CNN AGAIN providing accurate news

[bgreene]

Guns - easier to get than a drivers license.
1. Flea market type selling forums should not be allowed.
2. Assault type weapons - civilians don’t need them
As a licensed person who was introduced to shooting as a kid, I support these efforts at more restricted controls. Wackos get guns too easily.

Hitler - don’t refer to him as my buddy .
You should show a degree of integrity .

[oteps]

Originally Posted by bgreene

Guns - easier to get than a drivers license.
1. Flea market type selling forums should not be allowed.
2. Assault type weapons - civilians don’t need them
As a licensed person who was introduced to shooting as a kid, I support these efforts at more restricted controls. Wackos get guns too easily.

Hitler - don’t refer to him as my buddy .
You should show a degree of integrity .

We all can have a drivers license if we pass the test and legally get one right? Why not the same with a gun?

To buy off a "flea market type" forum you still have to go by all the laws of your state, so no different than buying a gun from your neighbor.

What is an assault weapon to you? Why do you think civilians dont need them?

[scook]

Accusing me of ANY breech of integrity is barking up the wrong tree. You do need to be careful. I've been in support of you not being kicked off of the site until now, but that can change. Either present some very credible examples or take it back if you want to preserve any hint of integrity yourself.

I think you probably understand the "your pal Herr Hitler" reference as what it is was intended - he is your ally (handy device) in promulgating your ludicrous conspiracy theory. I think it is more likely just another thing for you to pretend to be offended by to justify your victim status, but I really don't care.

You show a pretty thorough lack of understanding of firearms issues:

• It's not your place to decide what I need or don't need, nor is it up to you which parts of the Constitution should be ignored.
• Restricting felons, domestic violence offenders, gang affiliates, legitimately mentally ill people and others who really shouldn't have access to weapons is appropriate, but it's not what the liberals target. They want all guns gone and miss no opportunity to reduce where and when an honest, law abiding person can possess their gun. It is the height of idiocy to create a "gun free zone", where only non-law abiding people will be armed - have you noticed that these are the places where virtually all mass murders take place?
• "Assault type" weapons, which no one has adequately defined - let's say semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines for the sake of discussion are very effective for self defense. They are much more accurate in the hands of older folks than pistols - an ideal home defense tool.
• I agree that guns shouldn't be sold at flea markets and that reasonable background checks are a good idea, but laws should target people who shouldn't have guns, not those who should be free to own and carry them. Consider your favorite lawyer to bash, Mayor Guliani, who saved HUNDREDS of lives (even with extreme gun control in New York) with intelligent police use of technology and the stop & frisk policy - that actually targeted bad guys with guns, but the liberals found it too offensive and didn't want the street thugs to feel targeted and abused - where did murder rates go after stop & frisk was stopped, and where are they now? There would probably be a lot less murder if the good guys could carry guns in New York.

[bgreene]

Originally Posted by scook

Accusing me of ANY breech of integrity is barking up the wrong tree. You do need to be careful. I've been in support of you not being kicked off of the site until now, but that can change. Either present some very credible examples or take it back if you want to preserve any hint of integrity yourself.

I think you probably understand the "your pal Herr Hitler" reference as what it is was intended - he is your ally (handy device) in promulgating your ludicrous conspiracy theory. I think it is more likely just another thing for you to pretend to be offended by to justify your victim status, but I really don't care.

You show a pretty thorough lack of understanding of firearms issues:

• It's not your place to decide what I need or don't need, nor is it up to you which parts of the Constitution should be ignored.
• Restricting felons, domestic violence offenders, gang affiliates, legitimately mentally ill people and others who really shouldn't have access to weapons is appropriate, but it's not what the liberals target. They want all guns gone and miss no opportunity to reduce where and when an honest, law abiding person can possess their gun. It is the height of idiocy to create a "gun free zone", where only non-law abiding people will be armed - have you noticed that these are the places where virtually all mass murders take place?
• "Assault type" weapons, which no one has adequately defined - let's say semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines for the sake of discussion are very effective for self defense. They are much more accurate in the hands of older folks than pistols - an ideal home defense tool.
• I agree that guns shouldn't be sold at flea markets and that reasonable background checks are a good idea, but laws should target people who shouldn't have guns, not those who should be free to own and carry them. Consider your favorite lawyer to bash, Mayor Guliani, who saved HUNDREDS of lives (even with extreme gun control in New York) with intelligent police use of technology and the stop & frisk policy - that actually targeted bad guys with guns, but the liberals found it too offensive and didn't want the street thugs to feel targeted and abused - where did murder rates go after stop & frisk was stopped, and where are they now? There would probably be a lot less murder if the good guys could carry guns in New York.

Scook
It’s inappropriate and morally wrong to suggest “ Hitlers my buddy - or anyone else’s”

Giuliani encouraged people to “ vote by combat” . His words.

Stop using the “ban from this site threat” .
Also inappropriate .

[scook]

Willful ignorance, or the pretense of it, in lieu of EVER actually addressing the point in question is your way of being. It makes you irrelevant.

No threat, I have no authority in the matter, but you look to me to be cruising very close to the edge and your obtuse, and I think often phony, replies are eroding my support, for whatever influence my opinion might have.

[Pipe_Dream]

Yup, good ol' CNN+

https://twitter.com/i/status/1517167326113714184

[scook]

It’s mystifying, with the far left, dishonest “news” sources, doing so badly, and the massive failures that even 30% of voters still approve of our Incompetent in Chief and his extremely destructive democrat left wing nuts.

As a friend of mine, so eloquently put it, “People are soooo stuuuupid”.