Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

Also, the problem is made extra worse by the breakdown of the family structure over the past few decades.  ...

The solution is Gilead! 

[Robert Roaldi]

What is high powered weaponry.  A tank?  Mortar?  Artillery?  A-bomb? ...

That's right, nobody knows which weapons are which, we're all so confused. When you're defending your family against a tyrannical government, is a 15-round magazine really enough?

Let me ask you this, just to bait the troll, when a policeman is busy killing someone at a traffic stop who has done nothing much wrong and not acting dangerously, should a citizen be condoned for shooting that cop? Isn't a policeman shooting a citizen for no good reason pretty much the definition of a tyrannical government? Btw, this isn't a serious question and I'm certainly not asking for an answer (which I could probably guess at anyway). It's all purely rhetorical. Just kidding, hah hah? Can you take a joke?

This question is serious though, is there a data base or a web site where we can go look up instances of good guys with guns actually protecting their families from bad guys? Seems to me since this is often given as the main reason for things being the way they are, there should at least be some data showing that it actually works that way for some percentage of cases. Because if there aren't, it's pretty much a bogus assertion, isn't it? How often does it happen?

When was the last time an American protected his family from a tyrannical government? Legitimately, I mean.

And just to make sure that we've beaten the horse truly dead. What does it mean to "protect your family" in a culture with 50% divorce rate? And even if you're not divorced, how often is the said "protector" in a position to actually do that protecting? Aren't they at work a lot of time? Aren't the kids over at their friends' places? I mean, how does this work in real life. Or do you foresee armies of "good guys" patrolling the streets looking for "bad guys"? I hope they don't start mistaking guys with cameras as bad guys, that would wreak havoc on our hobby.

[PeterAit]

Problem is the current president is senile.

You should know that this "Biden is senile" crap is a complete Trump invention with no basis in fact. Oh wait, you and your fellow MAGA stooges don't care about facts.

[Frans Waterlander]

You should know that this "Biden is senile" crap is a complete Trump invention with no basis in fact. Oh wait, you and your fellow MAGA stooges don't care about facts.

No basis in fact? Do you have a tv and do you watch Biden's mental capacities or lack thereof?

[Alan Klein]

You did not give your ‘opinion’.  You asked an obviously trolling question followed by another of your assertions.

marvpelky’s response was appropriate and polite.

Peter, you should talk about rudeness.  Are you kiddin' me?

[Robert Roaldi]

No basis in fact? Do you have a tv and do you watch Biden's mental capacities or lack thereof?

That's quite funny. I haven't listened to many of Biden's or Trump's utterances on long form, but by those standards, shouldn't Trump have been placed under psychiatric care long ago? 

[Alan Klein]

That's right, nobody knows which weapons are which, we're all so confused. When you're defending your family against a tyrannical government, is a 15-round magazine really enough?

Let me ask you this, just to bait the troll, when a policeman is busy killing someone at a traffic stop who has done nothing much wrong and not acting dangerously, should a citizen be condoned for shooting that cop? Isn't a policeman shooting a citizen for no good reason pretty much the definition of a tyrannical government? Btw, this isn't a serious question and I'm certainly not asking for an answer (which I could probably guess at anyway). It's all purely rhetorical. Just kidding, hah hah? Can you take a joke?

This question is serious though, is there a data base or a web site where we can go look up instances of good guys with guns actually protecting their families from bad guys? Seems to me since this is often given as the main reason for things being the way they are, there should at least be some data showing that it actually works that way for some percentage of cases. Because if there aren't, it's pretty much a bogus assertion, isn't it? How often does it happen?

When was the last time an American protected his family from a tyrannical government? Legitimately, I mean.

And just to make sure that we've beaten the horse truly dead. What does it mean to "protect your family" in a culture with 50% divorce rate? And even if you're not divorced, how often is the said "protector" in a position to actually do that protecting? Aren't they at work a lot of time? Aren't the kids over at their friends' places? I mean, how does this work in real life. Or do you foresee armies of "good guys" patrolling the streets looking for "bad guys"? I hope they don't start mistaking guys with cameras as bad guys, that would wreak havoc on our hobby.

Why is it that tyrannical governments take away the guns of private citizens as one of the first things they do?   The Founders understood that from their own experience with the British. Without their personal weapons, General George Washington would have had a worse time fighting for freedom.  SO naturally, it carried over in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

As far as weapons to defend your house, that's also protected.  Many people feel safer having a weapon in their homes.  I don't see a problem with that although I personally don't own a weapon. I'm sure people have defended their homes and also prevented invasions just from the fact that the owner might have a gun in the house. Those latter would be crimes that never happened.

[Alan Klein]

That's quite funny. I haven't listened to many of Biden's or Trump's utterances on long form, but by those standards, shouldn't Trump have been placed under psychiatric care long ago? 

