patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,265,751 comments by 15,134 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 219 - 258 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
219
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:45pm
Goran_K
2018 Feb 22, 3:45pm
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
220
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:49pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 22, 3:49pm
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
221
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
Wow, looking at the lobbyists, no wonder health care is so F**ked up in this country. Their stock shot to the moon with Obamney Care.
No wonder we don't have border security or immigration enforcement with "Don't ask for a copy of workers' papers, but don't you copy our IP" CoC Suckers being #1
And Alphabet/Google, that explains the war on Privacy.
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
222
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
Goran_K says
Just think this might just happen this time, one should be careful what they wish for.
If the NRA is really not spending much on lobbying then it could be easy to outspend them. Maybe some of those Hollywood types get this started.
There's not one anti-gun citizen run advocacy group with a 5 million person PAID MEMBERSHIP. Not even 100,000.
Just think this might just happen this time, one should be careful what they wish for.
If the NRA is really not spending much on lobbying then it could be easy to outspend them. Maybe some of those Hollywood types get this started.
223
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
Feux Follets says
Stop whining.
Goran_K saysDon't see you accusing Hollywood and Silicon Valley of "meddling in law making".
"discuss anything but the other users"
Reading comprehension issues ?
Stop whining.
224
anonymous
2018 Feb 22, 7:24pm
anon_8f378 says
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait....
Read up on how polling is done--especially the parts about obtaining a representative population in the polling.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait....
225
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 6:11am
anon_cf6c6 says
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
Yes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
226
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 6:12am
Goran_K says
Because it shows your chart was pure BS. I count $34.5MM just in 3 donations. Not too mention how much they gave to all the other Congresspeople that they've bought. I'd conservatively estimate they paid $50MM which puts them 3rd behind only the CoC and NAR.
OF Course they would donate to oppose Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton would have severely weakened the 2A movement. Trump ran on a pro 2A platform. I spent money to oppose Hillary Clinton (over $10,000+).
Why is this a big deal?
Because it shows your chart was pure BS. I count $34.5MM just in 3 donations. Not too mention how much they gave to all the other Congresspeople that they've bought. I'd conservatively estimate they paid $50MM which puts them 3rd behind only the CoC and NAR.
227
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 9:01am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 9:01am
anon_83081 says
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
228
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 9:28am
anon_8f378 says
OK, so she IS President? Right?
Oh wait.
anon_cf6c6 saysYes, we know how polling is done, Hillary is going to win the election according to the polls.
Oh wait...
Yep, and Hillary did win the popular vote. The polls were right.
OK, so she IS President? Right?
Oh wait.
229
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 9:28am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
230
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 10:12am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Yet those companies get the protection of the US government. You don't think that is worth something? Maybe a little extra tax to pay for that defense, is that really out of the question? I do realize that if Ireland got invaded the US would come and help but what about the protection a US company has within it's boarder. Not to mention how it assists abroad. Think operation iraq liberation.
anon_83081 saysAnd we gave those scum bags yuge tax cuts, how fucked up is that, Right?
We gave all corporations a tax cut, and now our marginal rate is more in keeping with our competitors.
Yet those companies get the protection of the US government. You don't think that is worth something? Maybe a little extra tax to pay for that defense, is that really out of the question? I do realize that if Ireland got invaded the US would come and help but what about the protection a US company has within it's boarder. Not to mention how it assists abroad. Think operation iraq liberation.
231
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 10:13am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 23, 10:13am
anon_8f378 says
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
And, more importantly, Trump has followed Republican rule #1 and given more wealth to the 1%.
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
233
anonymous
2018 Feb 23, 7:56pm
TwoScoopsPlissken says
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
234
Patrick
2018 Feb 23, 7:59pm
Patrick
2018 Feb 23, 7:59pm
anon_3b28c says
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Whereas Democrats don't help the 1%, right? Feinstein just wants to eliminate the F-35 and raise the tariff, right?
No, the Republican party is the party of the 1%. Everything they do has pretty much one thing in mind--help the rich.
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
We cross-checked the Open Secrets list of the top 100 individuals donating to outside spending groups in the current election against the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires and found that, as of June 19, there were 22 individuals on the Open Secrets list who were billionaires. Of those 22 billionaires, 13 -- or more than half -- gave predominantly to liberal groups or groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. The other nine gave predominantly to conservative groups.
236
HappyGilmore
2018 Feb 24, 8:59am
Patrick says
No, it's still the case today. Although sometimes looking at donations is useful, in this case you need only look at voting behavior of both parties.
