ADVERTISEMENT

OT...another example of the news agenda

Soonersincefitty

Soonersincefitty

Sooner starter
Oct 16, 2004
17,429
7,365
113
Gun Barrel, Texas...via Claremore, earth
Recently, in a semi affluent area in Broken Arrow, two brothers, 16 and 18 savagely killed both parents and three siblings. (I'm speculating meth fueled)
Did you hear about it?
If you didn't it's because it didn't pass the smell test for sensationalism.
No guns were involved. They were all stabbed to death with knives.

(knife control NOW) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
Yep, the great unwashed just don't get it that there are a gazillion ways to kill.
Guns are efficient for sure, but they aren't the only game in town.

Did you know that in China, with their lock down control on guns, there's a shocking amount of murders committed with swords, knives and other assorted cutlery?

Again, and sorry for the mind numbing redundance but, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. That's the deal.
Accept that immutable axiom and maybe, just maybe, the life that is saved will be yours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and fortworth4ou2
Neither white on white, black on white, white or black on any other ethnicity, nor black on black crime is newsworthy (or profitable) now. It neither fires up the Left's base nor advances their dishonest propagandist agenda. I'm assuming the victims and perps are among one of the scenarios mentioned. And, especially since the police were not directly involved.

Rev Al continues to hibernate in such situations. But, he is always on the ready with his fiddle when he can smell the possibility of Rome burning

Remember, ONLY "black lives matter" today with white and black Progressives (unless, of course, it's black on black or black abortion matters). Get with the program y'all! It's the Progressive Way.

Check out Chris Rock's Youtube (or as the Rev Al says, the UseTube) video on "how a black man can avoid a butt whippin' from the police". Funny but, it gets a really simple message across.

With the new PC advocacy, there will eventually be only black comedians such as Chris Rock left. The rest of us will be shamed or forced into silence.

Boomer Sooner
 
Since the NRA, to which I belonged when it was a legitimate organization, insists on carrying the gun ownership to the limit, primarily because they profit from it, we happen to be one of very few countries in the world where you can have extensive gun ownership. There are some facts that you simply cannot ignore.

First, those of you who are Reaganites should remember that he was for the ban of handguns. The extremism is that recent. Indeed, while there are a million ways to murder someone, few are as easy and as dangerous as a gun.

Few handguns are actually used to protect a home. Nearly all those shot by handgun owners (police excepted) are family members. Unloaded weapons kill people. Kids who don't know better play with daddy's gun and kill their two year old sister. Someone gets angry and shoots someone in a fit of temper. There are also a lot of suicides with handguns.

How many of these would occur with knives or poison? If you pull a knife on someone, it is a bit easier to defend than a six-gun. The blow is not usually deadly. You have to persist to kill someone with a knife as a rule. The simply one shot in a fit of temper resulting in death isn't so easy with a knife. Thus, when you look at statistics, how many of the gun deaths are due to handguns? How many would there be if all we had was a shotgun? You have to load the thing. You don't just grab it out of a drawer and fire. I don't hear of a lot of kids killing their siblings with a rifle.

As a nation, our murder rate is much, much higher than that of any country in Europe or Australia. They do have guns, but only while in a gun club. They can't keep them at home or in their pocket. You can't continue to ignore the fact that guns make for a horrendous murder rate in the US.

I think Reagan made some comment that you don't go hunting with a bazooka or machine gun (paraphrased a bit since I don't want to take time to look up the exact quote). Sane people have always understood the need to have some restrictions on guns.

Don't give me the nonsense about Second Amendment rights. Yes, they exist. But, rights are limited. Every right is limited. Free speech is limited by slander. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't have twenty-seven wives due to your religion. You can't assemble without a permit in places. We have all kinds of limits on rights,, placed their by sanity and regard for a society at large. You don't need an AK-47 to hunt quail, and you need to restrict handguns. If you have them in the public at all, there should be restrictions that would attempt to prevent the murder of family members. The founders said there was a right to bear arms. It is not clear that the intent was for individuals to have that right or a well-regulated militia. The type of arm is also not specified. The NRA has made this so absurd that they want the right to sell a nuclear pistol if it exists.

Reel it in. Get over your absurdity and give this some intelligent thought. What is legitimate? What arms should be permissible? If you do not make sense with this, I assure you that the pendulum will swing back and take all weapons. You don't move to this type of extreme without a reaction.
 
