It couldn't happen here, until it does ...active shooter on MSU campus

[Dahobbs 17534]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No one is saying it shouldn't be addressed.  It's the manner in which we should go about it.  The current brain trust figured it would be a brilliant time to piss off half the gun owning community about a fucking brace.  So, yeah.    Please add it to the list of the other 50 dangerous things that need to be addressed, for the good of society.  Should I be more concerned with being killed at HEB or the neighbors teenagers getting a laced pill?  Society indeed. 

If we were limited to addressing one thing at a time, your argument on prioritization may have some merit. But we aren't. Weird. 

Also, you are saying it shouldn't be addressed when you say the way to address it is to "enforce existing laws" that 1) we know don't work, and 2) we know will be declared unconstitutional. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Wally Fairway 5548]

18 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That's not the argument.  The argument is that your odds of being affected in one of these events is extremely small, and that is not the way they are discussed, or treated for that matter. 

I would like to argue the other side of this small odds point with you.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That regulation has not yet faced a constitutional challenge.

Yes, and what is the timeframe to comply?  120 days or become a felon.  Cool, cool.  For an aide designed for the disabled to use.  You believe it will be struck down, constitutionally, in 120 days?

[Dahobbs 17534]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Yes, and what is the timeframe to comply?  120 days or become a felon.  Cool, cool.  For an aide designed for the disabled to use.  You believe it will be struck down, constitutionally, in 120 days?

Yes, I do. Some federal judge will grant an injunction before that time frame is up.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Brisketexan 105127]

Yes, I do. Some federal judge will grant an injunction before that time frame is up.

Exactly. That’s how it’s done.

[fattyflattie 4639]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If we were limited to addressing one thing at a time, your argument on prioritization may have some merit. But we aren't. Weird. 

Also, you are saying it shouldn't be addressed when you say the way to address it is to "enforce existing laws" that 1) we know don't work, and 2) we know will be declared unconstitutional. 

We know don't work?  If your only acceptable goal is net 0, then no, they will not work. My understanding is we are working to lessen these events.  Actually, maybe, putting effort into following our existing laws would help?  Sutherland Springs would think so.     We can discuss this event and the effects of the plea down elsewhere, but had that DA taken EXISTING gun laws seriously, this tragedy could very well have been prevented. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, I do. Some federal judge will grant an injunction before that time frame is up.

 

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Exactly. That’s how it’s done.

Guess we will find out soon enough.  Got what, 3 months to find out?  Big assumption its a legitimate law.  I'm certain you understand some things should be overturned, in general?

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

We know don't work?  If your only acceptable goal is net 0, then no, they will not work. My understanding is we are working to lessen these events.  Actually, maybe, putting effort into following our existing laws would help?  Sutherland Springs would think so.     We can discuss this event and the effects of the plea down elsewhere, but had that DA taken EXISTING gun laws seriously, this tragedy could very well have been prevented. 

Existing laws don't work because they aren't designed to work. They aren't designed to be enforceable. They aren't designed to prevent tragedy, but rather to punish wrong doing. As an example, you can't effectively enforce a law that requires individual purchasers to be honest on paperwork. That would require a nanny state of obscene proportions. You can punish people AFTER the fact for their dishonesty if it is discovered. But that doesn't prevent the gun from getting in the wrong hands. Going back to the earlier analogy, our mesh roof is designed to prevent rain. Fixing the hole in it isn't going to solve our problem. We need a new roof.

The goal is of course zero, even if getting to that goal is impossible. But, that doesn't mean getting to zero by any all means possible. The rights of individuals to own firearms do need to be taken into account and balanced against the harm sought to be avoided. 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

 

Guess we will find out soon enough.  Got what, 3 months to find out?  Big assumption its a legitimate law.  I'm certain you understand some things should be overturned, in general?

I don't think you're paying attention. We're telling you it isn't, at least not since Bruen was decided. Whether it would have been a proper exercise of government power prior to the Bruen decision is a much more complicated question, requiring analysis of the rule making process, the scope of the rule, and Congress' specific delegation of power. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

They aren't designed to be enforceable.

Was the '19 charge for this gentlemen enforceable?

