(01-01-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If not the horrid 'demonization', what might one call this statement?

Quote:“His base though, they’re the ones that wear the F*** Your Feelings” shirts, cheer him on when he makes fun of a disable reporter, and so on. And they’re his base because they’re unable to look at the problematic things he does and actually say they’re problematic"

So you’re saying that the people I mentioned don’t exist?

On the other hand, Owl#s said that the left is OK with hurting people, in the context of mass shootings. Totally the same types of comments.

I am sure some exist. The law of large numbers tells us so. The issue isnt that at least some 'exist', it is the blanket disparagement that you toss onto the 'base' at large.

For a very bright guy, sometimes you really dont notice the nuances on what you say or how you say it.

I need to thank lad for something. I noticed in the last couple of days that the Twitter 'disarm em' crowd has really started pushing the 'the guy who dropped the baddie is a one-off due to his exceptional background' meme --- you know, the one lad was pushing the last two days. lad is better than most in getting the talking points out early to us, I have noticed.

Quote:The “security guard” was a firearms instructor and a former FBI agent who was the armed security guard on duty during the service. The fact that he is also a member of the church is irrelevant.

That is, anything to downplay the fact that a mass shooting was probably averted through use of personal firearms.

The singular facts are:

a) yes, the guy who dropped the baddie was superlative -- made an exceptionally difficult shot in a very frenzied setting. A 30 ft headshot on a moving target *is* exceptional; and he later noted he broke the fundamental rule of the situation by going for a headshot -- center mass, as many times as fast as you can is the fundamental rule. But, he also noted he did not have a center mass opportunity because of intervening pews.

b) the first victim was exceptional -- albeit a normal joe. The video shows him rising as he notices the shotgun being pulled out, and reaching to his hip. He drew down on a guy no more than 4 feet from him who already had him squared down with a shotgun. Holy smokes....

c) there were at least 4, maybe 5 non-superman joes who were no more than 3 secs behind the baddie dropper.

The entire attempt to try to write this down as a one-off due to the presence of a very exceptional firearms instructor is an absolute disservice to the guy who drew down on a perp who already had a shotgun pointed dead center at him, *and* to the 4-5 people who were no more than 2-3 secs following the perp-shooter.

But the prevalence of people who are framing this as 'we need exceptionally trained people only' is pretty interesting -- and thank you lad for presaging those talking points to us in record time.

(01-01-2020 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I need to thank lad for something. I noticed in the last couple of days that the Twitter 'disarm em' crowd has really started pushing the 'the guy who dropped the baddie is a one-off due to his exceptional background' meme --- you know, the one lad was pushing the last two days. lad is better than most in getting the talking points out early to us, I have noticed.

Quote:The “security guard” was a firearms instructor and a former FBI agent who was the armed security guard on duty during the service. The fact that he is also a member of the church is irrelevant.

That is, anything to downplay the fact that a mass shooting was probably averted through use of personal firearms.

The singular facts are:

a) yes, the guy who dropped the baddie was superlative -- made an exceptionally difficult shot in a very frenzied setting. A 30 ft headshot on a moving target *is* exceptional; and he later noted he broke the fundamental rule of the situation by going for a headshot -- center mass, as many times as fast as you can is the fundamental rule. But, he also noted he did not have a center mass opportunity because of intervening pews.

b) the first victim was exceptional -- albeit a normal joe. The video shows him rising as he notices the shotgun being pulled out, and reaching to his hip. He drew down on a guy no more than 4 feet from him who already had him squared down with a shotgun. Holy smokes....

c) there were at least 4, maybe 5 non-superman joes who were no more than 3 secs behind the baddie dropper.

The entire attempt to try to write this down as a one-off due to the presence of a very exceptional firearms instructor is an absolute disservice to the guy who drew down on a perp who already had a shotgun pointed dead center at him, *and* to the 4-5 people who were no more than 2-3 secs following the perp-shooter.

But the prevalence of people who are framing this as 'we need exceptionally trained people only' is pretty interesting -- and thank you lad for presaging those talking points to us in record time.

My point is less “we need exceptionally trained people only,” and more “don’t assume that this man’s action is indicative of all concealed carry holders.”

Y’all on the right started to politicize this immediately by pointing out that a GGG stopped a BGG, without realizing just how well trained this GGG happened to be.

I pretty broadly support the right to bare arms when it comes to hand guns - I hesitate, though, to assume that a large majority of people who own hand guns, or even have a license to carry, could have acted in the same way this man did.

