There will be no catastrophe so ghastly that America will reform it's gun laws — Page 4

wow, the censorship is tight and skin is thin here! I guess calling someone a stuffed shirt is a heinous crime! Watch what you say, friends!

---

Survivors are victims of mass shootings too

As easy as "forcible rape"?

---

Headband, you are engaging in a mind numbing game of fallacious logic here, and not even adhering to your own nonsensically espoused rules. To quote you upthread “Per the FBI: Mass Murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders.” Much of the discussion in this thread (and certainly in Diva’s and paradox_error’s posts) is about “mass shootings” (a term that I do not believe is defined by the FBI, or about which there is otherwise consensus on a set of definitional criteria). You can blather on until you are blue in the face, and harangue the good decent folks here for your own pleasure and enjoyment, but it isn’t, and will never be, accurate to deny that a shooting of any kind, mass or otherwise, really took place because the requisite number of deaths for a mass murder didn’t occur. You’re being obtuse and dogmatic, very obviously and purposefully, and, well, just plain silly. You can conflate your arguments all you want, but you will never “win” (which we all know is so supremely important to you) by arguing that a turkey isn’t a bird because it doesn’t walk like a duck or quack like a duck. It just isn’t a duck. I don’t know what your endgame is here, and I don’t much care. I, for one, will go back to simply ignoring your existence but, I sincerely beseech you, please leave this thread and let the important and topical discussion continue in earnest.

---

From Mother Jones:

What is a mass shooting?
Broadly speaking, the term refers to an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence. But there is no official set of criteria or definition for a mass shooting, according to criminology experts and FBI officials who have spoken with Mother Jones.

---

I'm sure the accessory agrees with me about forcible rape. I Meagan, he hasn't said anything so I guess that means it goes without saying.

---

Happily, exactly zero people so far have advocated abolishing the Second Amendment.

Updated On: 8/16/21 at 09:05 PM

Kade, revising does not mean abolishing or negating. And to my mind, random gun toters showing up at Walmart with assault rifles does not constitute a well-regulated militia.

Does protecting oneself have to equal unfettered access to every type of firearm? No one can seriously believe that that's what "a well-regulated militia" means. Or that the words "well-regulated" can be applied in any way to the current state of the relationship between America and guns. If a sh¡tload of guns is the only standard by which we measure freedom, what are we to make of countries like Australia or Canada or England or any other that country doesn't fetishize guns?

a free state requires a militia, i.e., an amateur citizenry prepared to defend the "free" state.

Do you think this will likely be necessary?

---

If I understand you correctly and you're saying that freedom is something owed to white heterosexual Christians (and threatened by anyone outside that triumvirate), then there is no dialog occurring.

Updated On: 6/4/14 at 10:01 PM

As long as you're saying that freedom is in no way defined and/or enlarged or limited by religion, race, or sexual identity, I guess so.

Updated On: 6/4/14 at 10:27 PM