Dems voted for tax increases for the wealthy. Dems voted for capital gains tax increase. Dems voted against free trade (as a party) Dems voted for regulation of Wall St.
Reps voted for tax breaks for the wealthy. Reps voted for capital gains tax decrease. Reps voted for free trade (as a party). Reps voted to eliminate regulation of Wall St.
Actions speak louder than words.
Historically you'd have been right, but we live in strange times, where the elite are represented more by Democrats than Republicans:
No, it's still the case today. Although sometimes looking at donations is useful, in this case you need only look at voting behavior of both parties.
Dems voted for tax increases for the wealthy. Dems voted for capital gains tax increase. Dems voted against free trade (as a party) Dems voted for regulation of Wall St.
Reps voted for tax breaks for the wealthy. Reps voted for capital gains tax decrease. Reps voted for free trade (as a party). Reps voted to eliminate regulation of Wall St.
Actions speak louder than words.
238
anonymous
2018 Feb 26, 7:11pm
So my main gripe is that guns barely register on the 'major problems' scale. Its alright for corporations to profit from selling us poison that gives us heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc, but we as a country get our panties in a twist about a few dead kids because they 'were murdered'. Is it not still murder if the weapon is mass poison?
240
ThatGuy
2018 Feb 26, 7:13pm
I've been thinking about the anti-gun rhetoric these days
and I think I finally understand why I'm so upset by it...
My conclusion is that humanity has its priorities all messed up.
How often do you think about heart disease?
Do you know what a malignant neoplasm is?
What do you know about lower respiratory disease, accidental death, or cerebrovascular disease?
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
Gun violence happens and its sad
The news will share it and the world will cry together
"we must do something!" we say...
But behind the scenes, a sinister force is at work
to distract you from our real problems
and we buy it hook, line, and sinker
And when a nutjob with an immense history
providing specific public warning of his terrible plans
Takes a semi-automatic weapon and follows through on his threats, the news takes it viral, with a revolting level of propaganda, and the crowd cheers for change. But the change is at the expense of honest people being able to defend themselves from tyranny. The evil will not yield their weapons, and history has shown that weapon bans don't work.
I don't ask you to give up your anti-gun thoughts.
I ask you to give them the respect that 1.34% of deaths deserve. 0.55% if you don't include suicide.
Please share this if you agree, it took a bit of time to look up the data, which you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
and I think I finally understand why I'm so upset by it...
My conclusion is that humanity has its priorities all messed up.
How often do you think about heart disease?
Do you know what a malignant neoplasm is?
What do you know about lower respiratory disease, accidental death, or cerebrovascular disease?
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
Gun violence happens and its sad
The news will share it and the world will cry together
"we must do something!" we say...
But behind the scenes, a sinister force is at work
to distract you from our real problems
and we buy it hook, line, and sinker
And when a nutjob with an immense history
providing specific public warning of his terrible plans
Takes a semi-automatic weapon and follows through on his threats, the news takes it viral, with a revolting level of propaganda, and the crowd cheers for change. But the change is at the expense of honest people being able to defend themselves from tyranny. The evil will not yield their weapons, and history has shown that weapon bans don't work.
I don't ask you to give up your anti-gun thoughts.
I ask you to give them the respect that 1.34% of deaths deserve. 0.55% if you don't include suicide.
Please share this if you agree, it took a bit of time to look up the data, which you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
241
anonymous
2018 Feb 26, 7:39pm
ThatGuy says
Please don't show that chart here.
It totally destroys the Liberal narrative that guns=major death, and need a total ban.
Please don't show that chart here.
It totally destroys the Liberal narrative that guns=major death, and need a total ban.
242
ThatGuy
2018 Feb 26, 8:37pm
It landed with a hard, flat, thud on Facebook, Linkedin. and Twitter.
The next day every single liberal stopped posting their ridiculous rhetoric to my page.
And I get a bit of silent respect at work from unexpected sources
People start to realize maybe this really isn't the battle they should be fighting
It totally destroys the Liberal narrative that guns=major death, and need a total ban.
It landed with a hard, flat, thud on Facebook, Linkedin. and Twitter.
The next day every single liberal stopped posting their ridiculous rhetoric to my page.
And I get a bit of silent respect at work from unexpected sources
People start to realize maybe this really isn't the battle they should be fighting
243
anonymous
2018 Feb 26, 8:59pm
We need more guns and cheaper ammo. Sell to teachers and students and schools will be safe
244
ThatGuy
2018 Feb 26, 9:23pm
I don't agree with Trump on that one, anon.