I'm not done with you Sybarite...
What, pray tell would you do?
Send out a few million reticent, scared National Guardsmen to collect 300 million guns now in circulation in this country? It's not any secret that that is Obamas most fervent dream, but is that the most prudent thing to do?

You talk about your revolution...that would make the civil war a casual walk in the park in comparison.
I'll double down by saying that I and all the fellows I know will not allow that to happen...ever!

So, in light of that little nugget of reality...what do you got?
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1 and fortworth4ou2
sybarite said:
Since the NRA, to which I belonged when it was a legitimate organization, insists on carrying the gun ownership to the limit, primarily because they profit from it, we happen to be one of very few countries in the world where you can have extensive gun ownership. There are some facts that you simply cannot ignore.

First, those of you who are Reaganites should remember that he was for the ban of handguns. The extremism is that recent. Indeed, while there are a million ways to murder someone, few are as easy and as dangerous as a gun.

Few handguns are actually used to protect a home. Nearly all those shot by handgun owners (police excepted) are family members.
Kids who don't know better play with daddy's gun and kill their two year old sister. Someone gets angry and shoots someone in a fit of temper. There are also a lot of suicides with handguns.

How many of these would occur with knives or poison? If you pull a knife on someone, it is a bit easier to defend than a six-gun. The blow is not usually deadly. You have to persist to kill someone with a knife as a rule. The simply one shot in a fit of temper resulting in death isn't so easy with a knife. Thus, when you look at statistics, how many of the gun deaths are due to handguns? How many would there be if all we had was a shotgun? You have to load the thing. You don't just grab it out of a drawer and fire. I don't hear of a lot of kids killing their siblings with a rifle.

As a nation, our murder rate is much, much higher than that of any country in Europe or Australia. They do have guns, but only while in a gun club. They can't keep them at home or in their pocket. You can't continue to ignore the fact that guns make for a horrendous murder rate in the US.

I think Reagan made some comment that you don't go hunting with a bazooka or machine gun (paraphrased a bit since I don't want to take time to look up the exact quote). Sane people have always understood the need to have some restrictions on guns.

Don't give me the nonsense about Second Amendment rights. Yes, they exist. But, rights are limited. Every right is limited. Free speech is limited by slander. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't have twenty-seven wives due to your religion. You can't assemble without a permit in places. We have all kinds of limits on rights,, placed their by sanity and regard for a society at large. You don't need an AK-47 to hunt quail, and you need to restrict handguns. If you have them in the public at all, there should be restrictions that would attempt to prevent the murder of family members. The founders said there was a right to bear arms. It is not clear that the intent was for individuals to have that right or a well-regulated militia. The type of arm is also not specified. The NRA has made this so absurd that they want the right to sell a nuclear pistol if it exists.

Reel it in. Get over your absurdity and give this some intelligent thought. What is legitimate? What arms should be permissible? If you do not make sense with this, I assure you that the pendulum will swing back and take all weapons. You don't move to this type of extreme without a reaction.
Click to expand...
There is so much to laugh about in this post I don't know exactly where to start.

"It is not clear that the intent was for individuals to have that right or a well-regulated militia."
Oh it's clear, despite the agenda of the left.

"The type of arm is also not specified."
Exactly. We all have some common sense. A civilian can't own a fully automatic firearm unless it was manufactured prior to 1983. Nobody complains about that.

"The NRA has made this so absurd that they want the right to sell a nuclear pistol if it exists."
This is really stupid. It tells me you clearly are a talking point bootlicker that has no clue about what the actual arguments on either side are.

"You can't have twenty-seven wives due to your religion."
Until very recently you also couldn't marry if you were gay. Complete non sequitur.

"Sane people have always understood the need to have some restrictions on guns."
Yep, and there are plenty of restrictions on guns. Just not enough for your personal tastes. Darn.

"If you pull a knife on someone, it is a bit easier to defend than a six-gun. The blow is not usually deadly. You have to persist to kill someone with a knife as a rule. The simply one shot in a fit of temper resulting in death isn't so easy with a knife."
It's clear you know nothing of mechanism of injury or what results in fatal injury.

"Unloaded weapons kill people."
Uhhh, you serious Clark?

