Nashville School Shooting

[Integrity]

You’re over using schtick. How about schpeel?

Thank you. I will mix it in if needed.

 

[Box Ox]

Were Republican lawmakers standing there telling those inside of the Capitol on January 6 to keep up the good work?

Am I wrong to think that encouraging protestors who are outside of a legislative building with a hand signal is different from encouraging protestors who are inside of a legislative building with a speech in their honor?

 

[vantexan]

Maybe that would not be my first response to a school board. But I know I am not against any and all constitutionally protected peaceful protest.

I disagree with this sentence.

Ok.

When I can I do? Your schtick makes it difficult and time consuming. As if I don’t already spend enough time in the BC universe.

I don’t know if I have ever been upset as the result of a BC post from anyone. Insulted at times but that is very isolated circumstance and situation. In my advancing years I have learned to recognize perceived insults with getting upset about them. To each his own.

I don’t attack, I just have a different view than you on some things. What is the problem? I don’t feel attacked because your opinion on the same issues differ from mine.

I agree.

And you believe differently. What’s the problem?

Where did I say you were mistaken for your beliefs? Doesn’t sound in line with my ideology of religious freedom and tolerance.

I told you I reject it when I believe the Holy Spirit of God is prompting me to reject some failures inherent in the imperfections of the religious authors of the Bible.

I don’t understand this statement. My belief is faith comes through Christ alone.

You would have to alter your schtick and your ability to follow discussion flow in order for me to successfully do this.

Sometimes I can waste so much time and breath on the BC. You?

Nothing new to me. There are only a handful of regulars on here that are interested in discussion anyway.

Yes. IMO you do utilize that tactic routinely and regularly in your discussion threads with me.

Peace

Sigh...

 

[Integrity]

Sigh...

I always tell my wife, I so believe that God hears her sigh.

I believe the living God hears your sigh as well.

 

[Integrity]

Aren't you essentially saying here that you're against guns by saying "...the perceived benefit of an armed society is just a deception."?

So instead of being nailed down by making a declarative statement you slowly get to the point that we're deceived in thinking guns are a benefit to society.

How is this not a straw man argument that you are making in response to my previous statement?

Please do tell.

 

[vantexan]

Why would I?

IMO you are again twisting statements to avoid the topic.

I think you have developed your use of the straw man schtick very well.

I am impressed.

Peace be with you my friend.

Post #816

 

[UnionStrong]

Maybe that would not be my first response to a school board. But I know I am not against any and all constitutionally protected peaceful protest.

I disagree with this sentence.

Ok.

When I can I do? Your schtick makes it difficult and time consuming. As if I don’t already spend enough time in the BC universe.

I don’t know if I have ever been upset as the result of a BC post from anyone. Insulted at times but that is very isolated circumstance and situation. In my advancing years I have learned to recognize perceived insults with getting upset about them. To each his own.

I don’t attack, I just have a different view than you on some things. What is the problem? I don’t feel attacked because your opinion on the same issues differ from mine.

I agree.

And you believe differently. What’s the problem?

Where did I say you were mistaken for your beliefs? Doesn’t sound in line with my ideology of religious freedom and tolerance.

I told you I reject it when I believe the Holy Spirit of God is prompting me to reject some failures inherent in the imperfections of the religious authors of the Bible.

I don’t understand this statement. My belief is faith comes through Christ alone.

You would have to alter your schtick and your ability to follow discussion flow in order for me to successfully do this.

Sometimes I can waste so much time and breath on the BC. You?

Nothing new to me. There are only a handful of regulars on here that are interested in discussion anyway.

Yes. IMO you do utilize that tactic routinely and regularly in your discussion threads with me.

Peace

 

[UnionStrong]

Am I wrong to think that encouraging protestors who are outside of a legislative building with a hand signal is different from encouraging protestors who are inside of a legislative building with a speech in their honor?

Yeah they weren’t fighting the police at all….

 

[Integrity]

Post #816

You must have misunderstood my statement, all good, no worries.

For you’re record and discussion:

Illegal firearms and possession and distribution is not relevant to my position on legal gun ownership.

I am 100% in support of the constitutionally protected right for individuals to own firearms. I would also be in favor of expanding the right to carry firearms as well.

I am also in favor of significant changes in the process of vetting individuals prior to the exercising of this right.

I also am in favor of the gun manufacturers and distributors and anyone who gets rich off the mass production and mass distribution of firearms to fund this vetting process (I already previously described it). To add to this I believe all firearms owners should undergo psychological evaluations every 3 years.

Hope this helps with understanding where I stand.

 

[UnionStrong]

I also am in favor of the gun manufacturers and distributors and anyone who gets rich off the mass production and mass distribution of firearms to fund this vetting process (I already previously described it). To add to this I believe all firearms owners should undergo physiological evaluations every 3 years.

