(07-06-2016 10:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 08:46 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 03:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Even one shot is awful, but what makes you think all those people you listed don't care? It certainly looks like you are taking others suffering and trying to exploit it to score political points. Sad

Funny.....don't recall you calling out Lazytom, gsu, johnnyzero, etc. when they were taking the suffering of the folks in Orlando and trying to score political points.

I wonder why you wouldn't call out the leftists when they do it but jump on a conservative when they do, what with you being a moderate and all.
/sarcasm

He is anything but a moderate. He vounteers his time to be active in the Dem campaigns. His words not mine.

I'm a Democrat, do you expect me to volunteer in Republican campaigns? The Democratic Party is a big tent party. We have progressives, moderates, liberals, business conservatives centrists but I don't think any of those labels really work very well. Most people are a blend of differing positions. Moderate probably fits me more than any of the other labels. I don't normally take extreme positions and am very pragmatic.

Dude, I'm about as conservative as they come on MOST issues (especially economic) and I've never volunteered anything for the Republicans.

(07-07-2016 04:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 10:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Firmbizzle thinks these are all legal without a link itherwise. Keep the index finger off the carb, son.

Provide some links showing that they aren't legal.

Seriously. You need to take reality pills.

That is the dumbest request that I have ever read on a message board. Congratulations.

(07-07-2016 07:24 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 10:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 08:46 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 03:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Even one shot is awful, but what makes you think all those people you listed don't care? It certainly looks like you are taking others suffering and trying to exploit it to score political points. Sad

Funny.....don't recall you calling out Lazytom, gsu, johnnyzero, etc. when they were taking the suffering of the folks in Orlando and trying to score political points.

I wonder why you wouldn't call out the leftists when they do it but jump on a conservative when they do, what with you being a moderate and all.
/sarcasm

He is anything but a moderate. He vounteers his time to be active in the Dem campaigns. His words not mine.

I'm a Democrat, do you expect me to volunteer in Republican campaigns? The Democratic Party is a big tent party. We have progressives, moderates, liberals, business conservatives centrists but I don't think any of those labels really work very well. Most people are a blend of differing positions. Moderate probably fits me more than any of the other labels. I don't normally take extreme positions and am very pragmatic.

Dude, I'm about as conservative as they come on MOST issues (especially economic) and I've never volunteered anything for the Republicans.

Good for you! What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Chicago Passes Ominous Threshold: More Than 2,000 People Shot So Far In 2016…



Gun control in action.

Quote:(CNN) –
A war among criminals rages on in America's third-largest city, with innocent residents caught in the crossfire.

Over the holiday weekend, Chicago passed an ominous threshold: So far in 2016, 2,000 people have been victims of gun violence.

In all of last year, 2,988 people were victims of gun violence, according to records kept by The Chicago Tribune.

Over the Fourth of July weekend, four people were killed and 46 were injured in 42 shootings and a stabbing, according to a release from Chicago police. Last July 4 weekend, seven were killed and 40 wounded.

Looking at all of 2016 — in every metric that matters in tracking gun violence — the numbers are up.

At least 319 people have been slain in Chicago this year, about a 50% increase over this period last year. The number of shootings and the number of shooting victims in 2016 have increased at about the same rate.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/chicago...d=26251398

Here's the problem with the left's argument in re Chicago...

The right points out that Chicago has strict gun laws, but still high gun crime. They respond by saying that although they've made it more difficult, they can still get guns from nearby states... which only implies that were it not for strict gun laws, the number of gun crimes would be even higher.... and of course were it not for the more lax laws in the other states, their gun stats would be even lower.

My point being that while access to guns might slightly elevate or suppress the number, there is obviously something far larger going on. THAT is what should be addressed

The problem with the rights argument that libs should be equally upset about these crimes as they are about Michael Brown, Tamire Rice etc etc. is that in those crimes, the shooter did not stand trial. However, in these Chicago crimes, not only are both parties likely armed but often times, the killer is brought to justice and stands trial.

