Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 15, 2013 at 6:53 PM in reply to: Prop 30 money sold as funds for schools – watchdog reveals something else #757770
mike92104
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=enron_by_the_sea]I don’t know the statistics, but at least one person I know is moving to Nevada.
He doesn’t need to work for a company. Has no family ties to this state. I can understand why moving to Nevada becomes attractive to him. Most people affected by prop 30 won’t move because they have a job, family, friends and roots that will keep them here.[/quote]
In the past, both in CA and in other states, the statistics have been that there has been no material change in the number of high income taxpayers when rates go up. Not zero. But no material change.
I think the real worry should be on the middle income taxpayers. I know of 7 individual or couple that have moved out of the state in the last 2 years. All went to lower tax burden states. Washington, Arizona, and Texas.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=desmond]
This is what I saw coming, the gun control crowd starts bashing the gun owners. Instead of real solutions they just show their hatred of the people that own guns. Finally after so much “LMC” inspired hogwash the gun owners just get sick of it and say no. Gun sales skyrocket the pushback will be harder and the gun control crowd will continue to name call. I was thinking some controls, even though they would not work, would be okay, no large clips, but not anymore, forget it.[/quote]I just read all of KIBU’s posts on this thread. I didn’t see him call anyone a name. And then we have this:
[quote=Paul0373]Hey KIBU, get out of my face with all of your Gun Control Garbage. You know what? I’ve never felt the need to own a personal firearm until you self-righteous, Constitution hating Communists decided to start going after yet another personal liberty. Listen to Feinstein, Cuomo, Emanuel, Obama… and yourself.. You all make me ill. If I want to own 50 ARs and a million rounds of ammunition, that’s my business bud. If you’re so naive to think that this government is disarming us for our good while they(feinstein) have concealed carry permits and armed guards(all of them), you are a naive fool. Please, crawl in a hole until you have enough votes to amend the Constitution and until then I’d be happy to buy you an NRA membership and take you to the range for some target practice.[/quote]
If Paul’s response is to KIBU, which it certainly appears to be, then Paul’s problem isn’t that he’s fed up with name calling.
There’s been plenty of reasonable discussion on this board for stronger gun control. But that all appears to have been ignored. If all Paul has no response to this except to say is that we’re “self-righteous, Constitution hating Communists” and “naive fool[s],” we “make [him] ill” and that we should “crawl in a hole,” then perhaps the problem isn’t our “LMC inspired hogwash.” Perhaps the problem is the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage/NRA-inspired, foaming-at-the-mouth, reasonless ranting of angry people like Paul.
You (desmond) say that we’ve bashed gun owners and offered no real solutions. That’s only true if you automatically disagree with all the solutions we have to offer. Let me ask you this: What solutions might we offer that you would consider “real”? Or are there none? If, in your opinion, there are none, then your accusation that we’re offering no real solutions doesn’t really fly.
Did you see Paul offering any solutions to the thousands of gun deaths we have in this country every year? No? Then how come you’re accusing the gun-control side of not offering solutions, but not the anti-gun-control side?
I don’t see how you read Paul’s post and come away with the conclusion that the gun-control side is the one not offering solutions.[/quote]
The problem with all of the “reasonable solutions” is that NONE of them will do anything to fix the problem. You will simply make it more difficult for responsible gun owners to buy guns and ammo. It seems really silly to me to think that someone who has the intention to go on a shooting spree is going to give a rat’s ass about some gun control law. If the threat of being charged with murder and possible death penalty is not enough, then what is?
Paul’s rant may be on the extreme right side of the issue, but you know what? He’ll most likely never fire any one of the weapons he owns at another person. The “Guntards” that have been mentioned aren’t the f’n problem. Why can you guys not see that?
Participantdup
Participant[quote=squat300]they were shooting with a vector in our direction, not up in the air.
not airsoft guns, loud ass guns.
this was an open area.
airsoft wouldve been irresponsible.
airsoft outdoors is usually in a defined space, not just out and about.
im not arguing here outlaw guns.
im saying dont just shoot guns in the general direction of people walking around.
if that’s unreasonable, then, well, i guess im unreasonable.[/quote]
Again, this points out your lack of knowledge about safety and firearms. Shooting up in the air (depending on the type of gun) is EXTREMELY irresponsible. Airsoft guns use tiny little plastic pellets that only have a range of 100′ or so and MIGHT sting a tiny bit if you were to get hit. Shotguns are “loud as guns”, but they don’t have a very long range. My point is that your automatic assumption that these people were irresponsible simply because they were out shooting is misplaced because you don’t have the knowledge base to make an accurate determination.
January 14, 2013 at 6:30 PM in reply to: OT: Shootings at San Diego theaters Friday and Saturday. Are you really safe where you are at??? #757712Participant[quote=squat300]once one good person starts shooting to stop the bad guy, all the other armed people will know he’s a good guy because only good guys will be allowed to dress in white, and will therefore hold their fire. the bad people will be required to dress in black.
the morally ambiguous people will be required to wear varying shades of grey.
a lite gray will indicate a certain level of virtuousness, while charcoal will reveal a level of general depravity with occasioanl kind acts.
