If Syb comes out again..total fool.
He should cut his losses and call it good, I would if I were him. Really.
He should cut his losses and call it good, I would if I were him. Really.
OT...another example of the news agenda
- Thread starter Soonersincefitty
- Start date
Medic007
Sooner starter
Now to be fair to sybie, according to statistics, approximately 93% of blacks murdered by firearm are killed by blacks. 84% of whites are killed by whites. What is troubling is that in 2010, blacks accounted for 55% of the homicide by gun victims, while only accounting for 13% of the population. Whites accounted for 25% of the victims while making up 65% of the population.
It doesn't take rocket surgery to do some simple extrapolation that shows that black on black gun crime is an epidemic issue that has been ignored by liberals in favor of blaming the problem on guns instead of those who use them.
Just checked the MSN Homepage and since late Saturday night, 3 men were killed with 16 more injured in mostly the south side of Chicago.
Ethnicity wasn't listed in the article but I would bet a hefty sum that it was black on black crime.
Rev Al...Al...Al...you out there? Your peeps are killing and maiming your peeps.
Boomer Sooner
Ethnicity wasn't listed in the article but I would bet a hefty sum that it was black on black crime.
Rev Al...Al...Al...you out there? Your peeps are killing and maiming your peeps.
Boomer Sooner
Medic007
Sooner starter
One more thing then I'm out.
Speaking of extrapolation, if you were to swap the percent of the population of blacks and whites in 2010 and utilize the rate of homicide by firearm per 100,000 people, there would have been 29,295 blacks killed by firearm and only 763 whites. At 93%, 27,244 blacks would have been killed by their own race vs 640 whites killed by whites.
I guess I'm unable to see why the problem isn't readily apparent to the left. Maybe a large portion of the liberals time and energy should be devoted toward solving the gun violence problems present in the black population rather than trying to promote things that will accomplish nothing.
Speaking of extrapolation, if you were to swap the percent of the population of blacks and whites in 2010 and utilize the rate of homicide by firearm per 100,000 people, there would have been 29,295 blacks killed by firearm and only 763 whites. At 93%, 27,244 blacks would have been killed by their own race vs 640 whites killed by whites.
I guess I'm unable to see why the problem isn't readily apparent to the left. Maybe a large portion of the liberals time and energy should be devoted toward solving the gun violence problems present in the black population rather than trying to promote things that will accomplish nothing.
It is interesting that you began the discussion of black crime. This was a discussion of guns. What does that have to do with whether guns need to be regulated. Once you got it into black on black, does that make the issue different? The fact is still that the presence of guns results in murder: white on white, black on black, whatever. The black on black is still a distraction.
Has anyone heard that Australia did away with guns, and there was no internal war?
Sometime, the FOX believers need to look at actual studies about whom the nation actually trusts for news. FOX ranks as one of the lowest. I think CNN ranks among the highest. CBS and ABC are rather high in trust. MSNBC is nowhere near the liberal answer to FOX. It actually is much more trusted than FOX. There are actual studies that do ask questions like do you trust or distrust this network. Right now, the lowest rankings belong to things like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. In all fairness, both are rated more highly than Breitbart, Hannity, or Limbaugh. MSNBC does have actual conservatives who have their own program, like Morning Joe, a Florida Republican Congressman. But, liberals don't tend to get their marching orders. That's kind of a trait of liberals and why we have never been able to have successful programs like Limbaugh. We don't listen to them. Liberal requires an independence of thought.
Fact: like it or not, the US has a very high murder rate. About two-thirds of all murders are committed by guns. That's all that need be said. There is no legitimate answer than has been suggested.
Has anyone heard that Australia did away with guns, and there was no internal war?
Sometime, the FOX believers need to look at actual studies about whom the nation actually trusts for news. FOX ranks as one of the lowest. I think CNN ranks among the highest. CBS and ABC are rather high in trust. MSNBC is nowhere near the liberal answer to FOX. It actually is much more trusted than FOX. There are actual studies that do ask questions like do you trust or distrust this network. Right now, the lowest rankings belong to things like FOX and the Wall Street Journal. In all fairness, both are rated more highly than Breitbart, Hannity, or Limbaugh. MSNBC does have actual conservatives who have their own program, like Morning Joe, a Florida Republican Congressman. But, liberals don't tend to get their marching orders. That's kind of a trait of liberals and why we have never been able to have successful programs like Limbaugh. We don't listen to them. Liberal requires an independence of thought.
Fact: like it or not, the US has a very high murder rate. About two-thirds of all murders are committed by guns. That's all that need be said. There is no legitimate answer than has been suggested.
This is why I don't converse with you or take anything you say seriously. You make up silly nonsense like this. Amoral people think that truth is relative and they cannot be trusted.
There is no telling what else goes on behind your closed doors. When intruders kick in your closed door, reality will be paying you a visit. Good luck trying to reason with them.
Last edited:
I was watching one of Syb's "most trusted" news channels yesterday. Here are two examples of liberal-slanted reporting.
The news story was about the decline in the abortion rate thanks to increased "birth control" among teens. That "birth control" method? The morning-after pill.
The news story was about Kenya being one of our great allies in the so-called "fight against terror". But they fall way behind in human rights. Which human rights? Gay rights / gay marriage.
First, I don't believe these kind of threads belong on an OU sports message board as it is destructive. I don't start these threads, but I am going to defend the rights of honest gun owners when people like you decide it is ok to destroy the rights of innocent Americans with every crime that is committed. You want to limit our speech and pass laws limiting the rest of our freedoms every time something happens that offends you or impacts your sensitivities. No one, not a single gun owner, likes it when guns in the hands of those who can't legally have them in their possession kills. Not a single legal gun owner wants that to happen.
So, please stop trying to blame the innocent for the crimes of the criminals, insane and felons in our communities. You are just another Obama, Reid, Pelosi who want to blame every innocent American citizen who owns guns for the crimes of the felons. Yet, you do nothing to enforce the existing gun laws and why is that? It is because you are to concerned with growing your Democratic voting base. You encourage illegal aliens and provide the so-called sanctuary cities for the criminal element to enter this country and protect the felons in the process. The blood of the victims are on your hands ... not on the hands of the legal gun owning citizens of this country. You My Syb are as guilty for the death of the innocent citizens who have been killed by the illegal felon immigrants as the illegal felon who pulled the trigger. Yet you want to take the guns away from innocent American citizens like myself.
You don't understand the issue that is plain and clear. Let me give you some facts. Roughly one out of ever citizen walking down the streets in any Oklahoma town is a convicted felon. Felons, under Oklahoma law and Federal law, can't legally own guns, carry guns or have them in their possession. In NY City past Mayors had a "stop and frisk" law which was designed to take the guns from the felons who were carrying them in their vehicle or on their body. You and your left wing buddies didn't like it so your new NYC Mayor stopped the practice. You didn't want to violate the felons rights, but it is ok to violate the millions of citizens who own guns and have the right to carry/conceal in this country.
I know for a fact that the safest population to be in from not being subjected to a felony is the population of Oklahoma citizens who have a valid Oklahoma Carry/Conceal Permit. A tiny fraction of a percent of that population commits a felony every year. On the flip side roughly 8% of the rest of the population does commit a felony of some kind.
You and your kind are so out of touch with the reality. You have no clue as what you will unleash when you try to take the guns out of the hands of the millions of lawful non criminal citizens of this country.
You ought to focus on trying to enforce the existing laws and that would help. But, you left wingers don't want to do that. Why don't you enforce the Federal pot law? I will tell you why. It is because they are left wing democrat voters that is why.
You left wing folks want to start a revolution? Then just continue the PC crap and keep on blaming innocent citizens for the criminal element in this country. Why don't you prosecute the folks who incite the race riots such as we just experienced in Missouri and Baltimore? Hundreds of millions of property was destroyed and not a single one of those who incited those riots was charged with a crime. No, you left wingers won't ever do that as they are your constituents, even though they are felons under US law.
"Unloaded guns kill people."
I would estimate that about eighty percent of the public would understand exactly what I meant by that statement. Probably, about fifty-five to sixty percent would probably express agreement if asked. There are probably about twenty percent that would be confused and wonder what I meant. How could an unloaded gun kill someone? But, they would probably move on rather than comment.
Then, there is that twenty to twenty-five percent who knew exactly what I meant, but chose to use it as a means of attack. Liberals can't be trusted because they say stupid things like unloaded guns kill people. That's how crazy they are. It shows how far left they are.
Actually, the attacks really expose is the predisposition of some to find fault rather than to try to have an intelligent discussion. It pins a label on them. I'm not particularly a fan of the Redneck Comedy Tour, but I have always liked Bill Engvall's routine on , "here's your sign."
I don't pay any attention to the posts that disagree with me, nor do I try to remember the names of those whose extremism is revealed. But, I do suggest that if you made a negative post about my comment that unloaded guns killed people that you have earned your sign.
Here's your sign.
I would estimate that about eighty percent of the public would understand exactly what I meant by that statement. Probably, about fifty-five to sixty percent would probably express agreement if asked. There are probably about twenty percent that would be confused and wonder what I meant. How could an unloaded gun kill someone? But, they would probably move on rather than comment.
Then, there is that twenty to twenty-five percent who knew exactly what I meant, but chose to use it as a means of attack. Liberals can't be trusted because they say stupid things like unloaded guns kill people. That's how crazy they are. It shows how far left they are.
Actually, the attacks really expose is the predisposition of some to find fault rather than to try to have an intelligent discussion. It pins a label on them. I'm not particularly a fan of the Redneck Comedy Tour, but I have always liked Bill Engvall's routine on , "here's your sign."
I don't pay any attention to the posts that disagree with me, nor do I try to remember the names of those whose extremism is revealed. But, I do suggest that if you made a negative post about my comment that unloaded guns killed people that you have earned your sign.
Here's your sign.
You don't want to have an intelligent discussion as you have already blamed every law abiding citizen of this country and are intent on violating their constitutional 2nd Amendment rights.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Translated: "I got my ass handed to me over a really stpuid comment I made and rather than acknowledge my comment was in fact very stupid, I'll make up statistics to try to blame everyone else for not "getting it.""
We know you don't pay attention to posts that disagree with you. You don't like facts. Left wing extremists like you only regurgitate the agenda you're fed and aren't able to think independently and digest factual information to see what the actual problems are.
I think your sign is probably branded by now.
Do you really not understand the statement, "unloaded guns kill people?" That requires someone quite dense.
You want to talk about dense? You are arguing over semantics of a phrase ... now how dense is that?
Medic007
Sooner starter
No, I don't speak leftist bullshit. In my educated world, gun safety dictates that a firearm is never to be considered anything but loaded. So if you're referring to people thinking a gun is unloaded and then shooting somebody, the fact that a bullet left the muzzle is a definitive indicator that the gun was in fact loaded. That isn't gun error. It's operator (human) error. Guns don't load themselves and lay in wait for the unsuspecting.
Or maybe you are speaking as that idiot council woman did in CA a few years back. Or maybe it's some quasi proverb about boilers.
Well the national media also didn’t report on the Dillon Taylor or Gilbert Collar shootings even though they closely resembled the Mike Brown incident. No outrage, no riots, no marches... No agenda could be benefited from publicizing those deaths. No such thing as unbiased news anymore...
Unloaded guns kill the people who didn't take the time to load them. Geez.
"More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott is good reading. Mr. Lott examines every U. S. county from 1977-2005.
Mr. Lott examines law, including the Brady law.
Lax gun laws Boise, ID gun homicides are almost non-existent. Tough gun laws Gary, IN gun homicides are almost nightly.
Gun laws do not stop theater shootings. Gun free zones invite gun homicides.
Mr. Lott examines law, including the Brady law.
Lax gun laws Boise, ID gun homicides are almost non-existent. Tough gun laws Gary, IN gun homicides are almost nightly.
Gun laws do not stop theater shootings. Gun free zones invite gun homicides.
So, if someone writes a book, Unloaded Guns Kill People, you won't understand.
Nonsense. Nobody is that dense.
Meanwhile, some of you think that liberal or leftist is all you need to say to designate someone as evil or uninformed. I would direct you to a recent PEW Study that indicated that the animosity shown to liberalism or socialism by the elderly isn't exactly the same for the young. Indeed, people under thirty now have a more positive attitude toward socialism than they do toward capitalism.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/
Hispanics and blacks now regard capitalism negatively, although Hispanics have not embraced socialism positively yet.
Why is this? Is it that the type of capitalism, or what is now called capitalism, isn't of merit in the eyes of the young?
Even Rasmussen, which I think is now owned by FOX or has some relationship to FOX, found that the embrace of capitalism is on the decline (2009). This is probably enhanced further by now.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3699
We don't exactly tremble when being called liberals any more.
Nonsense. Nobody is that dense.
Meanwhile, some of you think that liberal or leftist is all you need to say to designate someone as evil or uninformed. I would direct you to a recent PEW Study that indicated that the animosity shown to liberalism or socialism by the elderly isn't exactly the same for the young. Indeed, people under thirty now have a more positive attitude toward socialism than they do toward capitalism.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/
Hispanics and blacks now regard capitalism negatively, although Hispanics have not embraced socialism positively yet.
Why is this? Is it that the type of capitalism, or what is now called capitalism, isn't of merit in the eyes of the young?
Even Rasmussen, which I think is now owned by FOX or has some relationship to FOX, found that the embrace of capitalism is on the decline (2009). This is probably enhanced further by now.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3699
We don't exactly tremble when being called liberals any more.
Is it the presence or absence of gun laws that make a difference, or could it be what the study found, gun murders are more frequent in urban settings.
Medic007
Sooner starter
Please don't present facts. They confuse him. He still hasn't been able to digest the fact that that blacks have a homicide by gun problem. He'll probably end up saying that guns are racist conservatives and socialism would fix every.
Does Boise qualify as a poor urban area whose jobs have been lost as the rust belt manufacturing declines? The report suggested urban poverty.
I don't even watch the news, nothing but negativity in all aspects. I live a lot happier doing so!
You're right Syb...I've been laid off a half a dozen times and it was all I could do not to go shoot a bunch of people.
Then I thought it over and went and found another position.
In hindsight, I chose wisely.
Then I thought it over and went and found another position.
In hindsight, I chose wisely.
There is some support for your position as indicated by a Farleigh Dickinson University Study:
http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawi...est-informed-fox-news-viewers-worst-informed/
You're just being a dick now.
Reason all you wish. It's your right to and even speak about it. But the fact is the Constitutional right to bear arms is for us as a people to be able to over come & overtake an oppressive Govt. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't take a bazooka on a quail hunt, but I would prefer a bazooka or mortars if fighting a mechanized army.
That has always been what I believed. But, I'm not so sure. The founding fathers were not particularly afraid of a militarized takeover, and most projected more of what has actually occurred. The powerful would manipulate the weak into submission rather than a military type takeover.
I have not disputed the right to bear arms, nor have I stated that all of the guns would be collected. I have stated that ALL rights are subject to regulation and restrictions. Can you name even one right that is absolute? We have had rather conservative leaders that have wished for restrictions on guns, like Reagan. The thought that any and all weapons must be allowed is due to a more recent campaign on the part of gun manufacturers that have sold this to the public. What limits would Jefferson or Madison have envisioned? We had the vote to keep power with the people and keep government from getting out of hand.
Unrestricted weapons simply makes no sense and has no precedent.
Far from it. I've encountered mentally disordered people like you all my life. You're one of the really "special" ones. You should consider yourself fortunate that you live in an age where people like you, who were at one time committed to mental institutions, are mainstreamed into society.
Almost every one of your posts is as rude as hell, which exposes your weaknesses and insecurity. You make up stats to back up the ridiculous things you spew. Yet everywhere you go, you encounter huge numbers of right-minded men and women like us, young and old. And it just bothers the crap out of you, wondering why nobody wants anything to do with you.
Your Marxist bullshit in this country has it's roots in the education system going back 80 years. It hasn't succeeded yet, nor will it. Guys like you die off, the next Sybarites come along, then they die off too. The United States is still here, the US Constitution / Bill of Rights is still in place, the Marxists are about to be purged from Washington DC, and more and more people are freely carrying handguns everywhere they go. Obama and company helped me to realize the present danger, to get off my ass and get my permit to carry. And I do. Millions of others too. The guy standing in line with you at the grocery store is packing a 9mm. Poor, frustrated Sybarite. The more guys like you run off at the mouth, the stronger conservatism gets. Thank you.