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You can punish people AFTER the fact for their dishonesty if it is discovered.

WE, as a society, apparently choose not to.  Kyle Rittenhouse and Hunter Biden out front should have told you.  Two rather famous people that could be used to send a message that WE take this seriously, no matter who you are.  I'll ping you if either are ever rung up on it.  

[Dahobbs 17534]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Was the '19 charge for this gentlemen enforceable?

Clearly not. 

Quote

WE, as a society, apparently choose not to.  Kyle Rittenhouse and Hunter Biden out front should have told you.  Two rather famous people that could be used to send a message that WE take this seriously, no matter who you are.  I'll ping you if either are ever rung up on it.  

Again, the laws we have today aren't designed to prevent tragedy, but to punish wrongdoers. If we wanted to be serious about preventing mass shootings, we would need laws that are proactive, not reactive. 

Punishing Kyle or Hunter (what he has to do with this I have no fucking clue) is a reactive response to conduct that has already occurred. Proper gun reform would be aimed at proactively preventing guns from getting in the hands of people who would abuse them. Our current laws are not setup for this purpose. 

Right now, you're hoping the rain happens to only hits the exact right places of our mesh roof. What you should be doing is helping us get a roof actually designed to stop the rain. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[fattyflattie 4639]

11 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Clearly not. 

I would disagree.  Had he not been pleaded down, he would have had an additional barrier to purchasing the firearms used this week.  He might have even been behind bars.  But we aren't interested in enforcing laws, only creating new ones.  Further, we pick and choose who to enforce against, and who to target with the new laws.  Cool system we have. 

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, the laws we have today aren't designed to prevent tragedy, but to punish wrongdoers.

Partial credit.  

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Punishing Kyle or Hunter (what he has to do with this I have no fucking clue) is a reactive response to conduct that has already occurred.

Two famous people on opposite sides of the aisle that are allowed to break the law.  Long standing, well known laws.  A law DESIGNED to keep firearms out of hands of folks that don't meet the criteria we designed.   Do we want to keep firearms out of their hands, since the existing laws we have say they should not have access?   You want me to buy in on additional laws, when I'm shown time and time again that the govt is only interested in enforcing them when it interests them?  Like a politically charged type of weapon or appurtenance? 

If we don't enforce our existing laws, why are you certain we will enforce the new ones?  Maybe because they are targeted at a certain group?

[Zepol87 9185]

You have the same fucking arguments on every mass shooting thread. Dude you don't care

[YGIFS 19450]

Anybody else have Hunter Biden on their 2023 mass shooting bingo card besides FF?  Definitely the early leader into the clubhouse.  
 

guy shouldn’t have been outta jail. Nobody is really refuting that.  Just a weird flex: “he should be locked up, no pleading down.  But since he’s out and we can enforce the laws her have…give him some more guns.  Fifth Circuit out front shoulda told ya!”

[Dahobbs 17534]

10 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I would disagree.  Had he not been pleaded down, he would have had an additional barrier to purchasing the firearms used this week.  He might have even been behind bars.  But we aren't interested in enforcing laws, only creating new ones.  Further, we pick and choose who to enforce against, and who to target with the new laws.  Cool system we have. 

Partial credit.  

Two famous people on opposite sides of the aisle that are allowed to break the law.  Long standing, well known laws.  A law DESIGNED to keep firearms out of hands of folks that don't meet the criteria we designed.   Do we want to keep firearms out of their hands, since the existing laws we have say they should not have access?   You want me to buy in on additional laws, when I'm shown time and time again that the govt is only interested in enforcing them when it interests them?  Like a politically charged type of weapon or appurtenance? 

If we don't enforce our existing laws, why are you certain we will enforce the new ones?  Maybe because they are targeted at a certain group?

You're focused on enforcing existing laws, but not asking the HOW. What is the mechanism of enforcement? If it is difficult, if it requires a lot of conditions to occur, if it requires a lot of actors, enforcement is going to be less than ideal. It isn't that we aren't interested in enforcement, is that we've created a law that is inherently difficult to enforce. 

It is sort of like how we have speed limits. Enforcement is predicated on a law enforcement officer observing a particular vehicle moving faster than the speed limit. But we only have so many officers. And even when they catch someone, it is possible that the evidence doesn't hold up in court, or that the cop doesn't show up at trial, or a huge number of other factors. Meanwhile, >99.99% of other drivers speed without any repercussion. If we truly wanted no one to speed, we wouldn't rely on a reactive law that requires law enforcement to catch a violator. We would mandate that all manufacturers of cars install systems that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit. 

For gun safety reform, I'm not asking for new laws to make new conduct illegal. I'm asking us to replace existing laws with laws better designed to solve our problem. Trying to "fix" the mesh roof so it catches all the rain is a hell of a lot harder than simply replacing it with a proper, solid roof. You're insistence that we do the former before attempting the latter is... say it with me... stupid. Extremely stupid. And, I'd wager more than a bit disingenuous on your part. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Dahobbs

[Hefeweizen 5320]

How did we get on Hunter’s cannon?

 

 The fucking UK took care of this shit after Dunblane.  We’ve had a hundred of them and haven’t done shit.  End of story.

[fattyflattie 4639]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

For gun safety reform, I'm not asking for new laws to make new conduct illegal. I'm asking us to replace existing laws with laws better designed to solve our problem. Trying to "fix" the mesh roof so it catches all the rain is a hell of a lot harder than simply replacing it with a proper, solid roof. You're insistence that we do the former before attempting the latter is... say it with me... stupid. Extremely stupid. And, I'd wager more than a bit disingenuous on your part. 

Yes, I understand you would rather continue to whittle away at legal owners rights, and disregard any impact to them, in an attempt to theoretically fix an issue, after throwing in the towel on existing attempts.  Wonder how many speeders cause fatality wrecks across the US, maybe you should champion some governors on that as well.  I'm going to guess it's more than mass shootings.  We are doing this because we care about society, correct?   

At the end of the day, you are looking to enact changes dreamt up and drafted by heavily influenced political puppets, in the name of societal benefit.

[Dahobbs 17534]

7 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Yes, I understand you would rather continue to whittle away at legal owners rights, and disregard any impact to them, in an attempt to theoretically fix an issue, after throwing in the towel on existing attempts.  Wonder how many speeders cause fatality wrecks across the US, maybe you should champion some governors on that as well.  I'm going to guess it's more than mass shootings.  We are doing this because we care about society, correct?   

At the end of the day, you are looking to enact changes dreamt up and drafted by heavily influenced political puppets, in the name of societal benefit.

I don't think more effective regulation necessarily means lessened rights. I don't know what the rest of your post refers to. I haven't cited laws proposed by anyone else but myself. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think more effective regulation necessarily means lessened rights.

Necessarily.  But you can see where it would, as well?  Which is as they say, our concern, dude.

[Dahobbs 17534]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Necessarily.  But you can see where it would, as well?  Which is as they say, our concern, dude.

Yes, heavy handed regulation is a possibility. It is made all the more likely by your refusal to compromise an inch. And honestly, I think that is a shame. 

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The truth is that you're fine with kids dying. You even want them to die so you can laugh at lib tears. And you'll go to hell for it. 

Fuck off, cunt. 

[royiv 9310]

Quit engaging with fatty. He's a disingenuous ass (him calling someone else disingenuous upthread was rich) who only cares about his own personal unfettered access to guns and not about the safety of children (physical and emotional) and society as a whole. You're not going to change his mind. He sees victims of gun violence as collateral damage in his fight to own as many assault weapons as he wants. 

[Brisketexan 105127]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

Guess we will find out soon enough.  Got what, 3 months to find out?  Big assumption its a legitimate law.  I'm certain you understand some things should be overturned, in general?

Of course I do.  I literally defend and attack the validity/enforceability/parameters of statutes for a living, like, every week.

Some statutes/regulations can be struck down on quite ordinary grounds (they are vague, or (for regulations) they do something beyond regulatory power (that is, the thing the regulation does has to be done by a statute enacted by Congress) -- that's the reasoning the 5th circuit applied to the bump stock ban).  Those rules of construction and enforcement still apply.  AND, we will see some gun regs and statutes limited on such bases, because again, courts will always rule on a question based on the narrowest/least-intrusive basis available (a constitutional ruling is the BROADEST basis available).