(01-01-2020 12:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If not the horrid 'demonization', what might one call this statement?

Quote:“His base though, they’re the ones that wear the F*** Your Feelings” shirts, cheer him on when he makes fun of a disable reporter, and so on. And they’re his base because they’re unable to look at the problematic things he does and actually say they’re problematic"

So you’re saying that the people I mentioned don’t exist?

On the other hand, Owl#s said that the left is OK with hurting people, in the context of mass shootings. Totally the same types of comments.

I guess I am not part of his base, since I have no problem with saying those things are problematic. Just not problematic enough to make me want a Democrat, any Democrat, in his place. I think, on the one hand, nasty comment to a disabled reporter but good economic policies, on the other, polite PC comments and bad policies. Easy choice for me. But, then, I don’t require my political icons to be either perfect or godlike, like Obama. I do not support anything and everything Trump does. But in the big things he is good for America and Americans.

I’ve stated a number of times I wouldn’t consider you part of his base. IMO, people who make up the foundation (base) for any politician, typically fall for the cult of personality, and don’t actually evaluate a candidate based on their actions.

(01-01-2020 12:20 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  If not the horrid 'demonization', what might one call this statement?

Quote:“His base though, they’re the ones that wear the F*** Your Feelings” shirts, cheer him on when he makes fun of a disable reporter, and so on. And they’re his base because they’re unable to look at the problematic things he does and actually say they’re problematic"

So you’re saying that the people I mentioned don’t exist?
On the other hand, Owl#s said that the left is OK with hurting people, in the context of mass shootings. Totally the same types of comments.

Yes, I said that. And I truly believe that. And I take full ownership of saying that. And I make no apologies for saying that.

I believe they are truly horrible people, and I believe the world would be a better place without them.

I truly believe that there are leaders on the left whose sole purpose is to take our guns and take control of our health care, so we have no alternative but to let them cram their agenda down our throats, and they don't give a damn who gets killed our hurt in the process of advancing their agenda. I would count people named Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders, and Warren among their number.

(01-01-2020 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I need to thank lad for something. I noticed in the last couple of days that the Twitter 'disarm em' crowd has really started pushing the 'the guy who dropped the baddie is a one-off due to his exceptional background' meme --- you know, the one lad was pushing the last two days. lad is better than most in getting the talking points out early to us, I have noticed.

Quote:The “security guard” was a firearms instructor and a former FBI agent who was the armed security guard on duty during the service. The fact that he is also a member of the church is irrelevant.

That is, anything to downplay the fact that a mass shooting was probably averted through use of personal firearms.

The singular facts are:

a) yes, the guy who dropped the baddie was superlative -- made an exceptionally difficult shot in a very frenzied setting. A 30 ft headshot on a moving target *is* exceptional; and he later noted he broke the fundamental rule of the situation by going for a headshot -- center mass, as many times as fast as you can is the fundamental rule. But, he also noted he did not have a center mass opportunity because of intervening pews.

b) the first victim was exceptional -- albeit a normal joe. The video shows him rising as he notices the shotgun being pulled out, and reaching to his hip. He drew down on a guy no more than 4 feet from him who already had him squared down with a shotgun. Holy smokes....

c) there were at least 4, maybe 5 non-superman joes who were no more than 3 secs behind the baddie dropper.

The entire attempt to try to write this down as a one-off due to the presence of a very exceptional firearms instructor is an absolute disservice to the guy who drew down on a perp who already had a shotgun pointed dead center at him, *and* to the 4-5 people who were no more than 2-3 secs following the perp-shooter.

But the prevalence of people who are framing this as 'we need exceptionally trained people only' is pretty interesting -- and thank you lad for presaging those talking points to us in record time.

My point is less “we need exceptionally trained people only,” and more “don’t assume that this man’s action is indicative of all concealed carry holders.”

Y’all on the right started to politicize this immediately by pointing out that a GGG stopped a BGG, without realizing just how well trained this GGG happened to be.

I pretty broadly support the right to bare arms when it comes to hand guns - I hesitate, though, to assume that a large majority of people who own hand guns, or even have a license to carry, could have acted in the same way this man did.

And your comment is still an absolute disservice to the 4-5 lesser proficient who were mere seconds out of following.

If an Olympic gold medalist wrestler stops a street mugging, it does not mean that only people of that caliber can stop street muggings.