(07-07-2016 02:12 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  The problem with the rights argument that libs should be equally upset about these crimes as they are about Michael Brown, Tamire Rice etc etc. is that in those crimes, the shooter did not stand trial. However, in these Chicago crimes, not only are both parties likely armed but often times, the killer is brought to justice and stands trial.

Do you really think this way?

Wow... I mean seriously... wow.

Errors in your comment.
1)often times in shootings by police, the shooters are also brought to justice and stand trial.... If you want to say more often or less often, you're going to have to produce some statistics. I feel comfortable that all sorts of gang and drug related shootings go unreported, much less prosecuted. I also feel confident that while they may not get convicted, VIRTUALLY no shootings by a cop go unsolved. You may disagree with the decision, but PEOPLE are investigated. I feel confident that MANY deaths at the hands of criminals never have a viable suspect to investigate.

2) That's not the right's argument. Nobody's asking you to be 'equally' upset. They're simply asking you to be consistent. If you want to argue that cops are out of control, that's fine. You'll actually have a lot of support for this from the right, especially the far right.... but that's not BLM. It's about bad cops.

The left is trying to make something racial (BLM) when they essentially admit by their arguments that racism (in those events) doesn't exist.... That's a deflection from the issue.

Do BLM or not? You can choose... but you need to stop calling it BLM if only SOME black lives matter. THEY are the ones trying to make you care 'as much'. 'The right' is just calling them out on their hypocrisy.

3) and proof of the deflection... what does the death at the hands of the police have to do AT ALL with taking the second amendment rights away from 'the people'?

(07-07-2016 07:43 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 04:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 10:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Firmbizzle thinks these are all legal without a link itherwise. Keep the index finger off the carb, son.

Provide some links showing that they aren't legal.

Seriously. You need to take reality pills.

That is the dumbest request that I have ever read on a message board. Congratulations.

So what you are saying is that you can't produce the links. I'm just suppose to trust you.

Hambone

Im not talking about how I feel personally since Im not a member of BLM. Im talking about the preception that they have regarding a handful of cop killings in which the cops never went to trial. What is happening in Chicago has been going on for some time. BLM is a movement specifically created in response to recent cop shootings so any attempt to connect what is happening in Chicago is simply deflection.

You seem to agree that what the far right and BLM have in common is that that they are upset about bad cops. BLM should not be asked to comment or be upset about Chicago.

BLM clearly cares only about black lives killed by white cops. I have never advocated their movement in any way and have simply attempted to articulate why I think they exist.

As for second amendment rights......I have always proclaimed my support for the second ammendment.

(07-07-2016 01:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Here's the problem with the left's argument in re Chicago...

The right points out that Chicago has strict gun laws, but still high gun crime. They respond by saying that although they've made it more difficult, they can still get guns from nearby states... which only implies that were it not for strict gun laws, the number of gun crimes would be even higher.... and of course were it not for the more lax laws in the other states, their gun stats would be even lower.

My point being that while access to guns might slightly elevate or suppress the number, there is obviously something far larger going on. THAT is what should be addressed

There are certainly more things going on. Criminals that are arrested for gun crimes need to be in jail for a lot longer. Why aren't they now? I don't know. I don't believe Chicago has particularly strict gun laws though (they tried and they got shot down by Supreme Court). Even if they did it probably wouldn't work since criminals can get their guns from nearby areas.

The only reason high crime areas have strict gun laws is because low crime areas don't feel the need to try anything of the sort. It isn't going to work at a local level, but probably doesn't make it worse.

(07-07-2016 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Hambone

Im not talking about how I feel personally since Im not a member of BLM. Im talking about the preception that they have regarding a handful of cop killings in which the cops never went to trial. What is happening in Chicago has been going on for some time. BLM is a movement specifically created in response to recent cop shootings so any attempt to connect what is happening in Chicago is simply deflection.

It's not a deflection because it's not directed at you. It's directed at 'them', and it IS pertinent because they have chosen a moniker that doesn't reflect reality. The shootings in Chicago WOULD matter if their moniker were appropriate, but it isn't. That is precisely the point. As I said, if one wants to talk about 'bad' cops, they will get support from many on the right... but they aren't talking about bad cops. They've decided to imply racism, and are ignoring their own racism.