So, courts can (and should) limit/strike down bad regs and statutes on some very ordinary bases.

That is entirely aside and apart from the fact that it's quite hard to conceive of ANY gun regulation/statute that, if it survives such lesser scrutiny, can survive post-Bruen constitutional scrutiny.  Again, the rule is functionally "any limit on firearm ownership/possession that was not in place in 1791 is unconstitutional."  Can you think of ANY regulations/limits on firearm ownership/possession that were in place in 1791?  Seriously.  Can you?  Now, we are sane people -- we understand that the reason that there were few, if any such restrictions, is that all personal firearms at that time were fucking single-shot muzzle loading weapons.  We hadn't even reached the "six shooters are lethal for gunfighters" era where some western towns made you check your weapons at the city limit.  Because we didn't need to.  There was no "check your flintlock at the city limit" rule because there was no need, because weapons were primitive as shit.

Bruen is an insane rule.  It locks firearm regulations down as of 1791, but does not lock down firearms technology as of 1791.  It's as fucking stupid as if the court said that no limits on the right of free speech that were not in place as of 1791 would be allowed.  That would functionally ban the FCC and its regulation of the airwaves, of frequencies, broadcast strength and interference, etc., because hey....no electronic broadcasts in 1791!

It is a terribly reasoned decision, and we are already reaping awful dividends from it mere months into its existence.

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously.  Can you?

Maybe something with the lack of rights for non-landowning, non-white citizens? Though I'm certain that's covered somewhere.  I've asked you several times.  Are you for or against using time and capital on braces, when we obviously have bigger fish we can fry. Forget for a moment your assumption it will be immediately overturned.  

[Brisketexan 105127]

6 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Maybe something with the lack of rights for non-landowning, non-white citizens? Though I'm certain that's covered somewhere.

Yep.  Through later amendments.

Bottom line, the SCOTUS has set the rule, plain and clear: pretty much any regulation/limitation on firearms that wasn't in place in 1791 is unconstitutional.  If you want to change it, then you have to do the same thing we had to do in order to ban slavery and deprivation of rights: amend the constitution.  It's an insane approach to constitutional interpretation, and the logical inconsistency of Bruen brightly highlights the patent dishonesty of the supposed "originalism" approach that it embodies.  We freeze firearm law to what it was at the time of the flintlock.....without any regard for the fact that a single person can now carry enough firearm firepower to dispatch an entire 1791 regiment.

Oh, and do I much care about the braces issue?  Not really.  I don't think it accomplishes much of anything.  But again, way to miss the point -- it doesn't make a shit.  NONE OF IT MATTERS ANYMORE.

Goddamn, I bitterly recall the extemp speech I had to give on the subject of "describe the impact of new Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko" in early March, 1985.  At that time, Chernenko had been out of the public eye for weeks, with an infamous "Russian cold."  Which we all know meant that he was dead.  So, my presentation thesis was "The most important thing about Chernenko is that he's dead, so let's talk about who his successor might be."  I took third that year, with most of the critique being "you focused too much on the probability that he was dead, and didn't talk enough about his ideas."  WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT HIS IDEAS WERE.   THEY DON'T MATTER, BECAUSE HE'S FUCKING DEAD.

In sum, who gives a fuck whether we think a gun regulation is good, bad, worth the effort, or not.  It doesn't matter.  If they didn't exist in 1791, they are unconstitutional, so any other conversation is a waste of time about a hypothetical.

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and do I much care about the braces issue?  Not really.  I don't think it accomplishes much of anything.  But again, way to miss the point -- it doesn't make a shit.  NONE OF IT MATTERS ANYMORE.

In sum, who gives a fuck whether we think a gun regulation is good, bad, worth the effort, or not.  It doesn't matter.  If they didn't exist in 1791, they are unconstitutional, so any other conversation is a waste of time about a hypothetical.

I didn't miss any point.  I'm much less certain than you appear to be, of where this ends.  If it truly no longer matters, then there is no reason for DAHobbs to be passionate, or yourself, about change.  The proverbial thread is locked.  There would be no discussion about heavy handed authoritarian rule coming for the common guy.   It's either done, as you've started in my quote, or you are misrepresenting the significance of this ruling.  It can't be both. 