"How many would there be if all we had was a shotgun? You have to load the thing."
You made reference to a gun killing while unloaded. Now I have to load it? I know you are passionate about the stupid crap you post, but in case it slipped your mind, you have to load a handgun too. Strangely enough, I can keep a loaded shotgun any place I like in my house. And I even have a shotgun small enough it might fit in my dresser drawer. In fact, I know it would.

"I think Reagan made some comment that you don't go hunting with a bazooka or machine gun (paraphrased a bit since I don't want to take time to look up the exact quote)."
Of course you don't, nor do you care about the actual context since that doesn't play to your agenda.

"You can't continue to ignore the fact that guns make for a horrendous murder rate in the US."
Look up statistics of black on black crime by gun. I think you'll likely see that the problem isn't actually the gun, but the type of person that uses it. If you left wingers would stop making excuses and start taking action to curb black on black violence, you'd actually see changes in the statistics you try to use universally, and incorrectly, to try to make your argument seem plausible.

"There are some facts that you simply cannot ignore."
But you regularly ignore them while banging out drivel on a keyboard.

I thought about ignoring your posts, but after this one, too much comedy to pass up. Seriously, report back to us on black on black violence and what the stats would look like if it was removed. I'm really curious if you are actually a "thinker" or just a bootlicking liberal regurgitist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fortworth4ou2
Lemme help ya sybie...

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6
per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American
Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific
Islander.

From:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

And that's down from the 1993 rate of 30.1 per 100,000 for blacks. During 1993, the rate for whites was less than 5 per 100,00 for whites, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and Asian and Pacific Islanders.

Strangely enough, gun homicide has trended down since 1993. There were 18,253 homicides by firearm in 1993. There were 11,101 in 2011. There were 1,529,700 firearm related victimization in 1993. These have declined to 467,300 in 2011.

The trend is going the wrong way for the left. And again, if you took out black on black gun violence, which has a rate 5-6 times higher than any other group, these statistics would be nearly negligible. So what is actually to blame when you dissect the statistics into their respective parts instead of trying to use them misleadingly? is it REALLY the guns or a problem that the left has ignored and continues to ignore because it doesn't fit the agenda?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fortworth4ou2 and iasooner1
Soonersincefitty said:
I'm not done with you Sybarite...
What, pray tell would you do?
Send out a few million reticent, scared National Guardsmen to collect 300 million guns now in circulation in this country? It's not any secret that that is Obamas most fervent dream, but is that the most prudent thing to do?

You talk about your revolution...that would make the civil war a casual walk in the park in comparison.
I'll double down by saying that I and all the fellows I know will not allow that to happen...ever!

So, in light of that little nugget of reality...what do you got?
Click to expand...
It is interesting that this wasn't even an issue until recently. The NRA has done a fantastic sales job in promoting the idea of individual gun ownership, as well as creating a hysteria that the government was going to get your guns. The lobbyists have now figured out that hysteria sells.

But, every President until 2000 (I don't remember Bush's policies) has been in favor of gun regulation, and it wasn't even an issue. But, the public has rather consistently favored somewhat enhanced gun laws, especially when it comes to background checks. In the past few years, the NRA noise has even made handguns now acceptable to the public. But, we are coming to the end of this period of nonsense. The people who have driven the insanity are now falling out of favor. We are also looking at demographic changes that will result in major change in policy.

It won't be a door to door campaign to get the guns. Most likely, the end will simply come as it usually does, with a whimper. Four years ago, there is no way that you would have a majority in support of gay marriage. Two years ago, there is no way that the Confederate flag would be removed from the South Carolina statehouse. Things are changing fast. And, just like the flag issue, it went quietly. We didn't send federal troops to remove the Confederate flag. The SC legislature voted something like 84-4 to remove it, and they weren't all liberal democrats.

We are in a nation that will be very different at the polls in 2020 and 2030. The white male will be fewer than thirty percent in 2016, most likely. By 2020, it may be as low as twenty-five percent. This will become very apparent as Texas will become blue by 2025 at the latest. Florida is already blue for national elections. Virginia, home of the confederacy, leans blue in national elections. The world that you have become accustomed to will be completely different within fifteen to twenty years.

Gun laws will simply be caught up in the flow. The young people are not caught up in gun ownership. The NRA and the extreme media has already begun to lose their relevance. It won't be a door to door war. It will probably be nothing more than confiscation when there is a crime or when a gun law is violated. The guns will go away slowly. But, those who want to buy a gun will be fewer, and there will be restrictions on manufacture and sale. We may even see a gun tax will would be sufficient for many to turn in a gun.

