Mass Shooting in Atlanta

[volinbham]

That's not right. Just because peaceful protest is protected by the constitution doesn't mean the legal definition of protest requires it to be peaceful.

The word peaceful appears nowhere on this page, and I'm not even sure why you're trying to narrowly confine it to a legal definition. Fact: violent protest is protest, both legally, and in common language.

protest

if we use your linked definition then protest is a public expression of a displeasure, objection or disapproval with some act.

if I burn a building without saying why I don't fit your definition.

just being in a group of people who are protesting doesn't make an individual a protestor - I'm sure plenty of the crimes we saw embedded in protests over the summer were opportunistic actions and did not involve the perpetrator making any public expression

 

[lawgator1]

LOL criminals already bypass these "burdens" and no law will change that

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

LMFAO if we would just be willing to forego our constitutional rights to save one life.

 

[C-south]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

Criminals start out life by not being a criminal.

Start.

 

[LouderVol]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

Define a lot. Actual numbers/percentages.

 

[McDad]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

Make it illegal to possess a gun you don't own. Boom! Problem solved.

Next up on the docket of stupidity?

 

[C-south]

Make it illegal to possess a gun you don't own. Boom! Problem solved.

Next up on the docket of stupidity?

Better yet make it illegal possess a gun if you can’t legally buy a gun.

 

[hndog609]

My posts are available and consistent if you want to search them out

I'm guessing you'll be surprised

Did you read that as directed at you? I was quoting NH and his "terrorist" definition.

 

[utvolpj]

Did you read that as directed at you? I was quoting NH and his "terrorist" definition.

Since we were saying similar things I did.

 

[hog88]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

So? No additional “burdens” will lessen the availability to those that want them.

 

[n_huffhines]

if we use your linked definition then protest is a public expression of a displeasure, objection or disapproval with some act.

if I burn a building without saying why I don't fit your definition.

The definition of protest does not require that you "say" anything. Vandalizing property is an expression.

just being in a group of people who are protesting doesn't make an individual a protestor - I'm sure plenty of the crimes we saw embedded in protests over the summer were opportunistic actions and did not involve the perpetrator making any public expression

OK. Sure. The point is violent protest is protest, not that all looters are protesters.

 

[Electric Orange]

Your tweets say otherwise.

If anyone needs context, this idiot posted a tweet from his own account and was outed for it. The account is full of anti-Semetic conspiracy theories.

That post was funnier. I laughed. Sewage (Septic) agreed.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[volinbham]

The definition of protest does not require that you "say" anything. Vandalizing property is an expression.



OK. Sure. The point is violent protest is protest, not that all looters are protesters.

vandalizing property is only protest if the reason is publicly expressed as the purpose of the action

a hunger strike can be a form of protest but it doesn't meet the definition unless the striker (or someone on their behalf) makes it publicly known that protest is the reason for the action. IOW - actions themselves are not protest without some public linking to reason for action

 

[Electric Orange]

Stacy Abrams' hunger strike could go on for years.

 

[n_huffhines]

vandalizing property is only protest if the reason is publicly expressed as the purpose of the action

a hunger strike can be a form of protest but it doesn't meet the definition unless the striker (or someone on their behalf) makes it publicly known that protest is the reason for the action. IOW - actions themselves are not protest without some public linking to reason for action

Yeah, and it's not murder unless you say why you did it.

If you try to put your kid's shoes on and he/she throws a non-verbal fit, is it a protest? Is he/she not protesting the shoes? Of course, it's a protest.

The condition you are assigning it is not requisite, nor does it make sense.

 

[Ttucke11]

Stacy Abrams' hunger strike could go on for years.

A hunger strike would do her a lot of good.

 

[hndog609]

Since we were saying similar things I did.

Then let me say again the two points being made.

By the definition NH cited there is no possible way a great many people over the last year being sheltered under the umbrella of "protestors" aren't actually unambiguously "terrorists". This wasn't even much of a call out at NH (or you, or anybody really) but rather an observation that if that is the definition then...

As I type this referencing the most recent things I'm seeing this shooter is a nutcase with a personal sex issue that led to violence and meets no definition I can see that warrants being a terrorist.

 

[C-south]

So? No additional “burdens” will lessen the availability to those that want them.

People only smoke weed in the states that have legalized it because it lessened the burden to obtain it.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

.

 

[volbeast33]

No, no, no. This is a common misstatement and false generalization by the gun crowd.

SOME criminals would bypass the hurdles and SOME criminals would still have guns.

But a lot of guns make their way into the hands of criminals starting off as legitimate and owned by non criminals. They start that way.

Start.

Isn’t that bc they don’t have start out acquiring guns from illegal means.....

 

[volinbham]

Yeah, and it's not murder unless you say why you did it.

If you try to put your kid's shoes on and he/she throws a non-verbal fit, is it a protest? Is he/she not protesting the shoes? Of course, it's a protest.

The condition you are assigning it is not requisite, nor does it make sense.

your definition explicitly requires public expression of disagreement or objection.

if you are counting a toddler throwing a fit about shoes as "protest" then basically every refusal to anything counts.

everything is everything

 

[n_huffhines]

your definition explicitly requires public expression of disagreement or objection.

if you are counting a toddler throwing a fit about shoes as "protest" then basically every refusal to anything counts.

everything is everything

Vandalism is the expression, is it not? Expression doesn't mean "say" or "write".

The motive is what matters, not what is communicated explicitly to the public to explain motive.

 

[volinbham]

Vandalism is the expression, is it not? Expression doesn't mean "say" or "write".

The motive is what matters, not what is communicated explicitly to the public to explain motive.

how are we to know the motive? the definition implies the public is informed of the motive

back to the toddler - since I'm refusing to accept your interpretation am I protesting your explanation?

 

[lawgator1]

Define a lot. Actual numbers/percentages.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ficspi16.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3K8_isoNfJ2TTx_gRw4dSf

I can't reproduce the chart here, maybe someone with better computer skills can, but in Figure 1 about 21 percent of all state and federal prisoners possessed a firearm during their offense. Only about 3 percent obtained the gun from a retail source.

That means that about 1 out of 7 convicted criminals possessing a gun obtained it in the most obvious legal way. I suppose there are some narrow streams where they might also obtain it from a legal source, but let's be real, the vast, vast majority of people possessing guns when they commit crimes obtained them illegally.

In fact, this struck me:

Fewer than 1 in 50 (less than 2%) of all prisoners had
obtained a firearm from a retail source and possessed,
carried, or used it during the offense for which they
were imprisoned.

Now, where do the other 98 percent of the guns come from?

ORIGINALLY ?????

What would you estimate is the percentage of guns obtained illegally by the criminals but that began when first purchased as a legally purchased and owned firearm? 99 %? 98%?

It doesn't take much effort to see that the problem we have is loss of control of firearms that strart off as legal and end up in the hands of criminals. This is why I support a requirement that people purchasing firearms, legally, pay for insurance to go into a pool to pay medical and funeral costs for those injured in gun violence.

If you want to to obtain the benefit you think you are getting from a firearm, then you should take on the expense of the risk it becomes illegal. (Discounts for firearm safety courses that include a component about maintaining the gun in a safe place where it won't be stolen, purchase of a gun safe, and things of that ilk).