Shoot away. kill the least number of virtuous people possible.[/quote]
Better yet, let’s let the one douchebag with a gun who doesn’t give a flying fuck about your gun laws shoot as many people as he/she can while waiting the ten minutes or so for someone with a gun (a cop) to show up and stop him/her.
Participant[quote=squat300][quote=mike92104][quote=squat300]driving has some social utility.
shooting a fucking gun in an open area has zero social utility.
therefore, the term guntard more aptly applies.
well, i suppose shooting int he open area does have some social utility if those were actually maneuvers designed to attack federal agents in the event that there is some sort of oppressive move to enslave the US population with drones.
I am being sarcastic.
those particularly guntards messed up my day.
somehow i think the NRA would say I was being a big baby.
when driving on the freeway, we also accept that there is risk, and that there will be a range of driving skills, and we can take some measures to protect ourselves from flaming assholes on the freeway, say by staying to the right, being observant, alert, allowing people to pass.
there is no social agreement that while out having an adventure on some rocks in open space that i am going to be subject to a gaggle of nitwits with weaponry shooting in unspecified directions in our general direction.
FUCKING GUNTARDS! that’s what id liek to ehar some pro-gun, NRA type say….that this is so unacceptable those tards should lose their privilege to ever touch a gun again.
from my perspective, admittedly biased, your equating the risk borne by driving with the risk of these guntards shooting irresponsible toward our vicinity is an example of…well…sorry, but guntardedness…[/quote]
Do you know what kind of guns they were shooting? It’s very possible they were being responsible, and you’re just not knowledgeable enough to see it.[/quote]
If it were an air soft gun it woulda been irresponsible. They were messing around in combat fatigues. Douchebags![/quote]
How would that be irresponsible? Why do you care about the combat fatigues? In my opinion you sound like you’re simply not knowledgable enough about guns to make a proper decision. If you think an airsoft gin is irresponsible, then what were you doing out hiking? Don’t you know that hiking is dangerous? People die each year hiking, and we should outlaw it!
ParticipantIf I were a tenant, I feel I would be satisfied with being allowed out of my lease, and an immediate refund of my deposit in order to put it down on a new place.
For now, I would suggest buying some good microfiber mattress encasing. It might not get rid of the bugs, but should help provide some relief.
You’re an awesome landlord for wanting to take care of your renters.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]I’d like to see everyone have to log in by computer or telephone anytime their gun is out of the house. Use plans and return time should be reported.Theywould log in to report when it was back at home. Anyone out with a gun, registered or not who hasn’t done this would be committing a crime.[/quote]
What on earth would that POSSIBLY accomplish?
“Oh Darn, I can’t go on that shooting spree I was planning today because I didn’t log out my gun”
WTF?
ParticipantDuplicate
Participant[quote=squat300]driving has some social utility.
shooting a fucking gun in an open area has zero social utility.
therefore, the term guntard more aptly applies.
well, i suppose shooting int he open area does have some social utility if those were actually maneuvers designed to attack federal agents in the event that there is some sort of oppressive move to enslave the US population with drones.
I am being sarcastic.
those particularly guntards messed up my day.
somehow i think the NRA would say I was being a big baby.
when driving on the freeway, we also accept that there is risk, and that there will be a range of driving skills, and we can take some measures to protect ourselves from flaming assholes on the freeway, say by staying to the right, being observant, alert, allowing people to pass.
there is no social agreement that while out having an adventure on some rocks in open space that i am going to be subject to a gaggle of nitwits with weaponry shooting in unspecified directions in our general direction.
FUCKING GUNTARDS! that’s what id liek to ehar some pro-gun, NRA type say….that this is so unacceptable those tards should lose their privilege to ever touch a gun again.
from my perspective, admittedly biased, your equating the risk borne by driving with the risk of these guntards shooting irresponsible toward our vicinity is an example of…well…sorry, but guntardedness…[/quote]
Do you know what kind of guns they were shooting? It’s very possible they were being responsible, and you’re just not knowledgeable enough to see it.
Participant[quote=ucodegen][quote=mike92104]to add to the circus environment of the case, the plaintiffs lawyer was a midget who had to pull the lectern mic down to him while standing next to it while speaking to us.[/quote]Midget is no longer the politically correct word. They are called height challenged, or vertically challenged.☺[/quote]
I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, a politically correct person.
Participant[quote=squat300]Did the small lawyer make self deprecating jokes to try to endear himself to the jury?[/quote]
He should have, but instead played it dead pan. One other funny thing was his client was an unusually tall woman as well. Needless to say, I haven’t been as quick to perform my “civic duty” since then.
ParticipantThis reminds me of my first and only time serving on a Jury. A lady had backed out of a parking spot into another lady’s truck, and then decided to sue her for medical expenses and pain and suffering for something like $10,000. (It was a long time ago). The other lady counter sued for the damages to her truck. to add to the circus environment of the case, the plaintiffs lawyer was a midget who had to pull the lectern mic down to him while standing next to it while speaking to us. We not only threw out the plaintiffs case, but also added a very generous award to the defendant above and beyond what she asked for.
ParticipantThe problem with the gun control argument is the assumption that a person willing to carry out such horrific acts would care whether the gun was legal or not.
-
AuthorPosts