I do think there is a degree of agenda apparent here, in that people who are in favor of more gun control tend to point out that the defender was of above average qualificatiions. I wonder what they would have been saying if one of the average Joes or average Joans had done the job, which likely would have happened 1-4 seconds later if the former reserve deputy hadn't gotten there first. I am guessing, then the narrative from the gun control types would be that they were lucky they didn't kill a dozen or so of their own as they wildly fired at random.

Agenda does seem to drive perception on both sides of the aisle. In one of the antisemitic incidents, a man broke into a rabbi's house and injured 5, I think, with a machete. Normally I would expect the MSM to connect this to white supremacy. But not a mention. I thought maybe we were seeing real journalism, but it just turns out the attacker is black.

On the church shooting, what happened is exactly what I would expect. But it the opposite of what most gun controllers expect.

San Antonio

"...volunteers receive year-round training and must requalify every year."

(01-01-2020 04:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Agenda does seem to drive perception on both sides of the aisle. In one of the antisemitic incidents, a man broke into a rabbi's house and injured 5, I think, with a machete. Normally I would expect the MSM to connect this to white supremacy. But not a mention. I thought maybe we were seeing real journalism, but it just turns out the attacker is black.

I’m actually somewhat surprised that they didn’t overlook the race of the attacker and blame it on white supremacy anyway. Or maybe say that the attacker was somehow victimized by white supremacy, and that the attack was his reaction.

There's a word for what you just did, Lad... It's something like fire-bombing, but that's not it. Yes, I'm serious... I can't remember the phrase.

The Constitutionally protected right for an ordinary, untrained non-felon citizen to posses a hand-gun, hunting rifle or shotgun has existed in this country ALMOST without challenge for over 200 years. Politics only fairly recently came into the equation, and it certainly didn't start with this event.

I'm honestly struggling to understand how defending very clear Constitutional rights is remotely political. Are you saying that one party or the other doesn't support the Constitution?

Even most of those on the left seeking to change gun laws support the Constitution. They just think this portion is no longer necessary

I think what you're noting is that the left can only use this example to take guns away from criminals, not ordinary law abiding citizens... and this doesn't fit with your political agenda so you're going to turn around and claim that those who are supporting the existing laws regarding hand guns etc, which on paper includes a fair number of democrats... are acting politically

To believe that had there been no security forces there and this person shot and killed say 5 people with shotguns, that the left wouldn't include it in their list of reasons to ignore the Constitution is laughable. They won't point it out, but I'm confident that they'll even include the dead assailant so that they can call this a mass shooting (3) and why banning automatic weapons (which have killed shockingly few) isn't enough.

(01-02-2020 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There's a word for what you just did, Lad... It's something like fire-bombing, but that's not it. Yes, I'm serious... I can't remember the phrase.

The Constitutionally protected right for an ordinary, untrained non-felon citizen to posses a hand-gun, hunting rifle or shotgun has existed in this country ALMOST without challenge for over 200 years. Politics only fairly recently came into the equation, and it certainly didn't start with this event.

I'm honestly struggling to understand how defending very clear Constitutional rights is remotely political. Are you saying that one party or the other doesn't support the Constitution?

Even most of those on the left seeking to change gun laws support the Constitution. They just think this portion is no longer necessary

I think what you're noting is that the left can only use this example to take guns away from criminals, not ordinary law abiding citizens... and this doesn't fit with your political agenda so you're going to turn around and claim that those who are supporting the existing laws regarding hand guns etc, which on paper includes a fair number of democrats... are acting politically

To believe that had there been no security forces there and this person shot and killed say 5 people with shotguns, that the left wouldn't include it in their list of reasons to ignore the Constitution is laughable. They won't point it out, but I'm confident that they'll even include the dead assailant so that they can call this a mass shooting (3) and why banning automatic weapons (which have killed shockingly few) isn't enough.

Huh? Lots going on in this post that doesn't make sense to me.

1) Did I ever try and suggest that a constitutional right to bare arms hasn't existed?
2) Did I suggest that politics entered the arena with this event?
3) What a nice, loaded question with respect to "are you saying one party...doesn't support the Constitution?" I'm honestly not sure where you were going with that one.
4) I honestly don't know where you're going with the following paragraphs - what is my political agenda in this case? You seem to think that those championing the GGG are not doing so as a way to politicize this and advocate for gun rights.
5) Did I ever say anything about what the left would have done had the security forces not been there? Seems like you think I did...