But Trump isn't president now.  Biden is.  We have to be concerned with Biden's abilities for another 2 1/2 years.  He hasn't shown great leadership.  He often seesm confused.  90% of the public believes the country is on the wrong track. 

[Peter McLennan]

Are you kiddin' me?

No.

[Peter McLennan]

No basis in fact? Do you have a tv and do you watch Biden's mental capacities or lack thereof?

On-air performance is not a good measure of statesmanship.  Carnival barker trumpie boy has mastered the art of performing for the camera, but has demonstrable deficiencies in the emotional maturity department.

Biden is a poor speaker, granted.  He mumbles.  However, he has managed to inspire and lead much of the west to join an alliance against recent Russian atrocities - something I doubt the lunch throwing idiot could pull off, despite his acting skills.



Still waiting for scientific data from you that disprove the link between atmospheric CO2 and global heating.

[Frans Waterlander]

On-air performance is not a good measure of statesmanship.  Carnival barker trumpie boy has mastered the art of performing for the camera, but has demonstrable deficiencies in the emotional maturity department.

Biden is a poor speaker, granted.  He mumbles.  However, he has managed to inspire and lead much of the west to join an alliance against recent Russian atrocities - something I doubt the lunch throwing idiot could pull off, despite his acting skills.

Still waiting for scientific data from you that disprove the link between atmospheric CO2 and global heating.

Yes, Biden's on-air performance is scary. However, his track record is way, way worse: gas prices, inflation, the economy, the hostile attitude toward the energy industry, the Southern border, the Afghan withdrawal, selling strategic oil reserves to China and India, questionable financial ties of the Biden family to China, Russia and Ukraine, not vigorously researching the Wuhan-Covid connection and I could go on and on.

The Ukraine situation is not much better: does the US really want to fight a proxy war with a nuclear opponent or should we work tirelessly (with really diplomats) for a cease-fire and cooling-off period?

[Peter McLennan]

Yes, Biden's on-air performance is scary. However, his track record is way, way worse: gas prices, inflation, the economy, the hostile attitude toward the energy industry, the Southern border, the Afghan withdrawal, selling strategic oil reserves to China and India, questionable financial ties of the Biden family to China, Russia and Ukraine, not vigorously researching the Wuhan-Covid connection and I could go on and on.

The Ukraine situation is not much better: does the US really want to fight a proxy war with a nuclear opponent or should we work tirelessly (with really diplomats) for a cease-fire and cooling-off period?

Rightists love to point to all Biden's perceived failures, real or not.  I'll ignore most of them for now since they're easily debunked.

But gas prices?  Really?  One man can raise gas prices across the globe?  He's the reason I paid nearly $200 to fill up my Sprinter today?

Please inform us how he single-handedly managed to pull this off.

and...

Still waiting for scientific data from you that disprove the link between atmospheric CO2 and global heating.

[TechTalk]

No basis in fact? Do you have a tv and do you watch Biden's mental capacities or lack thereof?

No. I'm too distracted by the comic exhibitions you perform online of your mental capacities or lack thereof.

[TechTalk]

...I could go on and on...

Nah... that's alright. Don't bother. By now, we've already heard all of the talking points you have and know that when you get to the bottom of your list, you'll just start reading them again from the top.

[TechTalk]

Yes, Biden's on-air performance is scary.

Yes, it's well known that you frighten easily.

Try to relax your mind a little. It might do you some good.

[TechTalk]

No.

Limiting replies to a single syllable is an excellent way to save oxygen and avoid exhaustion while being dragged around in circles.

[TechTalk]

When was the last time an American protected his family from a tyrannical government? Legitimately, I mean.

Yeah. The phony idea that the Second Amendment was passed by the first session of congress to insure that citizens could murder them, if some group decided this new central government thing was too tyrannical. The Second Amendment is to insure the safety and protection of the people and the government — not the people from the government.

I lay awake worried about the Third Amendment. I'm afraid that snoring soldiers will be quartered in my house during the next civil war and keep me awake all night. But, maybe the Second Amendment will continue working to protect us and our government from that kind of anarchy and insurrection as it's designed to do.

[LesPalenik]

The Ukraine situation is not much better: does the US really want to fight a proxy war with a nuclear opponent or should we work tirelessly (with really diplomats) for a cease-fire and cooling-off period?

This is not a war you can win by logical reasoning and fair negotiations. European leaders are understanding that now.

[PeterAit]

Talk about hitting the nail on the head!

[Robert Roaldi]

... I'm sure people have defended their homes and also prevented invasions just from the fact that the owner might have a gun in the house. Those latter would be crimes that never happened.

How does that work? Do you have a sign on your doors that warn potential intruders that there is a gun inside? Would it be wise to advertize that? Anyway, don't most jurisdictions require weapons to be stored safely, separate from ammo? The scenario sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

Your speculations aside, are there are data showing that these assertions might have some validity? If this info existed, wouldn't it be front and centre in NRA propaganda?