Battles are loud. Wars are often won quietly, and this has already had more noise than it merits.
 
Medic007 said:
Lemme help ya sybie...

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6
per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American
Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific
Islander.

From:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

And that's down from the 1993 rate of 30.1 per 100,000 for blacks. During 1993, the rate for whites was less than 5 per 100,00 for whites, American Indian and Alaska Natives, and Asian and Pacific Islanders.

Strangely enough, gun homicide has trended down since 1993. There were 18,253 homicides by firearm in 1993. There were 11,101 in 2011. There were 1,529,700 firearm related victimization in 1993. These have declined to 467,300 in 2011.

The trend is going the wrong way for the left. And again, if you took out black on black gun violence, which has a rate 5-6 times higher than any other group, these statistics would be nearly negligible. So what is actually to blame when you dissect the statistics into their respective parts instead of trying to use them misleadingly? is it REALLY the guns or a problem that the left has ignored and continues to ignore because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Click to expand...
You do run a cherry orchard to fit your agenda. Don't you.

Gun deaths are down since 1993. You failed to look at the history of that. Murders of all kinds are down somewhat, although not much. Guns still account for two-thirds of the murders. But, let's deal with that specific of 1993.

If you examine the history of handgun murders, it is fairly level, along with all murders. There was a spike for a few years around about 1981 and 1993 in which they skyrocketed. They simply returned back to what they were rather than having some great decline.

Most murders are committed using what weapon?
What percentage of murders are due to guns?


Your other post is not worth responding. Reality, you don't belong in an intelligent discussion.
 
Well good, you have figured it out.
One huge thing you're overlooking is uh, about 150, 200 million of us will have to actually die and decompose before your silly scenario can happen...

If you can hang on until 2050 or so, you'll be golden.
Good luck until then sport.
In the mean time, we gun owners will defend your undeserving ass to the death.

It's what we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iasooner1
Soonersincefitty said:
Well good, you have figured it out.
One huge thing you're overlooking is uh, about 150, 200 million of us will have to actually die and decompose before your silly scenario can happen...

If you can hang on until 2050 or so, you'll be golden.
Good luck until then sport.
In the mean time, we gun owners will defend your undeserving ass to the death.

It's what we do.
Click to expand...
How many people have you actually been called upon to defend with your gun? Most of the people making these statements weren't even in the military. How many times have you saved someone's life using a gun? Do you really believe that it will ever happen?

2050? The opposition to change is now largely in excess of sixty-five. The only demographic that the Republicans won in 2008 or 2012 was the over sixty-five group. Do you think they will be around in 2025. I know that I'm at an age where a third of my highschool classmates are dead. If you were a sixty-five male in 2008, your anticipated life span is to 2025. Changes will come quietly as the demographics change.
 
Well, I have used a gun once to quell a potential ugly between a gal I was having sweaty, angry sex with and her punk ass ex husband, but that's beside the point entirely.

Relax butthead, we'll both be long dead before your dream and my nightmare comes to any appreciable fruition.
Geez, get over your bloated self.
 
sybarite said:
You do run a cherry orchard to fit your agenda. Don't you.

Gun deaths are down since 1993. You failed to look at the history of that. Murders of all kinds are down somewhat, although not much. Guns still account for two-thirds of the murders. But, let's deal with that specific of 1993.

If you examine the history of handgun murders, it is fairly level, along with all murders. There was a spike for a few years around about 1981 and 1993 in which they skyrocketed. They simply returned back to what they were rather than having some great decline.

Most murders are committed using what weapon?
What percentage of murders are due to guns?


Your other post is not worth responding. Reality, you don't belong in an intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...
Meaningless drivel and failure to address actual facts. Liberal mantra.

Black on black crime. I saw how you ignored the facts like all bootlicking liberal regurgitists do. You know you'd hate to actually acknowledge a fundamental flaw in your argument. And when asked to confront the facts, you try to quietly back yourself out of the usual liberal corner by claiming some reason to not respond.

As I simply asked, remove black on black homicide by firearm from the statistics and let me know how terrible they are.

Pure entertainment.

If you could provide any intelligent conversation, I'd have one with you.
 
