SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> just curious
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1594765028

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/20 at 15:17:08

Title: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/20 at 15:17:08

maybe I should do 2 threads,,

Is it still paranoia to want to have weapons for self defense?

Is it still paranoia to want to have supplies of daily needs and food on hand?

I mean We DID see times in certain areas where cops were unable to respond, did we not?

And WHO is responsible for saving YOUR Neck ?
So,, Is it not wise and reasonable to be able to protect yourself?

And,, How many empty grocery stores did you see?? I saw NO Meat in Sams and Brookshires,,

And other things, well known,, shelves wiped clean,,

So,, dear lefties who have besmirched the preppers and those who would accept responsibility for their own life,,

What say you'NOW??

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/14/20 at 19:26:15

"So,, dear lefties who have besmirched the preppers and those who would accept responsibility for their own life,,

What say you'NOW??"

Who here said anything like that?

I never heard anyone credible say wanting to own firearms is paranoid, or having food stored.

Credible being the operative word. Arguing that having firearms and food with people that already agree is an interesting approach.

Arguing that firearm ownership and food storage is not paranoia with people that are just saying it to piss people off is pointless and that's mostly what I see.

To be clear, where I am, most people are pro-firearm ownership and many are "preppers" so lets keep this in mind for later when I am called anti-gun based off of who is around me.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/20 at 19:32:46

I've been here 15 years.
Few remain from the years when they said disparaging things about people who prepare.
I don't expect any to raise their hand and own it.
I'm just reminding those who remain
How wrong they were.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by verslagen1 on 07/16/20 at 13:08:42

there are a lot of new firearm owners in CA all lined up outside of gun stores wearing masks and 6' apart.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by oldNslow on 07/16/20 at 13:45:13

667562637C7177757E21100 wrote:

there are a lot of new firearm owners in CA all lined up outside of gun stores wearing masks and 6' apart.

Trying to buy some bullets for their brandy new shootin' irons no doubt. Probably getting as hard to find as toilet paper was a coupla months ago. If they haven't already got a closet full of whatever caliber their new gun needs to feed it, I bet they're gonna be surprised and disappointed if things go sideways in their neighborhoods and they discover that all they got is a odd shaped, very expensive brick. ;D

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/16/20 at 16:43:43

I guess it depends on how one want's to look at available information.

Anti-gun legislation is at an all time high, and certainly perusing Right-wing websites indicates "Millennials", Politicians, Left-leaning activists are pushing to reduce firearm availability in the US. At any time we will lose our right to own firearms due to the success of Lefty misinformation.

But if we look at firearm sales in the US we are at an all-time high. So obviously there isn't a large political push to remove firearms from circulation, I mean just look at how many people are able to legally purchase guns. The 2nd Amendment is alive and well, and obviously the majority is pro-gun and we have nothing to worry about.

What I want to hear, and where I go for that information can alter the outcome of an identical situation.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/16/20 at 16:59:29

So obviously there isn't a large political push to remove firearms from circulation,

Right now, even the lefties like
Mr.and Mrs.America, turn them all in Pelosi
Has enough sense to realize
They didn't do FUKKALL about the terrorists who took over part of Seattle.
And right now, even democrats are buying their first guns, so, you're looking at a politically driven
Moment of silence..
The goal remains the same.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/16/20 at 17:08:55

"And right now, even democrats are buying their first guns, so, you're looking at a politically driven
Moment of silence..
The goal remains the same"

This is untrue as long as I only go to websites that support the view I want to believe and cherry-pick the information I will read. So in this case by sticking to the drastic number of approved firearm sales in the US I can stick to the assessment that there isn't a push to take guns from the US citizen. I mean look at all those guns being sold.

Prove that I'm wrong about those firearm sales.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by MnSpring on 07/16/20 at 17:22:45

725250584552370 wrote:

... Who here said anything like that? ...

Really ???
REALLY ??????

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/16/20 at 17:26:38

"Really ???
REALLY ??????"