Medic007
Sooner starter
And unrestricted weapons does not exist in the good ol US of A. Next dumbass statement?
Well, I hope you got that off your chest. Now, if you only had the vaguest idea what you were talking about. The cold war is over, and you can forget your cold war anti-liberal propaganda.
Let me tell you what you will see. The non-capitalistic "capitalism" will be under attack. The Tea Party was originally founded to deal with Wall Street until it was hijacked. Now, the most popular movement in the country has been led by an Oklahoma native, Elizabeth Warren. The reins have fallen to a socialist in Sanders, but the most recent CNN poll shows that Sanders is ahead of Bush, Trump, and Walker. Ironic, isn't it? That is what this form of capitalism, which isn't capitalism, has generated. Of course, anyone who attacks that nonsense must be a marxist. Right? And, let's always blame it on the educators, just as they have in all would-be dictatorships. Attack the press and the educators because they are the ones who will expose you.
You will see populism, regardless of what the economic label might be. But, I assure you that your version of what the Constitution has always been subject to change, and it has changed. That is called maturation, provided for by those who wrote the Constitution when they set up Amendments and the Courts.
I am pleased that the extremists seem to be disturbed by my comments. You will be even more so with time because they will be coming from everywhere.
Let me tell you what you will see. The non-capitalistic "capitalism" will be under attack. The Tea Party was originally founded to deal with Wall Street until it was hijacked. Now, the most popular movement in the country has been led by an Oklahoma native, Elizabeth Warren. The reins have fallen to a socialist in Sanders, but the most recent CNN poll shows that Sanders is ahead of Bush, Trump, and Walker. Ironic, isn't it? That is what this form of capitalism, which isn't capitalism, has generated. Of course, anyone who attacks that nonsense must be a marxist. Right? And, let's always blame it on the educators, just as they have in all would-be dictatorships. Attack the press and the educators because they are the ones who will expose you.
You will see populism, regardless of what the economic label might be. But, I assure you that your version of what the Constitution has always been subject to change, and it has changed. That is called maturation, provided for by those who wrote the Constitution when they set up Amendments and the Courts.
I am pleased that the extremists seem to be disturbed by my comments. You will be even more so with time because they will be coming from everywhere.
I just came in from the old west porch, where I shot two bricks of 22 long rifle.
(a brick is 50 rounds libarite)
Seems we had some killer pop cans, a menacing old radio that was just begging for it.
Jugs of water that were giving me the stink eye.
It was a pleasure...
(a brick is 50 rounds libarite)
Seems we had some killer pop cans, a menacing old radio that was just begging for it.
Jugs of water that were giving me the stink eye.
It was a pleasure...
Jesus... Syb w/ chewed legs could run circles around him when discussing the political theater. I don't agree with most of his politics, but to say anyone on this board could chew his legs off is being silly. Syb can and does frame is argument very well.
Syb, the problem is, even most liberals wish to protect themselves with guns from those that have guns. Gun ownership will always be protected a constitutional right.
Medic007
Sooner starter
That made me chuckle. Yes, throwing out the Fox News schtick and rants of socialist visions is always evidence of framing arguments well.
Go back through the thread and see if I have ever disputed gun ownership rights. I realize that some are suggesting that I did say that we would take away the guns. But, look to see if I said it.
What I have said is that there must and will be regulations. Even the police departments want that. Reagan, hardly one of my friends, wanted that. I have also brought into the discussion the limitations on what types of weapons. Where do you draw the line?
I suspect that if we were talking forty years ago, we would have thought the idea that the public could have an AK47 would have been considered absurd. Now, some are insisting on it. What are the limits?
Australia DID take away the guns. I haven't checked to see the method. I don't think that is likely here, and it is not what is advocated. I suspect that we will see limits on the types of guns, probably restricting it to rifles, shotguns, and possibly hand guns. I doubt that we end up with AK47s being legal to own unless they have somehow been rendered ineffective.
There is no doubt that the Second Amendment is a right to bear arms. There is considerable question as to regulation. Can you name one right that is not regulated? Is your freedom of speech unlimited? Are there restrictions on it? Freedom of assembly?