I actually feel a little sorry for ol' syb. First I would like to thank him for actually donning a uniform in the past. Your service in whatever capacity is appreciated. Obviously whatever experiments the govt started with your generation succeeded in giving us characters like Tim McV and have evolved into the Ft Hood cretin and others like him.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that you identified black on black. What the fact-gathering demonstrated was more specific to poverty on poverty, class on class. It only specified that it had a tendency to be urban. From that, you derive your version of black on black.

You didn't even bother to check the background on your '"facts," which were taken completely out of context as though life began in 1993. You just saw a decrease and a black on black and claimed you had the answer.
 
iasooner1 said:
I actually feel a little sorry for ol' syb. First I would like to thank him for actually donning a uniform in the past. Your service in whatever capacity is appreciated. Obviously whatever experiments the govt started with your generation succeeded in giving us characters like Tim McV and have evolved into the Ft Hood cretin and others like him.
Click to expand...
There is no need. Since I began as one of "them," I know where "they" are coming from. I also know that it is unlikely that anyone will be swayed, and I am obviously not trying to teach them. But, there may be those out there who are not aware and who are willing to learn and look at facts rather than FOX-driven nonsense. When you teach, you realize that there may be only one person in your class that will ever use this material. You try to acquaint everyone and reach that one person. But, information is like rain. It can get you all wet, or you can learn to catch it and use it.
 
sybarite said:
It is interesting that you identified black on black. What the fact-gathering demonstrated was more specific to poverty on poverty, class on class. It only specified that it had a tendency to be urban. From that, you derive your version of black on black.

You didn't even bother to check the background on your '"facts," which were taken completely out of context as though life began in 1993. You just saw a decrease and a black on black and claimed you had the answer.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahaha! Nope. Nice try but FAILED again. This is very simple. Remove the black on black homicides, information readily available, and let us know. Hell, homicides by blacks have a rate that should be highly disturbing to you peace loving tree huggers.

A big hint for you, they ain't killing white folks...
 
Medic007 said:
Hahahahahahaha! Nope. Nice try but FAILED again. This is very simple. Remove the black on black homicides, information readily available, and let us know. Hell, homicides by blacks have a rate that should be highly disturbing to you peace loving tree huggers.

A big hint for you, they ain't killing white folks...
Click to expand...
Once again, you are looking at two spikes. Now, do some legitimate research.
 
sybarite said:
But, there may be those out there who are not aware and who are willing to learn and look at facts rather than FOX-driven nonsense.
Click to expand...
Goodness. How many miles do you liberals expect to get from the Fox News bit? As if MSNBC is the bastion of anything other than blatant liberal propaganda. It's clear you liberals tune in daily to get your next round of talking points. Blame Bush. Blame Fox News. Blame racism. Blame guns. Blame conservatives.

Try thinking for yourself sybarite. The Fox News bit is a dead giveaway for the liberal group think you're stuck in.
 
Soonersincefitty said:
OMG Medic, you've done it now.

Don't you know the truth is like kryptonite to these peeps?
Click to expand...
I know fitty. He's got himself flustered. So much so he's lost the ability to read and comprehend.

Black on black gun crime and its effect on overall gun crime statistics, regardless of year, is a problem that he hasn't been trained by the liberal machine to handle in a debate.
 
Oh I know, preaching to the choir here.

This will fry his his brain down to a raisin.

If you factor in the combination of black abortion with black on black murder, if not for that, the black percentage in the US would be be a second place 24%, as opposed to the 12% they're seemingly locked into by the Democratic agenda. That's right!

Black lives matter?
Yeah, not to their deadly party they always want to pimp, the Democrats!

Go ahead, tell me how this is wrong!
 
Is it too late for me to chime in on a minor detail for Sybarite?

It seems that Tom Green, the well known Mormon polygamist, was reported to have had seven wives at once. He would then divorce all except for the first, have those divorced women apply for welfare benefits, and maintained residency with all seven and the 26+ children he fathered by them. His was a welfare gluttonous family as it is with all these fundamentalist parasites.

I know it is not the 27 you mentioned. Then, maybe he really did have that many. Hard to know with the Fundamentalist Mormons.

He might want to watch an episode of "Sister Wives" to gauge their beliefs and practices in this respect.

Boomer Sooner
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbrown24

The Life of Brent Venables (Told by BV in April 2019 to Clemson Rivals Site)

Replies
1
Views
1K
The Lindsey Street Insider Board
bullranger
B
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back