(08-29-2015 11:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 11:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

One failed attempt from a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns.

Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Jon Oliver is on HBO now, and you should probably watch his show. One of the better researched shows that goes deeper into issues than you'd imagine. For instance, this one on Civil Forfeiture is great





as is this one about Beauty Pageants, which I can promise doesn't make the argument you're assuming it does





His show format involves him going very deep into a single issue, and he does a great job of it.

What do either of these comedy skits do to answer the question I asked? I don't give a schit about some comedians take on civil forfeiture, which I think is an abomination, or beauty pageants, which I think are about as useful as tits on a bull or getting my news and information from comedy central like you amd your cohorts.

I said the comedians "point" on not passing more dumb laws in order to satisfy the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" crowd after this coward killed two innocent people would be equally dumb as passing laws for unqualified and incompetent government employees to be patting down granny or my 11 yo daughter, because WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

Don't compound stupidity in one instance by doubling down on that stupidity elsewhere. Hence, the comedians point wasn't "excellent", it was more feel-goodism idiocy.

Utterly vapid.

Please point to where I said that any of those videos would address that "point"? I didn't, I was simply sharing those videos and correcting your statement about which network he works on, which you again incorrectly stated.

You need to calm down there buddy, and actually read what I write. It would help you around here quite a bit.

(08-29-2015 10:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 08:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 03:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 11:30 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Jon Oliver is on HBO now, and you should probably watch his show. One of the better researched shows that goes deeper into issues than you'd imagine. For instance, this one on Civil Forfeiture is great





as is this one about Beauty Pageants, which I can promise doesn't make the argument you're assuming it does





His show format involves him going very deep into a single issue, and he does a great job of it.

I refuse to put much stock in anything an American comedian thinks so why in the name of all that is Holy would I put any in the opinion of a British comedian?

Because you might learn something? Does the idea of that scare you?

Learn what? Leftist talking points? It's not like he is going to have an honest, open discussion....he's an entertainer who is speaking to his targeted audience. Clueless leftists who no longer have a source of information since the other leftist retired and went to work for the WWE.

You wouldn't know either way, would you?

(08-26-2015 12:58 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 12:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 12:52 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 12:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2015 12:41 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Looks like he had lived in 8 states as an adult. Financial issues and traffic ticket issues. Also difficult to work with and was always going to HR and had anger issues on the job. Looked to blame others for his failures.

Other than that and the fact that he killed two Caucasians in a premeditated ambush fashion ,.. He was a model person. I don't k ow what would make this THUG such a loser. ?? Oh yeah a coward as well.

Thug? Did he have a criminal background?

Umm... double murder.

Criminal would suggest he already has a record no?

Are you really trying to argue semantics in defense of a guy who just committed a double homicide on live TV, because you think the word thug is racist? Lmao. He proved that he is a thug. Hopefully a dead thug soon. Keep on carrying that water.

I would say he was crazy/mentally unstable or whatever, but not a thug.

(08-27-2015 06:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:12 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:58 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 04:34 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You keep supposing that those who wish to disarm the law-abiding have some benign or higher purpose.

They don’t.

They want to disarm the populace to make them easier to subdue.

The authorities were able to determine he bought the gun legally and that he did not have any history of mental illness. How would the proposed law have stopped this?

I don't know as I am not proposing nor supporting what Tom wrote. Only that in his proposal there is nefarious intent to ensure a gun-owning populace is properly tracked, checked, and managed.

Tom, your thoughts?

There's nothing nefarious in ensuring that paranoid gun owners be properly tracked, checked, and managed. Its common sense.

How about gun owners who aren't paranoid?

In my opinion every gun purchaser should be required to have liability insurance. The underwriting may have showed his unstable career history & jacked up premiums. May not have stopped the killings but at least the victims families could get reimbursed for expenses & the government for the law enforcement cost associated with this incident.

As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

It's already illegal to shoot people.

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

No.

Read before claiming to.

(08-29-2015 10:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:02 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 07:09 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Just saw a meme from Comedy Central's John Oliver that rings true...

One failed attempt from a shoe bomb and we all have to take our shoes off at the airport.

31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in the regulation of guns.

Excellent point.

No point in the least, utterly vapid.

Explaining the stupidity that is the TSA and patting down my 84yo Mother time and again on connecting flights, shouldn't be reason to add another layer of stupidity to something else.

Yet again, getting our "news and information" from comedy central...