Next step down that path is a psycho teacher who goes all Anakin on his students
Next step down that path is a psycho teacher who goes all Anakin on his students
245
anonymous
2018 Feb 26, 10:04pm
ThatGuy says
Sadly, that realization hasn't made it to the Liberals here.
People start to realize maybe this really isn't the battle they should be fighting
Sadly, that realization hasn't made it to the Liberals here.
246
anonymous
2018 Feb 27, 7:22am
ThatGuy says
huh? Have you not heard of the American Heart Association? Here's a website for your to peruse:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/
And American Cancer Society? Other websites for you:
https://www.cancer.org/?_ga=2.223155035.1372620195.1519736206-2092924775.1519736206
https://www.cancer.gov/research
Pretty sure there is outrage at heart disease and cancer, and a heck of a lot of money being spent already combating these diseases.
So, again, I'll ask--is the US not capable of pursuing multiple solutions at the same time? Why must it be one or the other?
These are the top 5 killers in our country, 61.6% of deaths, and there is no outrage, no movement. 1.6M dead in 2015. Our reaction is madness.
huh? Have you not heard of the American Heart Association? Here's a website for your to peruse:
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/
And American Cancer Society? Other websites for you:
https://www.cancer.org/?_ga=2.223155035.1372620195.1519736206-2092924775.1519736206
https://www.cancer.gov/research
Pretty sure there is outrage at heart disease and cancer, and a heck of a lot of money being spent already combating these diseases.
So, again, I'll ask--is the US not capable of pursuing multiple solutions at the same time? Why must it be one or the other?
247
anonymous
2018 Feb 27, 8:38am
anon_8f378 says
Really?
Can you point to all the news articles from Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Obama, et al, railing on saving the population from those killers?
Also, please link all the CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and NYT articles where they're showing such concern for these 1.6M dead people each year. There should be TONS of them, right?
We'll be waiting.
anon_8f378 says
We'll see after you post all those links. There's no shortage of gun ban article from that same group. Let's see if there is an equal amount dedicated to heart disease and cancer.
Pretty sure there is outrage at heart disease and cancer, and a heck of a lot of money being spent already combating these diseases.
Really?
Can you point to all the news articles from Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Obama, et al, railing on saving the population from those killers?
Also, please link all the CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and NYT articles where they're showing such concern for these 1.6M dead people each year. There should be TONS of them, right?
We'll be waiting.
anon_8f378 says
So, again, I'll ask--is the US not capable of pursuing multiple solutions at the same time?
We'll see after you post all those links. There's no shortage of gun ban article from that same group. Let's see if there is an equal amount dedicated to heart disease and cancer.
248
anonymous
2018 Feb 27, 11:21am
anon_cf6c6 says
Sure:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/01/obama-proposes-1-billion-cancer-research/79642380/
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20160113/president-obama-cancer-research#1
https://news.heart.org/president-obama-declares-february-as-american-heart-month/
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/02/03/heart-disease-is-world-killer-obama-urges-heart-health/
That took about 3 seconds and two google searches.
anon_cf6c6 says
Great--so you think we can do multiple things at once now?
Can you point to all the news articles from Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, Waters, Obama, et al, railing on saving the population from those killers?
Sure:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/01/obama-proposes-1-billion-cancer-research/79642380/
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20160113/president-obama-cancer-research#1
https://news.heart.org/president-obama-declares-february-as-american-heart-month/
https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/02/03/heart-disease-is-world-killer-obama-urges-heart-health/
That took about 3 seconds and two google searches.
anon_cf6c6 says
We'll see after you post all those links
Great--so you think we can do multiple things at once now?
251
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 8:42am
Pretty sure cops must go through extensive background checks and get training.
252
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 8:48am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 8:48am
anon_8f378 says
Once a year qualification at the pistol range? That's not really training. I've shot at the same range our local sheriffs "train" at, and they are no better than your average John Smith who owns a Glock 19.
get training.
Once a year qualification at the pistol range? That's not really training. I've shot at the same range our local sheriffs "train" at, and they are no better than your average John Smith who owns a Glock 19.
253
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 9:11am
Goran_K says
Thanks for making that point. Most people aren't great shots under the best of circumstances and really terrible under stress. Look at all the cop shootings where they empty a bunch of 17 round glocks and get a couple hits maybe. I'm trying to imigine a school shooting with lots of teachers who aren't very good shots spraying around bullets in rooms full o kids. Probably shooting at other teachers because they saw someone with a gun and just blasted away. Then the swat team arrives and starts shooting any people, including teachers, they see with guns. Not a pretty vision.
anon_8f378 saysget training.