Yes. As I thought it was about people not using the forum anymore, some up to 15 years ago possibly.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by MnSpring on 07/16/20 at 17:36:53

022220283522470 wrote:

... So obviously there isn't a large political push to remove firearms from circulation, ...

I wonder what the big 6, of the National Media, would say to that ?????

Not to mention the FDS, DFI, Socialists who say:
"I got mine, you can't have yours"

(Empirical evidence of Owners of the Gun shops I frequent, saying they are overwhelmed with DFI's who want a handgun, 'RIGHT NOW', who have NO-IDEA of how it works. who, after they JUMP through all the hoops, say: "I Got Mine")

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/16/20 at 17:54:27

Ill take your AR15...

Biden promises to put Beto O'Rourke in charge of gun control
https://nypost.com/2020/03/03/joe-biden-promises...
Mar 03, 2020 · Moments after former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke — who promised in a September debate to take away legally purchased assault rifles if elected — endorsed Joe Biden’s White House

Nope,, second amendment is safe

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/16/20 at 21:53:26

Prove that I'm wrong about those firearm sales.

Let's not pretend taking one small section of a large issue and challenging people to prove that one small section wrong isn't a regular course of action here.

If I only look at the information that I agree with then the outcome will be the way I want it to be, and a simple way to confirm this is to section off one part and challenge people about it's accuracy.

So as long as I ignore hard to read stuff like actual laws, and stick to the information telling me how many hard-working Americans can easily purchase firearms, confirmed by multiple verified sources, the 2nd Amendment is in full swing. I mean just look at all those firearm sales. Facebook made it clear to me today.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/16/20 at 23:08:27

I know all about the record sales..
I couldn't be happier.

That doesn't mean there aren't people working to undermine the second amendment.
Chicago mayor is crying for more right now..

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 05:21:09

That doesn't mean there aren't people working to undermine the second amendment.
Chicago mayor is crying for more right now..

So what I am understanding is just because one component of a large and complex issue indicates one thing, I should not ignore the other components, and actually read the supporting information other people provide as evidence?

What if I hunt down an article showing that one gun-control law was shut down? By that logic I can show gun laws are being shut down, combined with huge legal gun sales and prove the 2nd Amendment is very secure and we have nothing to worry about.

Or is it best I look at the totality of evidence as a whole?

Title: Re: just curious
Post by MnSpring on 07/17/20 at 07:58:14

537371796473160 wrote:

... Or is it best I look at the totality of evidence as a whole?

Would that evidence include a Political party,
Where one said: "HELL YA, I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
And several others totally agreed.

And now the person leading that party says;
"I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
as well as saying the person who said:
"HELL YEA - I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
Will be in CHARGE of;
TAKING YOUR GUNS

Is that not enough 'evidence', to say several groups of people want to:
" TAKE YOUR GUNS " ?

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 08:58:10

Would that evidence include a Political party,
Where one said: "HELL YA, I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
And several others totally agreed.

Yes. Should that be taken into account?

And now the person leading that party says;
"I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
as well as saying the person who said:
"HELL YEA - I Will TAKE YOUR GUNS"
Will be in CHARGE of;
TAKING YOUR GUNS

Yes. Should that be taken into acccount?

Is that not enough 'evidence', to say several groups of people want to:
" TAKE YOUR GUNS " ?

Depends. Historically, on here, as long as we don't read the information provided, or find a single contradictory article, then no that would not be enough evidence since all that has been historically necessary is one single contradictory article, social media posting, or picture.

The question is should the totality of the evidence be taken into account, or just the articles I select? Should we read information posted here before discounting it entirely?

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/20 at 09:13:14

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 09:22:07

So, because recent record sales are obvious
Second Amendment is safe and there aren't gun control groups trying daily to figure out how to change the availability and legality of weapons,,

Is that what you're saying

Can you provide me one martial law prediction that has come true? How many forced buybacks or gun grabs have taken place in US legislature that I have been hearing about since the 80's? Name one.