[Brisketexan 105127]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I didn't miss any point.  I'm much less certain than you appear to be, of where this ends.  If it truly no longer matters, then there is no reason for DAHobbs to be passionate, or yourself, about change.  The proverbial thread is locked.  There would be no discussion about heavy handed authoritarian rule coming for the common guy.   It's either done, as you've started in my quote, or you are misrepresenting the significance of this ruling.  It can't be both. 

Well, you are at least getting it.  And hell, I have barely told you about what Bruen will do -- I've just shown you what its done in just a few months, constitutionally voiding the kind of gun regulations that have been in place for decades, and which are usually among those deemed "common sense, good regulations" by even most gun owners.  Just see what it has ALREADY done, and you'll see what it will do.

But you miss where and when the heavy-handed authoritarian rule coming for the common guy comes in.  It's not coming tomorrow.  It comes in the next 10-20 years.  Once we've had a good dose of living in a country with nearly zero regulation or restrictions on firearm ownership or possession.  It comes once the people become horrified enough at those results that they no longer give a rat's ass about any vanilla notion of "responsible gun owners."  Public sentiment will reach a critical mass.  And just like the "mah gunz" and 2nd amendment absolutists gave not ONE. SINGLE. SHIT. about the rest of society, the tables will turn, and the rest of the public will give not one single shit about the idea of law abiding gun ownership.  Will they do so by stacking the court, and disingenously voiding the 2nd amendment completely?  Will they have the votes to amend the Constitution and just repeal the 2nd?  Who knows?  But in the game of "all or nothing" in a society where people have to live together, "all" becomes "nothing" at the flip of a switch, once the sentiment turns.

Bruen is giving the 2nd amendment extremists their dream utopia of a world with little to no modern firearms regulations or restrictions.  Let's see how that plays out for society.  As a gun owner, I think it's going to be disastrous.

[YGIFS 19450]

FWIW, I think the opposite is true.  I think there's a ten year swelling of more open and robust pro-gun rights via legislation and caselaw.  

And then the kind of people some of y'all want to rule us will pause a moment, celebrate your mutual victories, and round up your guns under the guise of "For the good of the State" or "To backfill the needs, in patriotic fashion, of our military or state police."  A handful of you will hold on to your weapons, as will I.  But most will shrug and give them over voluntarily just as they surrendered other rights slowly over the previous decade.  

All those rallies I've seen of Orban, Putin, Jong-Un, Al-Hadi, Khamenei, Al-Said, Erdogan, Franco, Pinochet, and even some wanna-be armchair dictators here in the United States who demand absolute loyalty.  Other than their own armed security or force posturing, I never see anybody in the audience open-carrying.  They checked them at the gate, then they left them in the car, then they left them at home.  Next, we'll just swing by your home and inventory things.....and make sure nothing falls into the hands.  Shortly after that, we'll conveniently need the types of rifles and ammo you have for our national patriotic cause.  

We don't round up the feckless, unarmed weaklings who may disagree with us politically.  Eventually, we come for them and other undesired folks.  The very first thing we do after we're done controlling education and media............we come for trouble-making, wanna be tough guys, with home arsenals.  Been that way for centuries and it works every time we try it.  The government you're arming yourself to combat from taking your liberties, the one who keeps you checking your magazines each night after you turn off cable news, isn't coming for you.  The government you really need to worry about is the one you elected, they come as your friend, to help you manage your cache, who makes it so you don't surrender your weapons in a standoff...we fix it so you drop it off at a central depository with a smile and a voucher for a pizza.  

This is the way it's been done hundreds of times for centuries.  And it works every fucking time.  And they all have one other thing in common.  

[Brisketexan 105127]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

FWIW, I think the opposite is true.  I think there's a ten year swelling of more open and robust pro-gun rights via legislation and caselaw.  

And then the kind of people some of y'all want to rule us will pause a moment, celebrate your mutual victories, and round up your guns under the guise of "For the good of the State" or "To backfill the needs, in patriotic fashion, of our military or state police."  A handful of you will hold on to your weapons, as will I.  But most will shrug and give them over voluntarily just as they surrendered other rights slowly over the previous decade.  

