don’t know – it keeps getting harder and harder to figure out the lunacy of the left).
Believe it or not, once you go out into the real world, those with my views are not considered to be outlandish in any way, and I’m looking forward to the holidays. That might seem strange to a shut-in who lives and dies by what he sees in bar graphs, pie charts, and on MSNBC, but dat’s a fact, Jack.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/23/2015, 4:51 am

happy wrote:
I have said numerous times that bombs should be illegal. (Is there some magic number that I have to reach in order for you to realize that?)

I've acknowledged this.  Repeatedly.  Please feel free to reread the thread if you're confused.  

happy wrote:
And since they are illegal, the authorities have something to charge him with.
See how that works?

Yes.  It's something I explained to you several pages earlier prior to this nugget of wisdom:

happy wrote:
I don’t believe I’ve claimed that restrictions on explosives do work.

Progress!  Looks like you can be taught after all.  Clearly you do want restrictions on explosives because of the possible damage to both life and property, in the same way I'd like better restrictions on firearms.  Which brings me (back) to my next question(s):

I wrote:
So why don't any of your arguments against gun control apply to explosives?  Why do restrictions on explosives work but won't on firearms?

And/or

I wrote:
If you have absolutely no clue whether they will work or not, why be in favor of them?  Why don't any of your arguments against gun control laws apply here?

You went off on your crazy tirade about 9/11 before you had a chance to answer.

happy wrote:
He could have murdered unimpeded with or without the law in place.

Thankfully, yes.  It is a shame law enforcement can't do more.  How did you put it?

happy wrote:
Temporary safety is at least preferable to no safety, isn’t it?

I'd say accidental safety is better than none as well, yes?  However, you've brought the same point up about deterrence in discussing firearms emphasizing the futility of any legislation.  Why is it not the same here?

happy wrote:
No, there’s no whitewashing involved regarding 911.
It’s been written off as a mere “outlier”, so there’s no point in even acknowledging its victims.
And if you have a problem with that, take it up with Heretic.

How incredibly lazy...

Had you kept reading, I also wrote:
It's a reductive argument that ignores the rest of the data set relevant to the discussion. . . .  The entirety of the data doesn't support your conclusion, which is why everyone who actually does it for a living disagrees with such a myopic assessment.

Good try, though.  But I can see why you didn't want to address the substance of my post.  It must be terribly difficult for you to keep up what with all my "bar graphs and pie charts".  

happy wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy when someone calls someone else a racist (with absolutely zero substantiation, I might add) and goes on to declare himself the winner of whatever debate happened to be underway, based simply upon the fact that he called the other person a racist... blah blah blah blah...

Staggeringly lazy...  I'm not the "winner" 'cause I called you a racist and I've certainly not declared myself such.  The only thing I have been doing is formulating a coherent, logical argument and supporting it with facts, research, and evidence.  I think it's quite telling that you believe doing so requires one to be "a shut-in" which is probably why you've never tried anything of the sort.  And contrary to your belief, rebuttals to your "truth bombs" do not require hours and/or days to prepare, but very little time at all, really.  But by all means, continue your tantrum, Donald.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   12/23/2015, 10:54 am

Heretic wrote:

Staggeringly lazy...  I'm not the "winner" 'cause I called you a racist and I've certainly not declared myself such.
You better not! I have no intention of sharing his signature file with anyone. Kapish? 
Heretic wrote:
The only thing I have been doing is formulating a coherent, logical argument and supporting it with facts, research, and evidence.
Unfortunately he's built up an impregnable immunity to that based on relying on wingnut sites like Breitbart and Fox news for all his information. Perhaps try a catchy slogan instead,aimed for a simple mind like "guns don't kill people,yada,yada,yada"
Heretic wrote:
 I think it's quite telling that you believe doing so requires one to be "a shut-in" which is probably why you've never tried anything of the sort.  And contrary to your belief, rebuttals to your "truth bombs" do not require hours and/or days to prepare, but very little time at all, really.
Illustrating just how lazy our house troll is.
Heretic wrote:
 But by all means, continue your tantrum, Donald.
Yes indeed. I'm enjoying this immensely. Laughing
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: San Bernardino   

Back to top Go down
 
San Bernardino
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 5 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: