Valsuelm

Stories about Dems going Trump, which reflect not only my personal experience talking to many Dems this year, but also what a buddy in the NY Dem party said his experience was when he canvased registered Democrats for Hillary on Long Island. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/politics/4016904-more-60000-disgruntled-pennsylvania-democrats-switch-parties http://nypost.com/2016/03/19/why-its-time-for-a-trump-revolution/ http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-01-08/new-poll-shows-donald-trump-is-a-real-threat-to-hillary-clinton One can find a lot more of these stories. Stories denying the above phenomenon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/25/no-trump-wont-win-votes-from-disaffected-democrats-in-the-fall/ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/03/trump_democrats_are_a_myth.html One can find some more of these stories. Stories denying the phenomenon and denying that 'Reagan democrats' even exist: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/the-myth-of-the-reagan-democrat/475608/ (the author of this one is especially out to lunch) Good luck finding stories about Republicans going Clinton!

Oh, I understood what you were getting at, it's you who apparently fails to understand what I'm getting at. Or, you're just trolling, in which case, F off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LhcParuzpc

She looks the same to me. She also looks to be wearing lots of makeup.

Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later." Uh.... I personally have witnessed at least two such events in my life off the top of my head, and have been told of a few by friends who have experienced such events. Such things really are not all that rare. The plural of anecdote isn't data. If you need 'data' to tell you that it is not uncommon for people to fart, engage in buttsex, be delusional, cut their toenails, eat their toenails, spout profanity, pray to Jobu, poop colors other than brown, etc., as well as about exactly how often they do it, even if you do none of these things and oodles of others for which accurate data can never be obtained, you live a truly sheltered life. He asked for one example, I can give him at least five based on the experience of myself and those close to me. The point of that is, is that I'm one person, out of many many millions. Lightning didn't strike me or my area a number of times. The stories I could relate aren't all that unusual. Such was my point. I'm done with the gun issue in this thread. (Feel free to create a new thread or dig up one of the many that already exist on this issue. I may participate, but not here.) To a large degree it's a red herring issue, and it's not even the main point of this thread. Very rarely can I say I speak for millions on anything, but my previous posts, as well as what much of Guard Dog has been saying sums up what tens of millions if not hundreds of millions think on this. I don't think there's anyone evil in this thread, but there are some grossly uninformed folks who like to chew red herrings.

What, an 18th century rifle? Story must be apocryphal, they couldn't hit an elephant from that distance. Upon further reading of the life of John Sedgwick these past few minutes, I came across some words that either make yours coincidence, or a good jest. If the latter, well done sir.

What, an 18th century rifle? Story must be apocryphal, they couldn't hit an elephant from that distance. I assume '18th' is a typo. Either way, the rifles used during the U.S. Civil War most certainly could hit an elephant from 400 yards. Between the eyes even, if in the right hands. Gun technology had come a long way already by the time of the U.S. Civil War. This wasn't a musket loading era. ~200,000 dead, ~400,000 wounded, and a lot more witnesses can attest to that. One example of one of the common rifles used during the era of U.S. Civil War, had an effective firing range of 500 yards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle Other guns had effective ranges of up to 1,000 yards. Obviously the capabilities of the marksman mattered and it's widely considered that most shooters couldn't reliably hit anything beyond 200 yards (this is still true today with modern weapons to a large degree), as did the quality of their scope (which weren't that common), and luck always matters.

How ****ing convenient for you and your stance on the matter! I tend to think that acknowledging reality, ugly as it might be, is more convenient and far more ideal than not. Insofar as much of the rest of your longer post and your other follow ups. While I appreciate the time and effort you put into making it, I honestly don't think much of what you said is relevant to the 2nd amendment or the arguments others put forth in regards to it. Insofar as the police specifically. Yes, they have too much power, and a lot of the wrong people become them (seemingly increasingly so even). However more training isn't going to fix that problem. The very nature of what police in the USA are for the most part, the strong arm of an increasingly corrupt state, keeps most intelligent good people from wanting to become one. If I could change one thing about police, it wouldn't be their training, it would be to make them accountable for their actions. By and large they are not, from writing a plethora of erroneous tickets which bog down the court system (yet provide oodles of revenue overall, so the government looks the other way) to quite literally more often getting away with murder than not when they commit it, the general immunity police have is problem #1 I'd say. However, that's not easily fixed in a society where oodles of people think they can do no wrong (a chunk of the time police get away with murder a jury fails to even indict). This isn't just a problem with police either, but with politicians, and bureaucrats. "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong." - Sowell

San Diego has the better weather for certain. I'd possibly go there first too.

It's a position I'd hold for only a few moments. Just long enough to fire most of the moderators, not replace them, and then dissolve my position. *A bunch of nonsense requiring a complete misinterpretation of what is written above* You should smoke less weed. This is not the first post where you've entirely misunderstood me, and responded in a manner where you imagine I wrote things I didn't and ignore what I did. I've seen you do it with others quite often as well. Possibly more often than not. That said. You're 41? For your sake I had hoped you were in your early 20s for awhile now, as you act less mature and more petty than many teenagers and even a few pre-teens I've known. At 41 you're more than likely a hopeless case. 41 year old SJWs are quite rare in the U.S., perhaps they are common in SA, I do not know. Alas. Either way, weed or not, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Do something to fix them please. Vals you constantly do this. You make a statement, like the Mods aren't doing there jobs, and you are incapable of supporting your own view Then you resort to personal attacks because you feel insecure ...first I was insane, then cognitive dissonance and now its my age and me being a 41 SJW , next it will be sexual orientation ...you remind me of LK and his antics, he also cant have a debate with me without insulting me, its this bizarre compulsion But you cant ask me to stop smoking weed because how else would I be able to debate with you....I dont think I could handle the level of inconsistency and ignorance if I wasn't stoned Bruce, you are insane. That's no joke, nor an insult. It's an observation made after too much time engaging you in discussion and reading your thoughts. And if that offends you, be thankful I don't spend the time Longknife did, and give you more of my observations regarding you. Note, nothing I've ever said to you was ever meant to offend. I do however prefer to call spades spades. I'm quite consistent. Any inconsistency you think is there, is either you not comprehending what I'm writing, or me not fully explaining my position to you. Far more often than not it's the former in my experience. In regards to my comments on the mods in this thread, I really don't feel like wasting my time expanding on something I largely (though not totally) meant as a joke to begin with what was a response to someone else's joke, especially with someone who is so consistently daft to not only see that it was in part jest, but who also has proven again and again to not understand what I do write when I do attempt to further explain things to you. Whether you're stoned or not half the time you come here, might have something to do with it, but it's besides the point other than I will say that if I wanted to discuss things with stoned people, I'd go smoke some refer myself and sit outside under the stars with some folks, not hop on the internet. End of story. I've been on the fence for awhile with this, however considering I spent a good hour of the last two days arguing with someone I have come to the conclusion is hopelessly insane, and who knows how many hours of my life in the last couple of years, the joke is on me if I don't do it. I'm putting you on ignore Mr. VC. I truly wish you the best, but you waste far too much of my time. You're thought process is thoroughly discombobulated and you're dishonest as a result, with yourself most of all. We don't have debates Bruce, you're incapable of debating with myself or just about anyone else as you don't know what you're talking about most of the time. Some folks, myself included, just make the mistake of having some respect for you and assuming you are sane, or we just find the whole thing amusing. Any illusion of your sanity I thought you might have had has been shattered this last month or so via a number of posts you have made, and while I do find most of this amusing to a degree, the cons far outweigh the pros of engaging with you. If you feel compelled to discuss something with me, PM me. I will not be responding to you on this forum again. I suppose some might even think you lucky for that. Again, I sincerely wish you the best, and my offer for some beers still stands if you ever come to NY.

This was entertaining: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uoeGKbEQPE Probably the best speech I've seen him give (I've only seen a few).

I dunno. Who's the King? I'm not generally partial to monarchs. In fact I'm quite averse to them on principle, and would probably off their head before anyone else's, but I suppose exceptions could be made. I wouldn't wear a mask though, I find them quite suffocating. I figure the job will be about as important as the TV weather man's job in Vegas, and I'd probably treat it similarly.

The successful adoption of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not equate to 2/3 of Americans being convinced that amendment is a good idea. This certainly was not the case with a number of amendments. The 16th and 18th at the time they were adopted for certain, and arguably others. The adoption of an amendment is also not necessarily done 'openly and fairly', i.e. there are many who have argued the adoption of 'reconstruction amendments' and the 16th amendment were done in ways that were anything but open and fair. Hell, there were many people considered 'founding fathers' (Patrick Henry comes to mind), that didn't think the entire creation of the U.S. Constitution itself was done openly and fairly. It's also questionable that 2/3 of the American people were behind that at the time. All that said, if an amendment overturning the 2nd ever was adopted, at least as many people as ignored the 18th would ignore that one. Also, there's a good chance humanity will have entered a new Dark Age if such a thing should ever come to pass.

It's a position I'd hold for only a few moments. Just long enough to fire most of the moderators, not replace them, and then dissolve my position. *A bunch of nonsense requiring a complete misinterpretation of what is written above* You should smoke less weed. This is not the first post where you've entirely misunderstood me, and responded in a manner where you imagine I wrote things I didn't and ignore what I did. I've seen you do it with others quite often as well. Possibly more often than not. That said. You're 41? For your sake I had hoped you were in your early 20s for awhile now, as you act less mature and more petty than many teenagers and even a few pre-teens I've known. At 41 you're more than likely a hopeless case. 41 year old SJWs are quite rare in the U.S., perhaps they are common in SA, I do not know. Alas. Either way, weed or not, your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Do something to fix them please.

Not necessarily. While zoning laws can indeed be goofy, they are often reasonable. ie: Where I live, you cannot set up a strip joint across the street from a church, or a school with children, or in an area otherwise just generally zoned residential. Most people would consider this reasonable zoning. I personally think it is.

Please explain how guns make you safer by naming one significant situation in American history in the last 100 or so years where someone (a private person rather than an officer) owning a gun was to everyone's benefit and helped defuse a dangerous situation. The only situations I can think of involve a home owner shooting an intruder who did or did not have a weapon, and I believe I recall one news story about a mass shooter being shot first. This is dwarfed by all the accidental shootings, the cases similar the Trayvond Martin, mass shootings themselves, or even cases where a citizen ACKNOWLEDGED owning a firearm but a scared as **** cop shot them dead anyways with the attitude of "ask questions later." Uh.... I personally have witnessed at least two such events in my life off the top of my head, and have been told of a few by friends who have experienced such events. Such things really are not all that rare. When I have more time, I'll finish reading your post, and perhaps relate these examples to you (I've related a couple of them before on this forum, though it's been awhile). However you're WAY off in your reasoning in your opening paragraph Longknife. The number of times private citizens pull weapons out, guns or other, to diffuse a situation with other humans (or animals), is absolutely not dwarfed by the number of times bad accidents (I'm not going to include the number of times people accidentally cut themselves with a knife) occur. Quite the opposite, on the order of magnitude of thousands if not tens of thousands to one when all weapons are considered, and on the order of magnitude of at the very least hundreds if not thousands to one with guns alone. And this isn't even considering all of the potentially bad situations avoided all together by bad intentioned person/animal X not doing bad thing X simply because they know or just think the desired victim has access to a gun. Most of the time a weapon is pulled for protection, gun or other, it fortunately need not be used. Also, most of the time such things occur, the police are not notified. And on top of that, the vast majority of the time the police are notified about such things (and a great many others), a news article is not written.

For Hall and Oates fans, this show is pretty awesome: http://tela.sugarmegs.org/_asxtela/HallAndOates1984-12-17TheForumLosAngelesCA.asx setlist: http://tela.sugarmegs.org/_asxtela/asxcards/HallAndOates1984-12-17TheForumLosAngelesCA.html Not the absolute best of sound quality as it's low bandwidth, but still a really great listen (especially if you tweak it a bit with an equalizer). When I stumbled onto this show some years back I had been a Hall and Oates fan, but I'd only ever heard their studio recordings. Somewhat to my surprise, they put on one hell of a live show with a lot more energy than I expected. Wish I'd been able to see them during this era. Also, I may have mentioned this before, but I highly recommend sugarmegs.org, it's a great repository of bootlegs and other live show sources. Also happens to be one of the oldest such places on the net (I've been going there since the 90s), if not the oldest at this point. Two other great repositories of live music: http://bt.etree.org/index.php (torrents, some very high quality) https://archive.org/ (also has some very high quality recordings) Note, with archive.org, I've not found a single page that links to all the great music they have. For example, the etree link below has a whole lotta GD. But their links don't hold all that the other one below has. Same can be said of other bands. It can pay to spend time searching. https://archive.org/details/etree https://archive.org/details/GratefulDead https://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Live+concert%22

It's a position I'd hold for only a few moments. Just long enough to fire most of the moderators, not replace them, and then dissolve my position.

Strip clubs are mostly a waste of time and money. If one has any balls and charisma at all one can usually find and go further with women at least as nice looking and probably of much higher quality in every other way as one will find in even the best strip joints, and spend less money doing so. Strip joints are generally for virgins, boys, and beta (and lower) males. The girls who work in them generally have even less respect for their clients, as their clients often do for them, and rightly so I'd say. When did Bruce say he's smoking pot with underage girls? Of course it's not acceptable for a teacher to be out smoking with students (non-adult ones anyways). Red flags are of course raised. A person doing such with my sister, daughter, or any other young girl I care about would be great danger of a serious pummeling from myself.

No dont even joke like that, we going out in 2 weekends. There teacher will be with them....it may sound weird but at least they can trust me Is the teacher hot? That might be an in. She is ....its a bit weird the 3 of them together but they were really friendly And to give the one girl I met credit, she offered me a joint so she must have felt comfortable but I not a threatening person and girls normally get on with me Offering you a joint isn't necessarily a sign she's comfortable with you. She might have just wanted you to go away.

Actually, yes, it is unusual - according to the NCVS, the intended victim pulling a gun on their assailant only happens in 0,9% of violent and 0,2% of property crimes, and it must be even more rare for this to have the intended effect (sadly, I have no numbers on that though). While it might be unusual, it doesn't really matter for the sake of the arguments at hand. Also, the NCVS has a number of fundamental problems with the methodology in which it's conducted, not the least of which is that it's generally only looking at data that law enforcement is ever told about, which is certainly not representative of reality. Believe it or not, there no small number of people out there who do not call the police when violence or threat of it occurs. In fact, I'd say it's probably safe to say that majority of the violence and especially the majority of the threat of violence that ever occurs in the U.S., aside from the kind that's very hard to hide (such as murder) is never reported to the government. The NCVS really isn't a good place to look for accurate data on much of anything. Certainly not this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyckelharpa Sometimes it pays to read the youtube comments.

Logic and reality works not on those pushing for more laws against guns. Two things that the vast majority of the mass shootings in the U.S. have in common are: A) They occurred in 'gun free zones'. B) The perpetrator was whacked out on legally obtained and 'professionally' prescribed psychotropics. The media by and large ignores both of these things, and only pushes the gun control agenda.