What I am saying is this strategy directly reflects ones used in other subjects. I am refusing to read the information you posted to support your view and instead am finding an article that supports mine, and telling you to prove my information is wrong.

Is this not an effective way to have a conversation about this?

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/20 at 09:41:03

Its Perfect!

I love it,,

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/fox-35-investigates-questions-raised-after-fatal-motorcycle-crash-listed-as-covid-19-death

I post reasons to ignore what you say I should pay attention to, and you do the same,,

And because NO Predictions of Natural Events have come to pass,, I dont buy the GW bullshit,, and Since the political wherewithall to ACTUALLY take our guns Away,, in spite of the Clinton thing,,or was it Bush? Whoever stoppped the import of stuff like SKSs and the like,, and the bumpstock ban, and all the LEGISLATION,, political mechanisms That PEOPLE are TRying to put into place,because they havent WON yet, Im suppposed to ignore their efforts..
Yeah,, YOuve finally lost yer damkmm mind,,

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 09:59:18

So the refusal to read documentation, ignoring things I "don't care about", using unverified sources, and providing one article and saying "Prove I'm wrong" is only effective if you agree with it?

"And because NO Predictions of Natural Events have come to pass"

Except the one's that have. So refer to Strategy 1: Refuse to read or acknowledge the accurate ones so I can keep saying NO predictions are true.

"political mechanisms That PEOPLE are TRying to put into place,because they havent WON yet, Im suppposed to ignore their efforts"

No, you are supposed to prove my information is wrong. Are you seeing how useless that is? Or is it only useless when I do it but fine when you do?

Sounds like you are assessing gun control the way I assess SARS-COV-2. I am choosing to not ignore all the surrounding evidence because some articles have a degree of conflicting information. I am willing to include the information and see how it applies, but not say this one article will now override all other evidence in a massive and complex issue.

Just as you acknowledge firearm sales are at an all-time high, but aren't willing to say that information overrides all the other information out there.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/20 at 10:08:03

but not say this one article will now override all other evidence in a massive and complex issue.

I agree its a complex issue,, and I maintain its so Massive, due to what appears to be intentional inflation of numbers..
NO,, CDC didnt do it,, Counties and states are supplying numbers that any sane person,, or, honest pperson, wouldnt send to them,,
When the results are
all tests are positive
and anythng over 15% would be a shock,, but rather thn question and study those results,,
SEnd it to the cdc for people to use in their decision making,,

I see clues that mAKE me doubt things,, YOuve said,, and its been a while,, maybe what you posted is put of date,,
But E,, Im not reading a dozen pages to try to dig out some stats,,
Whatever you want to show me,, just quit tellin me it was provided two weeks ago,, show me,, cut and paste the relevent data,, I will look it over

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 10:19:58

I did tell you, but I also provided all of the information.

I have no working models that provide outcomes of millions of deaths. I outlined cities in TX set for potential increase such as Nueces, McLennan, Victoria, Taylor and Midland, each showing significant increase in cases at this time, as predicted.

Look over the data and confirm if you don't believe me or just believe me.

I consider it massive because all humans can be effected and this is at a global scale. This isn't a disease from NY, it traveled across the planet.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/20 at 10:37:44

Yeahh, it took a walk,, for sure,, and Ive read a bit about MIdland,, I used to live there and somehow my eye sees the word when im just scanning stuff,,

Again,, Ill look at information, but Im not down with trying to digest a book,,

I hope Ive shown enough to let ya see why IM skeptical of the numbers,,

Title: Re: just curious
Post by Eegore on 07/17/20 at 11:14:42

We should be skeptical of the numbers.

I do not think we should declare all numbers wrong because some are.

Title: Re: just curious
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/17/20 at 11:21:46

Once enough Bullshit is seen
No, you can't just say the numbers are lies
But if one continues to trust them
And treat them as valid..
Well.. I called it stupid...

Nobody can know what to believe.