As I said earlier, the point of my posts was to emphasize how prepared this individual was to act, and to not use that as a strong argument for needing more GGGs, because we shouldn't assume that all legal gun owners could act in the same way. I pretty broadly support hand gun ownership for personal protection, and have no issue, whatsoever, with the Texas law that allowed hand guns to be carried in church.

I have not been arguing for a restriction on gun ownership, or what the left would have done had the security forces not been present. Sorry to disappoint.

(01-01-2020 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I need to thank lad for something. I noticed in the last couple of days that the Twitter 'disarm em' crowd has really started pushing the 'the guy who dropped the baddie is a one-off due to his exceptional background' meme --- you know, the one lad was pushing the last two days. lad is better than most in getting the talking points out early to us, I have noticed.

Quote:The “security guard” was a firearms instructor and a former FBI agent who was the armed security guard on duty during the service. The fact that he is also a member of the church is irrelevant.

That is, anything to downplay the fact that a mass shooting was probably averted through use of personal firearms.

The singular facts are:

a) yes, the guy who dropped the baddie was superlative -- made an exceptionally difficult shot in a very frenzied setting. A 30 ft headshot on a moving target *is* exceptional; and he later noted he broke the fundamental rule of the situation by going for a headshot -- center mass, as many times as fast as you can is the fundamental rule. But, he also noted he did not have a center mass opportunity because of intervening pews.

b) the first victim was exceptional -- albeit a normal joe. The video shows him rising as he notices the shotgun being pulled out, and reaching to his hip. He drew down on a guy no more than 4 feet from him who already had him squared down with a shotgun. Holy smokes....

c) there were at least 4, maybe 5 non-superman joes who were no more than 3 secs behind the baddie dropper.

The entire attempt to try to write this down as a one-off due to the presence of a very exceptional firearms instructor is an absolute disservice to the guy who drew down on a perp who already had a shotgun pointed dead center at him, *and* to the 4-5 people who were no more than 2-3 secs following the perp-shooter.

But the prevalence of people who are framing this as 'we need exceptionally trained people only' is pretty interesting -- and thank you lad for presaging those talking points to us in record time.

My point is less “we need exceptionally trained people only,” and more “don’t assume that this man’s action is indicative of all concealed carry holders.”

Y’all on the right started to politicize this immediately by pointing out that a GGG stopped a BGG, without realizing just how well trained this GGG happened to be.

I pretty broadly support the right to bare arms when it comes to hand guns - I hesitate, though, to assume that a large majority of people who own hand guns, or even have a license to carry, could have acted in the same way this man did.

And your comment is still an absolute disservice to the 4-5 lesser proficient who were mere seconds out of following.

To each their own, as neither of us know what would have happened had the "first responder" not been there. We don't know if they would have had the same accuracy and hit their target, missed, or hit a bystander.

I guess I'm a little less confident in the abilities of strangers than you seem to be.

(01-02-2020 02:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 03:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-01-2020 01:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I need to thank lad for something. I noticed in the last couple of days that the Twitter 'disarm em' crowd has really started pushing the 'the guy who dropped the baddie is a one-off due to his exceptional background' meme --- you know, the one lad was pushing the last two days. lad is better than most in getting the talking points out early to us, I have noticed.

Quote:The “security guard” was a firearms instructor and a former FBI agent who was the armed security guard on duty during the service. The fact that he is also a member of the church is irrelevant.

That is, anything to downplay the fact that a mass shooting was probably averted through use of personal firearms.
The singular facts are:
a) yes, the guy who dropped the baddie was superlative -- made an exceptionally difficult shot in a very frenzied setting. A 30 ft headshot on a moving target *is* exceptional; and he later noted he broke the fundamental rule of the situation by going for a headshot -- center mass, as many times as fast as you can is the fundamental rule. But, he also noted he did not have a center mass opportunity because of intervening pews.
b) the first victim was exceptional -- albeit a normal joe. The video shows him rising as he notices the shotgun being pulled out, and reaching to his hip. He drew down on a guy no more than 4 feet from him who already had him squared down with a shotgun. Holy smokes....
c) there were at least 4, maybe 5 non-superman joes who were no more than 3 secs behind the baddie dropper.
The entire attempt to try to write this down as a one-off due to the presence of a very exceptional firearms instructor is an absolute disservice to the guy who drew down on a perp who already had a shotgun pointed dead center at him, *and* to the 4-5 people who were no more than 2-3 secs following the perp-shooter.
But the prevalence of people who are framing this as 'we need exceptionally trained people only' is pretty interesting -- and thank you lad for presaging those talking points to us in record time.