That's BS.

Quote:You seem to agree that what the far right and BLM have in common is that that they are upset about bad cops. BLM should not be asked to comment or be upset about Chicago.

Ignoring that BLM portends to care about ALL black lives, when clearly they don't, That's hypocrisy. That's like saying that Isil has nothing to do with Islam, but just terrorism, when the I in Isil STANDS for Islam.

Quote:BLM clearly cares only about black lives killed by white cops. I have never advocated their movement in any way and have simply attempted to articulate why I think they exist.

As for second amendment rights......I have always proclaimed my support for the second ammendment.

I don't care what you advocate for personally.

BLM CLAIMS to care about black lives... but they don't. If they did, they would care about Chicago. They don't even seem to care about bad cops. If they did, they would be out in force when white people are shot by cops.

YOU are the one who brought them into the argument by talking about their issues Tamir Rice etc. Why did you mention them, and not THESE black people? Two entirely different cohorts. The Right (the ones who say you're supposed to care as much about these people as those) is talking about BLM hypocrites. If that isn't you, why are you defending them? Why do you accuse 'the right' of talking about your opinions when they aren't yours?

What they care about is when black people are shot by white cops. That's it. White people aren't going to support them because they've intentionally excluded them from joining them, and they've also excluded themselves from lots of other black people, especially those in Chicago.

I don't see why you have such a problem with 'the right' calling hypocrites out on their hypocrisy. The group is 'poorly' named. It isn't about black lives mattering at all.

(07-07-2016 03:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There are certainly more things going on. Criminals that are arrested for gun crimes need to be in jail for a lot longer. Why aren't they now? I don't know. I don't believe Chicago has particularly strict gun laws though (they tried and they got shot down by Supreme Court). Even if they did it probably wouldn't work since criminals can get their guns from nearby areas.

The only reason high crime areas have strict gun laws is because low crime areas don't feel the need to try anything of the sort. It isn't going to work at a local level, but probably doesn't make it worse.

'particularly strict' is your definition. They are certainly more strict than other places.... That's their claim.

It depends on what you mean by 'probably doesn't make it worse'. If you mean that having slightly more strict gun laws isn't going to cause MORE gun violence, I'd generally agree... but you don't take away Constitutional rights because you think it won't make things worse. It probably wouldn't make things worse if we stopped people with IQs below 100 from voting.

The 'claim' is that more strict gun laws makes things better... and you even try and make that claim (albeit obtusely) here.

But you have zero evidence that more strict gun laws makes things better, even locally. The BEST you can argue is it probably doesn't make them worse.

But the reality is that it DOES make things worse for the 100+mm legal and law abiding gun owners in this country who have committed no crimes. You've turned them INTO criminals by making more strict gun laws. and since criminals don't register their guns or apply for background checks, it seems obvious that such restrictions won't impact gun CRIMES... since they don't impact gun CRIMINALS.

It just absolutely astounds me that you guys can't/won't see this. If you just don't care about those people and want to repeal the second amendment... or otherwise amend it... that's fine, and there is a process for that. I'm dead serious. I suspect such a movement would garner about 40% support right now, and maybe closer to 50 or even 60 in rather short order... depending on what such a bill looked like. Why would people not be forthcoming and simply admit that this is their goal?

Gun registration and background checks etc are a fine idea in theory, but the idea that they will measurably impact gun crime is ludicrous.

(07-07-2016 05:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 02:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Hambone

Im not talking about how I feel personally since Im not a member of BLM. Im talking about the preception that they have regarding a handful of cop killings in which the cops never went to trial. What is happening in Chicago has been going on for some time. BLM is a movement specifically created in response to recent cop shootings so any attempt to connect what is happening in Chicago is simply deflection.

It's not a deflection because it's not directed at you. It's directed at 'them', and it IS pertinent because they have chosen a moniker that doesn't reflect reality. The shootings in Chicago WOULD matter if their moniker were appropriate, but it isn't. That is precisely the point. As I said, if one wants to talk about 'bad' cops, they will get support from many on the right... but they aren't talking about bad cops. They've decided to imply racism, and are ignoring their own racism.