It’s the government’s responsibility to fund the vetting process since they mandate it.
How does my physiology affect my ability or right to own a firearm?

 

[Integrity]

It’s the government’s responsibility to fund the vetting process since they mandate it.

IMO Gun corporations should fund it, and be held liable for vetting failures.

How does my physiology affect my ability or right to own a firearm?

lol Fixed the word.

 

[vantexan]

IMO Gun corporations should fund it, and be held liable for vetting failures.

lol Fixed the word.

So the gun corporations should be held responsible if the government fails to vet someone properly? And the gun corporations should pay for all vetting, evaluations, and criminal acts involving guns? This is just a backdoor way to destroy gun manufacturers. They couldn't exist paying for this. And you still haven't addressed criminals buying guns illegally. No vetting there.

You said I misunderstood your statement. I think I understood ..."the perceived benefit of an armed society is just a deception."

For just a moment you lifted the veil about your true beliefs. You're for abortion, eliminating guns, trans rights, obscenity couched as art allowed in schools. You use Christianity to cloak your true beliefs. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Non liberal]

Am I wrong to think that encouraging protestors who are outside of a legislative building with a hand signal is different from encouraging protestors who are inside of a legislative building with a speech in their honor?

Probably, they were peaceful protesters. Nancy did the same with blm, as well as every member of the Democratic Party so it’s a non issue if you don’t want to penalize both sides.

 

[Integrity]

So the gun corporations should be held responsible if the government fails to vet someone properly?

I believe I said, in an earlier post, that the gun corporations should fund and be responsible for all vetting and should be open to be sued for their failures in the vetting process. That is what I believe.

And the gun corporations should pay for all vetting, evaluations,

Yes

and criminal acts involving guns?

Straw man argument.

This is just a backdoor way to destroy gun manufacturers.

I am in no way in favor of this.

They couldn't exist paying for this.

How do you know?

And you still haven't addressed criminals buying guns illegally.

Yes I did. Straw man argument.

No vetting there.

Irrelevant, straw man argument

You said I misunderstood your statement. I think I understood ..."the perceived benefit of an armed society is just a deception."

I did say that and I believe rereading it may be helpful to you. Read the words my friend.

For just a moment you lifted the veil about your true beliefs.

No. I stated them. Do you view yourself as open minded ?

You're for abortion, eliminating guns, trans rights, obscenity couched as art allowed in schools.

Straw man argument. False testimony.

You use Christianity to cloak your true beliefs.

Christ is gentle and humble.

A wolf in sheep's clothing.

Straw man argument.

 

[UnionStrong]

IMO Gun corporations should fund it, and be held liable for vetting failures.

Unconstitutional. Let’s also make car manufacturers vett drivers too while we’re at it, so they can be sued when a bad driver slips thru, or a drunk driver that wasn’t diagnosed as an alcoholic kills someone. Since more people are killed in and by cars every year than guns, I think it’s appropriate.

 

[vantexan]

I believe I said, in an earlier post, that the gun corporations should fund and be responsible for all vetting and should be open to be sued for their failures in the vetting process. That is what I believe.

Yes

Straw man argument.

I am in no way in favor of this.

How do you know?

Yes I did. Straw man argument.

Irrelevant, straw man argument

I did say that and I believe rereading it may be helpful to you. Read the words my friend.

No. I stated them. Do you view yourself as open minded ?

Straw man argument. False testimony.

Christ is gentle and humble.

Straw man argument.

Nope, I think I got it 100% right.

And I noticed you went back and edited your post before replying to me.

You said the gun corporations should be held liable for all vetting failures. So if a criminal act is committed with a gun who is held liable? The perpetrator? The gun corporation? Both?

 

[UnionStrong]

Nope, I think I got it 100% right.

And I noticed you went back and edited your post before replying to me.

You said the gun corporations should be held liable for all vetting failures. So if a criminal act is committed with a gun who is held liable? The perpetrator? The gun corporation? Both?

I think liquor companies should be held liable too

 

[Integrity]

Unconstitutional. Let’s also make car manufacturers vett drivers too while we’re at it, so they can be sued when a bad driver slips thru, or a drunk driver that wasn’t diagnosed as an alcoholic kills someone. Since more people are killed in and by cars every year than guns, I think it’s appropriate.

Not trying to get picky but IMO everything after the word unconstitutional in your post meets my understanding of what constitutes a straw man argument (one of my new words).

Trying to keep to the actual discussion, you said “unconstitutional”. How?

 

[Integrity]

I think liquor companies should be held liable too

Start a thread. You won’t

 

[vantexan]

I think liquor companies should be held liable too

Don't forget the car companies!