Once a year qualification at the pistol range? That's not really training. I've shot at the same range our local sheriffs "train" at, and they are no better than your average John Smith who owns a Glock 19.
Thanks for making that point. Most people aren't great shots under the best of circumstances and really terrible under stress. Look at all the cop shootings where they empty a bunch of 17 round glocks and get a couple hits maybe. I'm trying to imigine a school shooting with lots of teachers who aren't very good shots spraying around bullets in rooms full o kids. Probably shooting at other teachers because they saw someone with a gun and just blasted away. Then the swat team arrives and starts shooting any people, including teachers, they see with guns. Not a pretty vision.
254
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:16am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:16am
anon_23b8e says
North Korea barely has working nukes (if any at all). Yet no country is looking forward to invading them despite their over-the-top militaristic threats in the region.
Teacher's don't have to be "great shots", they just need to be a deterrent. If they can fire in the direction of the shooter, even if they don't score hits, they have the effect of pinning down the shooter who more than likely isn't going to run face first into return fire.
Considering most police are 6-8 minutes away under the best circumstances, and mass shootings only last around half that time, what armed teachers do is delay and deter the shooter from advancing even if they aren't scoring head shots until help arrives. Now the psychopath has to face not only an armed teacher but also a SWAT team. Far better chance of children surviving that scenario.
Israel implemented the armed teacher solution back in the 70s. How many mass shootings has Israel had at its schools in the past 2 decades?
What I don't understand is the whole "school gun free zones", that's literally taking chickens and letting the foxes get free reign. Stupidity. No lefty liberal can say that "gun free zones" have any effect on safety. It's a liberal fantasy.
Thanks for making that point. Most people aren't great shots under the best of circumstances and really terrible under stress. Look at all the cop shootings where they empty a bunch of 17 round glocks and get a couple hits maybe. I'm trying to imigine a school shooting with lots of teachers who aren't very good shots spraying around bullets in rooms full o kids. Probably shooting at other teachers because they saw someone with a gun and just blasted away. Then the swat team arrives and starts shooting any people, including teachers, they see with guns. Not a pretty vision.
North Korea barely has working nukes (if any at all). Yet no country is looking forward to invading them despite their over-the-top militaristic threats in the region.
Teacher's don't have to be "great shots", they just need to be a deterrent. If they can fire in the direction of the shooter, even if they don't score hits, they have the effect of pinning down the shooter who more than likely isn't going to run face first into return fire.
Considering most police are 6-8 minutes away under the best circumstances, and mass shootings only last around half that time, what armed teachers do is delay and deter the shooter from advancing even if they aren't scoring head shots until help arrives. Now the psychopath has to face not only an armed teacher but also a SWAT team. Far better chance of children surviving that scenario.
Israel implemented the armed teacher solution back in the 70s. How many mass shootings has Israel had at its schools in the past 2 decades?
What I don't understand is the whole "school gun free zones", that's literally taking chickens and letting the foxes get free reign. Stupidity. No lefty liberal can say that "gun free zones" have any effect on safety. It's a liberal fantasy.
255
anonymous
2018 Feb 28, 9:28am
Goran_K says
Most of them commit suicide. Death isn't a deterrent to them.
Teacher's don't have to be "great shots", they just need to be a deterrent. If they can fire in the direction of the shooter, even if they don't score hits, they have the effect of pinning down the shooter who more than likely isn't going to run face first into return fire.
Most of them commit suicide. Death isn't a deterrent to them.
256
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:29am
Goran_K
2018 Feb 28, 9:29am
anon_8f378 says
Good. Then it makes the kill shot much, much easier.
Most of them commit suicide. Death isn't a deterrent to them.
Good. Then it makes the kill shot much, much easier.
258
MrMagic
2018 Feb 28, 6:42pm
MrMagic
2018 Feb 28, 6:42pm
anon_8f378 says
How does that change the inanimate object, the gun? Doesn't a cop have to pull the trigger the same way a deranged killer has to pull the trigger.
So, what's the difference, why isn't the gun blamed during a cop shooting, but it is blamed during a deranged shooter situation?
Please clarify that.
Pretty sure cops must go through extensive background checks and get training.
How does that change the inanimate object, the gun? Doesn't a cop have to pull the trigger the same way a deranged killer has to pull the trigger.
So, what's the difference, why isn't the gun blamed during a cop shooting, but it is blamed during a deranged shooter situation?
Please clarify that.
« First « Previous Comments 219 - 258 of 1,445 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.