That's BS.

Quote:You seem to agree that what the far right and BLM have in common is that that they are upset about bad cops. BLM should not be asked to comment or be upset about Chicago.

Ignoring that BLM portends to care about ALL black lives, when clearly they don't, That's hypocrisy. That's like saying that Isil has nothing to do with Islam, but just terrorism, when the I in Isil STANDS for Islam.

Quote:BLM clearly cares only about black lives killed by white cops. I have never advocated their movement in any way and have simply attempted to articulate why I think they exist.

As for second amendment rights......I have always proclaimed my support for the second ammendment.

I don't care what you advocate for personally.

BLM CLAIMS to care about black lives... but they don't. If they did, they would care about Chicago. They don't even seem to care about bad cops. If they did, they would be out in force when white people are shot by cops.

YOU are the one who brought them into the argument by talking about their issues Tamir Rice etc. Why did you mention them, and not THESE black people? Two entirely different cohorts. The Right (the ones who say you're supposed to care as much about these people as those) is talking about BLM hypocrites. If that isn't you, why are you defending them? Why do you accuse 'the right' of talking about your opinions when they aren't yours?

What they care about is when black people are shot by white cops. That's it. White people aren't going to support them because they've intentionally excluded them from joining them, and they've also excluded themselves from lots of other black people, especially those in Chicago.

I don't see why you have such a problem with 'the right' calling hypocrites out on their hypocrisy. The group is 'poorly' named. It isn't about black lives mattering at all.

(07-07-2016 03:08 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  There are certainly more things going on. Criminals that are arrested for gun crimes need to be in jail for a lot longer. Why aren't they now? I don't know. I don't believe Chicago has particularly strict gun laws though (they tried and they got shot down by Supreme Court). Even if they did it probably wouldn't work since criminals can get their guns from nearby areas.

The only reason high crime areas have strict gun laws is because low crime areas don't feel the need to try anything of the sort. It isn't going to work at a local level, but probably doesn't make it worse.

'particularly strict' is your definition. They are certainly more strict than other places.... That's their claim.

It depends on what you mean by 'probably doesn't make it worse'. If you mean that having slightly more strict gun laws isn't going to cause MORE gun violence, I'd generally agree... but you don't take away Constitutional rights because you think it won't make things worse. It probably wouldn't make things worse if we stopped people with IQs below 100 from voting.

The 'claim' is that more strict gun laws makes things better... and you even try and make that claim (albeit obtusely) here.

But you have zero evidence that more strict gun laws makes things better, even locally. The BEST you can argue is it probably doesn't make them worse.

But the reality is that it DOES make things worse for the 100+mm legal and law abiding gun owners in this country who have committed no crimes. You've turned them INTO criminals by making more strict gun laws. and since criminals don't register their guns or apply for background checks, it seems obvious that such restrictions won't impact gun CRIMES... since they don't impact gun CRIMINALS.

It just absolutely astounds me that you guys can't/won't see this. If you just don't care about those people and want to repeal the second amendment... or otherwise amend it... that's fine, and there is a process for that. I'm dead serious. I suspect such a movement would garner about 40% support right now, and maybe closer to 50 or even 60 in rather short order... depending on what such a bill looked like. Why would people not be forthcoming and simply admit that this is their goal?

Gun registration and background checks etc are a fine idea in theory, but the idea that they will measurably impact gun crime is ludicrous.

Obtusely? You guys just can't have an argument without using insulting terms. "Even locally"? My whole point is that you can't have gun restrictions locally - it's like plugging a hole in a wall, when the water is coming over the top. And you can't get evidence that national gun laws don't work because we've never done it. And how do you know that gun regulations will measurably impact gun crime when we've NEVER DONE IT! You really need to read more instead of just insulting.

I mean, I realize this is just a conservative circle-jerk on this board, but most on here can have discussions without being insulting, even when we disagree. I have more important things to do than listen to your opinion - as that is all it is, not fact, even though you assume it is. I'm done here.

(07-06-2016 11:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Haha! I'm not looking for affirmation from you guys.