What regulation should there be, over and above the some 20,000 laws and regs already on the books? How about an "assault" weapons ban, cause they look scary? No impact. None.

Do we enforce the laws we have now? To the fullest extent? Not even remotely close.

Start there, then get back to me on adding more silliness to the penal code...

Oh yeah but banning the rainbow flag is genius?

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

I read he had to be escorted out AFTER he was fired. Anyway why did the cops not charge him with................disorderly conduct misdemeanor?
Baseball and football players fight in the locker room, actual blows, so they can't own a gun?

No law would have stopped Williams from getting a gun. Are they employees at the station experts relative to predicting a future shooting, by a guy who made no threats, by an ex employee? No.

(08-30-2015 11:15 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

I read he had to be escorted out AFTER he was fired. Anyway why did the cops not charge him with................disorderly conduct misdemeanor?
Baseball and football players fight in the locker room, actual blows, so they can't own a gun?

No law would have stopped Williams from getting a gun. Are they employees at the station experts relative to predicting a future shooting, by a guy who made no threats, by an ex employee? No.

I listened to an interview with the station manager, and they said that the called the cops prior, and the employees huddled in another part of the station, prior to letting him go. Whether or not the cops showed up prior I cant tell you. It could be they called the cops prior, and then had to call them again aftedr firing him. But in any case, they all knew what he would do when he was terminated.

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

I kind of wonder why no one seeing his ramblings on facebook or twitter felt the need to call the authorities.

I also wonder how this guy could have followed the reporter and cameraman in the dark for 30 minutes to a remote location without them noticing. The interview was at 6:45 and a good 30 minutes away from the station. I doubt the killer would have known about it in advance (and if he did, that's another thing to investigate) so I am speculating he followed them from the station.

I too wonder how this guy knew the location of where yo conduct this ambush. Unless he just staked them out in his craziness. OR someone at the station helped him out. These people are arriving at the station around 3:00 am.

This is just as racially motivated and sick and evil as Charleston ... It just will not be presented in that same light.

They could very easily have tweeted what their morning story would be, or something like that. Local news loves to include social media.

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 09:18 AM)dcCid Wrote:  As I read through this thread is the majority of this board saying that , yes it is tragic that it happened, but we should keep it in perspective & celebrate that the shooters second amendment rights were not violated?

The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

Read what people actually say before you reply to them, please (he says with the utmost disdain for the kid).

(08-30-2015 12:06 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:40 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:08 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 11:03 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-30-2015 10:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The whole reason this nutjob freakshow teletubby wannabe was allowed to legally purchase a gun is because HR departments never spoke out against him because of the threat of lawsuits, some of which he brought against them anyway.

So you can blame much of this outcome on affirmative action and the EEOC.

Wait, what? In what way would HR speaking out against him limit his ability to purchase a firearm?

This guy was a mental case freak show. The station called the cops prior to telling him he was fired, thats how bad it was and how bad they knew he would be. The HR department should be able to tell the county that the guy has mental issues, which would prevent him from legally purchasing a gun until he went before a judge to prove otherwise. All the station had to do was to record his exit from the building, and noone in their right mind would allow this guy to have a gun. He was the epitome of mental.

The government once again let the public down. There are laws in place that would have prevented this, but due affirmative action, the eeoc, and PC culture, the system was not allowed to prevent this.

Wait, you think a companies HR department should be able to decide whether or not someone is mentally capable of purchasing a firearm? That's really your defense to your statement that EEOC and affirmative action is to blame for this shooting?

You're just flailing, making no sense whatsoever, and doing your best to blame whatever you want to blame whether or not it's logically consistent. There is not a single conservative who would agree with you that a companies HR department should have control over the ability of a person to purchase a firearm, and any sort of legislation that implied that to be the case would rightfully cause a massive backlash. Think about what you post before you post it, please.

Read what people actually say before you reply to them, please (he says with the utmost disdain for the kid).

What mistake did I make?

(08-30-2015 11:45 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I kind of wonder why no one seeing his ramblings on facebook or twitter felt the need to call the authorities.

I also wonder how this guy could have followed the reporter and cameraman in the dark for 30 minutes to a remote location without them noticing. The interview was at 6:45 and a good 30 minutes away from the station. I doubt the killer would have known about it in advance (and if he did, that's another thing to investigate) so I am speculating he followed them from the station.

Are you talking about social media posting weeks prior to the murders?
Did he make any threats?