All those rallies I've seen of Orban, Putin, Jong-Un, Al-Hadi, Khamenei, Al-Said, Erdogan, Franco, Pinochet, and even some wanna-be armchair dictators here in the United States who demand absolute loyalty.  Other than their own armed security or force posturing, I never see anybody in the audience open-carrying.  They checked them at the gate, then they left them in the car, then they left them at home.  Next, we'll just swing by your home and inventory things.....and make sure nothing falls into the hands.  Shortly after that, we'll conveniently need the types of rifles and ammo you have for our national patriotic cause.  

We don't round up the feckless, unarmed weaklings who may disagree with us politically.  Eventually, we come for them and other undesired folks.  The very first thing we do after we're done controlling education and media............we come for trouble-making, wanna be tough guys, with home arsenals.  Been that way for centuries and it works every time we try it.  The government you're arming yourself to combat from taking your liberties, the one who keeps you checking your magazines each night after you turn off cable news, isn't coming for you.  The government you really need to worry about is the one you elected, they come as your friend, to help you manage your cache, who makes it so you don't surrender your weapons in a standoff...we fix it so you drop it off at a central depository with a smile and a voucher for a pizza.  

This is the way it's been done hundreds of times for centuries.  And it works every fucking time.  And they all have one other thing in common.  

YGIFS also has a point here.  Leopards eating people's faces party, and all that.

[atomheartbevo 89660]

12 hours ago, YGIFS said:

El Paso (one of America's 5 safest large cities)

 

[YGIFS 19450]

 Did my previous post shoot those people or the gunman?  I'm confused.  

[Deej 76775]

12 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is raining. There is a hole in our roof. But our roof is also a mesh cover and isn't designed to keep out the rain. Worrying about the hole is stupid because we need an entirely different kind of roof. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Damn.  Just read an article about a student at MSU.  She is a senior.  She was in elementary school at Sandy Hook when it went down.  The fucking PTSD.   

[DigglerontheHoof 21198]

19 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I agree. So how do we fix it?

Obviously, by making guns easier and easier to get.  I'm sure the plan is working; we just need to give it time. 

[wildcat09 29354]

I sincerely don’t understand why so many of you still argue with fatty. It is beyond clear by now that he likes mass shootings and wants more of them to occur. It’s not just a lack of empathy for others, he seriously hates having to share the world with the rest of us.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

31 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Obviously, by making guns easier and easier to get.  I'm sure the plan is working; we just need to give it time. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:40 PM, PRONG HORN said:

I am a fucking idiot and I hate brown people. 

Easy there, turbo. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

2 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Obviously, by making guns easier and easier to get.  I'm sure the plan is working; we just need to give it time. 

Ah, the ole mutual assured destruction gambit.  I like the cut of your jib

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

I have him on ignore, but has 52-80 chimed in with his “I mean, is it really a problem?” hot take?

[fattyflattie 4639]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I sincerely don’t understand why so many of you still argue with fatty. It is beyond clear by now that he likes mass shootings and wants more of them to occur. It’s not just a lack of empathy for others, he seriously hates having to share the world with the rest of us.

My favorite part is when you have nothing to add, but want a couple of reps from your CR buddies, so we get garbage like this to sort thru. Good work.  Hope getting this off your chest feels good. 

[wildcat09 29354]

26 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

My favorite part is when you have nothing to add 

Buddy, have you read your own posts?

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Buddy, have you read your own posts?

I typically give them a proof before I hit send, yeah.   I understand it has to be unbelievably frustrating that the boogie man you’ve based your arguments on over the last several years, seems to have temporarily fallen out of favor with these assholes. But still, there’s plenty that can be discussed. 

[Don Johnson 4753]

 

[Wally Fairway 5548]

6 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

Damn.  Just read an article about a student at MSU.  She is a senior.  She was in elementary school at Sandy Hook when it went down.  The fucking PTSD.   

Not just her that has gone through this before, several students from Oxford schools 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oxford-high-msu-students-cope-horror-repeated-school-shootings-rcna70576

 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Wally Fairway