Sure you are, or else you wouldn't have tried to humble us commonfolk with all your accomplishments.

(07-07-2016 07:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Haha! I'm not looking for affirmation from you guys.

Sure you are, or else you wouldn't have tried to humble us commonfolk with all your accomplishments.

That is funny right there. What accomplishments have I shared with you guys? If my posts somehow make you feel inferior then I'm sorry but that is on you, not me.

(07-07-2016 07:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Obtusely? You guys just can't have an argument without using insulting terms. "Even locally"? My whole point is that you can't have gun restrictions locally - it's like plugging a hole in a wall, when the water is coming over the top. And you can't get evidence that national gun laws don't work because we've never done it. And how do you know that gun regulations will measurably impact gun crime when we've NEVER DONE IT! You really need to read more instead of just insulting.

Wow. I made an error by saying obtusely. I should have said something more like tangentially. Mea culpa. You might try decaf.

Having said that, we also haven't trued nuking Chicago to eliminate all the criminals AND their guns. you in?

Your metaphor of the dike actually proves my original contention about not addressing the problem... The water over or under or through the dike isn't the problem. That's just water. It's the people holding your head under the water that are the problem. You would essentially ban water (something most people overwhelmingly use safely) to keep murderers from drowning you.

The reason we haven't 'tried it' (depending on what you mean) is that it's generally been held to be unconstitutional. As I said, if you want to change the Constitution, go ahead and follow the process. Why haven't you tried that?

I understand you don't like my poor choice of a single word, but you're only proving everything else to be true/

(07-07-2016 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 07:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Haha! I'm not looking for affirmation from you guys.

Sure you are, or else you wouldn't have tried to humble us commonfolk with all your accomplishments.

That is funny right there. What accomplishments have I shared with you guys? If my posts somehow make you feel inferior then I'm sorry but that is on you, not me.

I don't feel inferior in any way shape or form. You however in an attempt to humble somebody like me with your accomplishments, just doubled down with a heaping spoonful of arrogance. Intentional? Possibly.

(07-07-2016 09:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 07:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Obtusely? You guys just can't have an argument without using insulting terms. "Even locally"? My whole point is that you can't have gun restrictions locally - it's like plugging a hole in a wall, when the water is coming over the top. And you can't get evidence that national gun laws don't work because we've never done it. And how do you know that gun regulations will measurably impact gun crime when we've NEVER DONE IT! You really need to read more instead of just insulting.

Wow. I made an error by saying obtusely. I should have said something more like tangentially. Mea culpa. You might try decaf.

Having said that, we also haven't trued nuking Chicago to eliminate all the criminals AND their guns. you in?

Your metaphor of the dike actually proves my original contention about not addressing the problem... The water over or under or through the dike isn't the problem. That's just water. It's the people holding your head under the water that are the problem. You would essentially ban water (something most people overwhelmingly use safely) to keep murderers from drowning you.

The reason we haven't 'tried it' (depending on what you mean) is that it's generally been held to be unconstitutional. As I said, if you want to change the Constitution, go ahead and follow the process. Why haven't you tried that?

I understand you don't like my poor choice of a single word, but you're only proving everything else to be true/

lol

(07-07-2016 09:53 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 07:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(07-06-2016 11:18 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Haha! I'm not looking for affirmation from you guys.

Sure you are, or else you wouldn't have tried to humble us commonfolk with all your accomplishments.

That is funny right there. What accomplishments have I shared with you guys? If my posts somehow make you feel inferior then I'm sorry but that is on you, not me.

I don't feel inferior in any way shape or form. You however in an attempt to humble somebody like me with your accomplishments, just doubled down with a heaping spoonful of arrogance. Intentional? Possibly.

Ha What accomplishments? You are paranoid.

Chicago On the Brink

I wonder if this will have any impact on housing prices or popularity of the "fashionable" north side neighborhoods of the city. If the South and West side mayhem really starts bleeding into downtown and north, then Chicago is well on its way to becoming a Detroit.

Obama needs to Come back home to Chicago and once again become a community divider, not a nation divider.