My point is less “we need exceptionally trained people only,” and more “don’t assume that this man’s action is indicative of all concealed carry holders.”
Y’all on the right started to politicize this immediately by pointing out that a GGG stopped a BGG, without realizing just how well trained this GGG happened to be.
I pretty broadly support the right to bare arms when it comes to hand guns - I hesitate, though, to assume that a large majority of people who own hand guns, or even have a license to carry, could have acted in the same way this man did.

And your comment is still an absolute disservice to the 4-5 lesser proficient who were mere seconds out of following.

To each their own, as neither of us know what would have happened had the "first responder" not been there. We don't know if they would have had the same accuracy and hit their target, missed, or hit a bystander.
I guess I'm a little less confident in the abilities of strangers than you seem to be.

I’m a lot more confident in the abilities of strangers with training who are present than I am in the abilities of law enforcement who are 5, 10, or 20 minutes away.

(01-02-2020 02:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  There's a word for what you just did, Lad... It's something like fire-bombing, but that's not it. Yes, I'm serious... I can't remember the phrase.

The Constitutionally protected right for an ordinary, untrained non-felon citizen to posses a hand-gun, hunting rifle or shotgun has existed in this country ALMOST without challenge for over 200 years. Politics only fairly recently came into the equation, and it certainly didn't start with this event.

I'm honestly struggling to understand how defending very clear Constitutional rights is remotely political. Are you saying that one party or the other doesn't support the Constitution?

Even most of those on the left seeking to change gun laws support the Constitution. They just think this portion is no longer necessary

I think what you're noting is that the left can only use this example to take guns away from criminals, not ordinary law abiding citizens... and this doesn't fit with your political agenda so you're going to turn around and claim that those who are supporting the existing laws regarding hand guns etc, which on paper includes a fair number of democrats... are acting politically

To believe that had there been no security forces there and this person shot and killed say 5 people with shotguns, that the left wouldn't include it in their list of reasons to ignore the Constitution is laughable. They won't point it out, but I'm confident that they'll even include the dead assailant so that they can call this a mass shooting (3) and why banning automatic weapons (which have killed shockingly few) isn't enough.

Huh? Lots going on in this post that doesn't make sense to me.

1) Did I ever try and suggest that a constitutional right to bare arms hasn't existed?
2) Did I suggest that politics entered the arena with this event?
3) What a nice, loaded question with respect to "are you saying one party...doesn't support the Constitution?" I'm honestly not sure where you were going with that one.
4) I honestly don't know where you're going with the following paragraphs - what is my political agenda in this case? You seem to think that those championing the GGG are not doing so as a way to politicize this and advocate for gun rights.
5) Did I ever say anything about what the left would have done had the security forces not been there? Seems like you think I did...

As I said earlier, the point of my posts was to emphasize how prepared this individual was to act, and to not use that as a strong argument for needing more GGGs, because we shouldn't assume that all legal gun owners could act in the same way. I pretty broadly support hand gun ownership for personal protection, and have no issue, whatsoever, with the Texas law that allowed hand guns to be carried in church.

I have not been arguing for a restriction on gun ownership, or what the left would have done had the security forces not been present. Sorry to disappoint.

Sorry. My 'quote' feature wasn't working.... which I apologize for creating a confusing reply. It makes more sense when you know what I'm quoting... which of course I had in my head.

I was responding to your 'gaslighting' (that was the word I was looking for) comment that the right was politicizing this event.

Nobody needs to advocate for gun rights, except that there are those seeking to change the Constitution/200+ years of precedence where this issue wasn't remotely political. You blame the response of the right, ignoring that without the action from the left, the response is unnecessary.

Your comment about people arguing for GGG's similarly ignores that there is literally nobody in the public eye (not almost nobody, not statistically nobody, but literally nobody) advocating that everyone should be armed. They are merely arguing that as the Constitution says (and I'm paraphrasing) all CITIZENS not otherwise barred from possessing a weapon should be legally ALLOWED to have one.... not obligated, allowed.

Saying we need more GGGs rather than fewer once again is a response, not an action. If there weren't people wanting to restrict GGGs, there would be no call for 'more'.

It really has nothing to do with your personal position, merely your perception that the 'politics' is coming from the right.

Baltimore

I wonder why Baltimore is more violent than many other cities their size. Or are they? Serious question. I never see these types of reports on Kansas City, or Seattle, or almost any other city other than Chicago. Not even Houston.