|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Gun rights advocate shot in the back /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1571779623 Message started by Serowbot on 10/22/19 at 14:27:03 |
|
Title: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Serowbot on 10/22/19 at 14:27:03 Gun rights advocate shot in the back by her 4-year-old son https://nypost.com/2016/03/09/gun-rights-advocate-shot-in-the-back-by-her-4-year-old-son/ http://https://images.indianexpress.com/2016/03/jamie-gilt-480.jpg?w=480 |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/22/19 at 15:21:01 4650475A42575A41350 wrote:
What is your point ? Is it the same as people believing a clown, who has been arrested for Burglary, had a DWI. Has said he will Confiscate Guns. And has said he believes all 'churches', who do Not do as he says, should be punished by having their tax-exempt status removed. is, a person that Should be, running to be a POTUS. Or does it, PROVE, that was a, 'assault weapon', as to Your definition: "I refer to assault weapons,.. and define them as guns with a capacity of over 10 rounds". OMG, have to BAN those Winchester Mod 62 pump rifles, they hold 14 rounds in their Tube Magazine, And of COURSE the modern, 'Look Alike' Rossi 62SA COPY, and don't forget the, (on and on and on) |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by thumperclone on 10/22/19 at 15:42:55 proves IDIOTS should not own guns 4yr old with loaded gun in the back seat of a vehicle?? really?? deserved to get shot GUN NUT IDIOT!!! |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 15:53:03 More guns, more problems. It's as simple as that. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Serowbot on 10/22/19 at 15:57:44 03201D3E3C2720294E0 wrote:
This is one of those "experts" that Mn thinks should make gun laws... Just the thought of it make me feel safer. ::) |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Eegore on 10/22/19 at 16:11:09 My understanding is that MN thinks "all gun laws" are illegal/unconstitutional, so it actually should be completely legal for a 4 year old to own and discharge a weapon. This kid nothing wrong, either did the mother given his Second Amendment rights. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/22/19 at 16:17:22 4E6E6C64796E0B0 wrote:
Love it! [smiley=thumbsup.gif] |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 08:02:33 022220283522470 wrote:
Who told you that ? Stating that any Gun Laws, should have knowledgeable, Responsible, Sensible people involved in crafting them. (Instead of Gun Haters, who’s ONLY goal is to BAN Guns) Like re-crafting the GCA of 1968, which parts of the government, (the UL FDS GBS parts), was greatly abusing. By passing the, ‘Firearm Owners Protection Act’ of 1986. Which was crafted by, written by, Knowledgeable, Responsible, Sensible people involved in, and Knowledgeable about Firearms. (Not Gun Hating, Gun, Freedom Banning people.) I believe your, 'understanding', of my POV. Is someone else, putting words in your mouth. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Serowbot on 10/23/19 at 08:10:31 Her Facebook site was called "GunSense"... :-/ I think that Red Flag law should apply here... |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 09:17:04 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
Wondering if you have the same amount of empathy for: A Person that, accidentally, injected to much Heroin, and was lucky because someone had a NARCAN pen ? A Person that was shooting at someone, because they were wearing the wrong color hat, and, accidentally, killed a little girl sitting at the kitchen table doing her homework ? A Person who was texting while driving, and, accidentally, killed 4 people in the car she hit head on ? A Person who chooses to spread AID’s by, accidentally having unprotected Sex ? A Person who, accidentally, jumped off the Golden Gate bridge in the middle of winter ? A Person who, accidentally, shot members of a Baseball team ? (And the list can go on, and on, and on) That you have for someone, who is driving, in which her child, (and old enough to do so), unstraps from the car seat, to retrieve a fallen toy, and then handles the legal firearm, which does not have a ‘leaver’ safety, (which is of a kind that most Police/FBI/CIA/SS/etc carry and use), and accidentally fires it ? |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Serowbot on 10/23/19 at 09:23:25 a lot of typing for a post with no point. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Serowbot on 10/23/19 at 10:00:37 05261B383A21262F480 wrote:
Wondering if you have the same amount of empathy for: [/quote] I don't have a lot of empathy for a woman endangers her child's life. Her obsession with guns makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her guns, or give up her children. I do hope she recovers,... and learns an important lesson. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/19 at 10:31:55 I don't have a lot of empathy for a woman endangers her child's life. Her obsession with guns makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her guns, or give up her children. I do hope she recovers,... and learns an important lesson. You are one fxxked up dude....... |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 10:52:55 3523342931242932460 wrote:
Perfect, Shining, Example, of the UL FDS GBS credo: "I don't like it, so YOU can't do it" "I Like it, so YOU MUST do it" |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/23/19 at 11:00:34 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
She let a 4 year old have access to a loaded gun in a back seat of a car. That's what's really fxxked up. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Mavigogun on 10/23/19 at 11:04:39 This is criminal negligence in ultra-liberal States like... Florida and Texas. Look it up, Buttercup. The parent's carelessness constitutes child endangerment, too- something we've been forced to confront via statute as well. Serowbot has advocated for law enforcement- and, more importantly, the child's welfare; in denouncing him, you put your personal contest before reasonable care. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by zevenenergie on 10/23/19 at 11:18:23 I think about the child who shot his mother. What will his opinion be when he grows up? :-/ |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by zevenenergie on 10/23/19 at 11:41:44 A pen is more powerful than a sword. Therefore no more nonsense arguments about gun, s. Everyone recognizes the untruth. Rather learn to face the truth and put it on paper. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 14:16:51 5F414E4F425F44592B0 wrote:
A Mother has a child that can defeat the gate on her swimming pool, Clearly, “Her obsession with 'Pools' makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘pool’, or give up her children” A Mother has a child that puts a bobby pin/Fork in a electoral outlet, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘outlets‘ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘outlets’, or give up her children” A Mother has a child that can manipulate the lock on the under cabinet door, and get to the Drano etc. Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘cabinets’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘cabinets’, or give up her children” A Mother texts while driving with her child, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘phones’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘phone’, or give up her children” Of couse the UL FDS GBS’s will say these things are Not the same. “Look it up, Buttercup”, A Citizen actually has the RIGHT, to legally own a Firearm. They have NO, 'Right’, to have a Pool, Cabinets, Outlets, Phone. “This is criminal negligence” “The parent’s carelessness constitutes child endangerment" Yep, the Mother SHOULD have, Made sure the Gate was in proper order, and that the child could Not climb/open it. Yep the Mother should have made sure All Forks and bobby pins were locked up and not assailable. Yep the Mother should have removed all poisonous objects under the sink. Yep the Mother should have not texted when driving. All, Accidents. YET, because it was a Firearm, The UL FDS GBS get panties in a bunch. Just another reason to, BAN/Confiscate, something a UL FDS GBS does not like. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 14:30:40 190615060D060D0611040A06630 wrote:
In this Nation, a little thing call the 1st Amendment exists. It is what allows the tt to say: T And T Garage wrote on Today at 7:34am: Just one more reason to hate the orange cokcsucker sitting in the oval office. Without reprisal, or fear of being sent to Siberia. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/23/19 at 14:59:33 5774496A6873747D1A0 wrote:
In this Nation, a little thing call the 1st Amendment exists. It is what allows the tt to say: T And T Garage wrote on Today at 7:34am: Just one more reason to hate the orange cokcsucker sitting in the oval office. Without reprisal, or fear of being sent to Siberia. [/quote] Back to the "the tt", huh? You're a real piece of work..... Glad I'm living in that tiny brain of yours rent-free! |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/23/19 at 15:00:24 1C3F022123383F36510 wrote:
A Mother has a child that can defeat the gate on her swimming pool, Clearly, “Her obsession with 'Pools' makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘pool’, or give up her children” A Mother has a child that puts a bobby pin/Fork in a electoral outlet, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘outlets‘ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘outlets’, or give up her children” A Mother has a child that can manipulate the lock on the under cabinet door, and get to the Drano etc. Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘cabinets’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘cabinets’, or give up her children” A Mother texts while driving with her child, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘phones’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘phone’, or give up her children” Of couse the UL FDS GBS’s will say these things are Not the same. “Look it up, Buttercup”, A Citizen actually has the RIGHT, to legally own a Firearm. They have NO, 'Right’, to have a Pool, Cabinets, Outlets, Phone. “This is criminal negligence” “The parent’s carelessness constitutes child endangerment" Yep, the Mother SHOULD have, Made sure the Gate was in proper order, and that the child could Not climb/open it. Yep the Mother should have made sure All Forks and bobby pins were locked up and not assailable. Yep the Mother should have removed all poisonous objects under the sink. Yep the Mother should have not texted when driving. All, Accidents. YET, because it was a Firearm, The UL FDS GBS get panties in a bunch. Just another reason to, BAN/Confiscate, something a UL FDS GBS does not like. [/quote] All moronic, batsh!t crazy comparisons. But then, I guess i shouldn't expect anything different from you. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Eegore on 10/23/19 at 16:43:48 "Who told you that ?" You did. "Do not forget that ALL gun laws are an infringement of your rights!" http://suzukisavage.com/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1569110766/8#8 Notice the capital letters indicating that ALL as in every gun law. So hunting laws, age and criminal gun laws are an infringement on our rights. This mother can not take that gun from her child as it's an infringement on that child's Second Amendment rights. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Eegore on 10/23/19 at 16:52:21 "A Mother has a child that can defeat the gate on her swimming pool, Clearly, “Her obsession with 'Pools' makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘pool’, or give up her children” A mother who can not take reasonable measures to keep children from drowning in a pool should not have a pool, or not have children. A Mother has a child that puts a bobby pin/Fork in a electoral outlet, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘outlets‘ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘outlets’, or give up her children” A mother who does not take reasonable measures to keep a child from electrocuting itself should not have electrical outlets, or a child. A Mother has a child that can manipulate the lock on the under cabinet door, and get to the Drano etc. Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘cabinets’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘cabinets’, or give up her children” A mother who can not take reasonable measures to keep her child from drinking chemicals should not have chemicals or not have children. Cabinets are not the issue, chemicals are. Try to at least make a comparison people won't laugh at or dismiss entirely. A Mother texts while driving with her child, Clearly, “Her obsession with ‘phones’ makes her an unfit mother. She should either have to give up her ‘phone’, or give up her children” A mother who can not take reasonable measures to eliminate texting and driving while her children are in the car or she has the potential to impact any other person, or property should not have a cellphone or children in her vehicle. Are we saying that parents who will not take reasonable measures to protect their children should not have consequences? No. The question is did this mother take reasonable measures to keep that firearm out of her child's hands? We do not know the answer to that at this time. So we argue semantics over a topic we can't have enough information about to make educated assessments over. It's mostly speculation. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Eegore on 10/23/19 at 17:29:51 Are you saying you did not type: "All gun laws are an infringement on your rights" ? |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/23/19 at 17:31:50 7151535B4651340 wrote:
Try Again ! AFTER, you read, and understand, the first line, in the First post, Not #8. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 05:44:00 43605D7E7C6760690E0 wrote:
Try Again ! AFTER, you read, and understand, the first line, in the First post, Not #8. [/quote] LMAO - look at you back pedal! You said "This IS the way it will happen" You may not have written it, but you certainly endorsed it. Eegore for the win! |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 08:22:30 362827262B362D30420 wrote:
Examine the utter stupidly of YOUR statement ! You said: I said, those words, then you said: You may not have written it. Let's see your SPIN, on how I can 'not write something', yet 'say' it ? If this was a live, in person discussion, that could be true, one could say something, and not write it. It is not possible in a purely written form. (Especially if one was to actually READ the first line, which you apparently did not) Now let's examine this: you certainly endorsed it. Yes, the entire opinion about Red laws. If you were not so LAZY, (as you frequently tell others they are), you could look that opinion up, and actually read it, and then find out their are at least a dozen slightly different varieties. Where someone else, the re-poster of that opinion, changed/added/subtracted, a couple of words here and their. Again, poorly written, (and written with the intent of Banning), 'red laws', are vary dangerous. Just think I, here in Minn, could start a campaign of Lies and Deceit, fabricate information and events, and say tt has a gun and is very dangerous. Then your buddy Beto can come to YOUR house and confiscate your, 'gun'. (the one you say you have). And if you don't produce it, be prepared to have you place torn apart to find it. Woe be it, if someone said YOU had a, 'arsenal'. The gun grabbers/Confiscators, would totaly rip you place apart looking for all 10 guns, and the 100 rounds of ammunition. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 08:54:14 7754694A4853545D3A0 wrote:
Examine the utter stupidly of YOUR statement ! You said: I said, those words, then you said: You may not have written it. Let's see your SPIN, on how I can 'not write something', yet 'say' it ? If this was a live, in person discussion, that could be true, one could say something, and not write it. It is not possible in a purely written form. (Especially if one was to actually READ the first line, which you apparently did not) Now let's examine this: you certainly endorsed it. Yes, the entire opinion about Red laws. If you were not so LAZY, (as you frequently tell others they are), you could look that opinion up, and actually read it, and then find out their are at least a dozen slightly different varieties. Where someone else, the re-poster of that opinion, changed/added/subtracted, a couple of words here and their. Again, poorly written, (and written with the intent of Banning), 'red laws', are vary dangerous. Just think I, here in Minn, could start a campaign of Lies and Deceit, fabricate information and events, and say tt has a gun and is very dangerous. Then your buddy Beto can come to YOUR house and confiscate your, 'gun'. (the one you say you have). And if you don't produce it, be prepared to have you place torn apart to find it. Woe be it, if someone said YOU had a, 'arsenal'. The gun grabbers/Confiscators, would totaly rip you place apart looking for all 10 guns, and the 100 rounds of ammunition. [/quote] Did you or did you not write "This IS the way it will happen"? Do you or do you not endorse the article? Talk about spin.... lol Now, just answer the questions. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by MnSpring on 10/24/19 at 08:58:40 4D535C5D504D564B390 wrote:
Would that be the same way, YOU, and clones, answer questions ? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D :-* |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by T And T Garage on 10/24/19 at 09:05:58 6D4E735052494E47200 wrote:
Would that be the same way, YOU, and clones, answer questions ? [/quote] So then, you refuse? OK - no surprise. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Mavigogun on 10/24/19 at 09:39:07 It's like a bad crayon drawing, or a newspaper-clipping ransom letter in which the actual words don't matter, only the arrangement of the fonts. Imagine, for a moment, the frustrated impotence of this display- spending time stacking emoticons because you lack the requisite sophistication to express, or even form, ideas. A pitiful, meaningless gesture. I might extend a bit of empathy- there's no joy to be found in watching another human being fall down, over, and over - but wrapped in such malice, the most I can manage is distaste. |
|
Title: Re: Gun rights advocate shot in the back Post by Eegore on 10/24/19 at 09:53:10 "Try Again ! AFTER, you read, and understand, the first line, in the First post, Not #8." Yeah I see what happened, I didn't realize you copy-pasted someone else's material. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |