What is the end goal for the left on the 2nd?

a reply to: chr0naut

Wow, not only does whatever they've got you on make you nimble and flexible enough to do olympic level mental gymnastics, but it apparently makes you think you're fairly sneaky too. Not quite sneaky enough to get away with moving that goalpost like you tried, but I gotta give you points for trying I guess.

You'll notice that I didn't say you called the US a prison. I did. Because it is. So is New Zealand. So is pretty much the entire world.

But muh freedom index, right?

Thank god we have these law makers trying to take away law abiding citizens guns.

If this law abiding citizen did not have his own firearm for defense, this thug would still be alive to go rob, and potentially kill, more people. And it would have left the non criminal in the morgue.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut


Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

Wow, not only does whatever they've got you on make you nimble and flexible enough to do olympic level mental gymnastics, but it apparently makes you think you're fairly sneaky too. Not quite sneaky enough to get away with moving that goalpost like you tried, but I gotta give you points for trying I guess.

You'll notice that I didn't say you called the US a prison. I did. Because it is. So is New Zealand. So is pretty much the entire world.

But muh freedom index, right?

Everywhere is a prison?

You anarchist, you!

originally posted by: PorkChop96
Thank god we have these law makers trying to take away law abiding citizens guns.

If this law abiding citizen did not have his own firearm for defense, this thug would still be alive to go rob, and potentially kill, more people. And it would have left the non criminal in the morgue.

www.foxnews.com...

There was only one of the perps who attempted to assault the shooter.

The perp was running away even before the shooter drew his weapon. And they are still at large according to the video. The shooter probably didn't stop them from doing it again to someone else.

I saw no evidence that the perp returned fire, either. No muzzle flash or recoil. Perhaps the gun was a fake, or not loaded, or perhaps the perp had no intention to do anything other than threaten?

The reporter also said the perps tried to push their way into the door, but that never happened. So much for the quality of FauxNews reporting, when you can see that the video does not match the description of events.

If it was a real gun that the perp was holding, then where did the bad guy get it? You see, the same laws that make it easy for the good guys to get guns, also make it easy for the bad guys to get guns. At point of sale, there is no way to determine if the purchaser is going to use the gun for a crime. And it's not as if they aren't going to lie if they are up to no good.

It looked to me as if the "good guy" defeated the attempted mugger with a cup of hot coffee, and then he started shooting as they were running away.

a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe try reading the article instead of talking out of your a$$ and focusing on a video that has nothing to do with the article that was linked.

Then get back to me bub

a reply to: chr0naut

But, even if we were going to dive into the video.

There is this thing called stand your ground/castle doctrine. You do not have the duty to retreat in your own home if threatened.

Regardless of if the perp returned fire or not, he ran up on a man with, what appeared to be a firearm, and threatened him in his home. That is the epitome of FAFO.

Yeah, lying on a background check form is called a felony......but that furthers the point. If they did buy it legally or illegally, they still had it and committed a crime with it. How is taking guns away from legal gun owners going to fix that?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

Or, the wealthier middle class are choosing to move out of the cities into the 'burbs and the wider open spaces.

My move to New Zealand had to do with me moving my family to a rural property, with a better environment and lower crime rates. It was not politically motivated.

Also, do you think that police forces are better able to defeat crime just because the mayor or councillors are in a particular party? No, crime rate usually is higher where population density is higher. However, the Democrats are usually stronger against gun ownership than Republicans are. The crime figures seem to reflect that:

Republicans claim Democrats can’t keep us safe – crime data disagrees.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe try reading the article instead of talking out of your a$$ and focusing on a video that has nothing to do with the article that was linked.

Then get back to me bub

The site was requesting my e-mail before allowing me to access it.

This is the small print from the page: By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

I don't want them to spam me.

In the past I have found that they carry more opinion unsupported by fact, than they do news, and so I would not want to gain access to their content.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut


Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

Or, the wealthier middle class are choosing to move out of the cities into the 'burbs and the wider open spaces.

My move to New Zealand had to do with me moving my family to a rural property, with a better environment and lower crime rates. It was not politically motivated.

Also, do you think that police forces are better able to defeat crime just because the mayor or councillors are in a particular party? No, crime rate usually is higher where population density is higher. However, the Democrats are usually stronger against gun ownership than Republicans are. The crime figures seem to reflect that:

Republicans claim Democrats can’t keep us safe – crime data disagrees.

lol, totally refuted your idiotic statement, and you double down. Well played.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe try reading the article instead of talking out of your a$$ and focusing on a video that has nothing to do with the article that was linked.

Then get back to me bub

The site was requesting my e-mail before allowing me to access it.

This is the small print from the page: By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

I don't want them to spam me.

In the past I have found that they carry more opinion unsupported by fact, than they do news, and so I would not want to gain access to their content.

then perhaps online debate isn't your thing. Thanks for playing, see you around the cooking forums sometime.

a reply to: chr0naut



Come up with all the excuses you want, there is this thing called unsubscribing from emails and correspondence. But you do you boo boo.

a reply to: chr0naut

You: "New Zealand isn't a prison. Rich people and celebrities come here"
Me: "Rich people and celebrities come to the US too"
You: "Yeah but are they coming to RED states?"
Network Dude: "Yes."
You: "Yeah but are they doing it BECAUSE they're red?"

If you keep moving the goalpost you're eventually going to end up in the ocean and drown with it.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

But, even if we were going to dive into the video.

There is this thing called stand your ground/castle doctrine. You do not have the duty to retreat in your own home if threatened.

Regardless of if the perp returned fire or not, he ran up on a man with, what appeared to be a firearm, and threatened him in his home. That is the epitome of FAFO.

Yeah, lying on a background check form is called a felony......but that furthers the point. If they did buy it legally or illegally, they still had it and committed a crime with it. How is taking guns away from legal gun owners going to fix that?

It is going to fix that by making guns less available to criminals, too. Most criminals who use guns in their crimes get the guns either legally, or stolen from someone who has obtained the gun legally. Even black market guns were all purchased legally at some stage.

And sometimes people who start out as good guys and purchase guns legally have mental breakdowns, or relationship breakups, or change in circumstance that drives them to commit crimes. And then they become criminals with guns.

Reducing the availability of guns also reduces gun crime, too.

Research Supports Tighter Gun Laws to Reduce Mass Shooting Violence

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

Do these wealthy celbrities migrate to any of the red states? LOL? List some examples.

Also, I never said that the US is a prison, so denying that is fairly futile. Others said that New Zealand is a prison, and I am denying that.

The US, however, has the largest prison population of any country in the world, bigger than imprisoned population of China, which is the next from the top.

you don't pay attention to anything other than your voice do you?

totally biased news article showing you how incredibly silly you look right now.

Or, the wealthier middle class are choosing to move out of the cities into the 'burbs and the wider open spaces.

My move to New Zealand had to do with me moving my family to a rural property, with a better environment and lower crime rates. It was not politically motivated.

Also, do you think that police forces are better able to defeat crime just because the mayor or councillors are in a particular party? No, crime rate usually is higher where population density is higher. However, the Democrats are usually stronger against gun ownership than Republicans are. The crime figures seem to reflect that:

Republicans claim Democrats can’t keep us safe – crime data disagrees.

lol, totally refuted your idiotic statement, and you double down. Well played.

I totally refuted your refutation with a real world example and statistical support.

Did you not expect me to respond to such a flimsy bit of reinterpreting the world through the US partisan political filter?

a reply to: chr0naut

Moving goalposts must be a full time job for you lately

Whether they buy it "legally" or not, they are going to use it for a crime, therefor making the purchase illegal.

Reducing the availability of guns also reduces gun crime, too.

False, look at Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland. All have high restrictions on firearms and are also home to some to the worst gun crime in the country.

If a criminal is going to use a firearm for ac rime, they are going to find it anyway they possibly can.


Meth, coc aine, heroine, fentanyl are all illegal. People still get their hands on it all. Why do you think that is? If it's illegal they shouldn't be able to get a hold of it right?


Taking away guns from the majority is only going to leave guns in the hands of those that didn't follow the law to begin with.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: chr0naut

You: "New Zealand isn't a prison. Rich people and celebrities come here"
Me: "Rich people and celebrities come to the US too"
You: "Yeah but are they coming to RED states?"
Network Dude: "Yes."
You: "Yeah but are they doing it BECAUSE they're red?"

If you keep moving the goalpost you're eventually going to end up in the ocean and drown with it.

The Forbes opinion piece does not consider any other motives that might be behind migration, it is clearly very one-sided.

Responding to the article's ridiculous premise, that people uproot their lives over the political party of the govenor (and nothing else), is not moving any goalposts.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Moving goalposts must be a full time job for you lately

Whether they buy it "legally" or not, they are going to use it for a crime, therefor making the purchase illegal.

Reducing the availability of guns also reduces gun crime, too.

False, look at Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland. All have high restrictions on firearms and are also home to some to the worst gun crime in the country.

The deadliest US city for gun deaths is St Louis, and it is in the second deadliest state for gun deaths, Missouri. It is also Republican. Why did you leave out the city with the most gun deaths?

Gun Deaths in Big Cities

And by state:

Number of gun deaths per 100,000 residents in the United States in 2023, by state

If a criminal is going to use a firearm for a crime, they are going to find it anyway they possibly can.

And the easier way is likely to be the way they get it. Like at a supermarket.

Meth, coc aine, heroine, fentanyl are all illegal. People still get their hands on it all. Why do you think that is? If it's illegal they shouldn't be able to get a hold of it right?

Because of the drug economy, which makes dealing profitable, and because people are exposed to the drugs, sometimes legally, and they end up addicted, and then they look around for supply as prescription cancellation and changes in law drives them to seek illicit sources. At least that has what has happened in the US with opiates like OxyContin.

But since the US has chosen to deal with a primarily medical issue by criminalizing the addicted users (more than the manufacturers, distributors and dealers), the situation has worsened.

Taking away guns from the majority is only going to leave guns in the hands of those that didn't follow the law to begin with.

The national average for gun ownership in the US is below 50%. It is not a majority.

Gun Ownership in America

Everyone follows the law until they don't.

You keep acting as if there is something that stops criminals from just purchasing a gun. Or as if some who purchase a gun for self defense don't later do criminal things with them.

There is no such thing as someone who never does anything wrong. The Bible puts it this way: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Someone who takes steps to protect themselves or their personal property by killing someone is not a good guy, and is not doing anything for the safety and security of the community.

Worldwide arms dealers get prosecuted for selling arms to other countries but the same restrictions are not in place for arms sales within the US.

And disarming the public does not disarm law enforcement, security guards, militia, or armed forces.

a reply to: chr0naut

We must not be reading the same article. I can't find anything in that article that says the people fleeing blue states/counties are doing so specifically because of the political affiliation of the person in charge of managing those areas. I can, however, find an article full of information relating to the mass exodus of people from blue states/counties because of the consequences of the political affiliation of the people in charge of managing those areas.
Democrat govs do democrat gov things. The people aren't leaving because the gov is democrat. They're leaving because of the things the gov is doing, which are democrat things.

So even then. Yes. They're leaving blue states/counties for red states/counties BECAUSE they're red. They aren't doing the insane sh*t that blue states/counties are doing.

a reply to: chr0naut

Explain to me what you think the process is for purchasing a firearm in the US.
We'll even get specific about the scenario. Let's say I wanted to walk into my local walmart and buy a handgun. Can I? And if so, what is the process? How long do I have to wait, if at all? What documentation do I have to provide? What checks are done before I can leave the store with the firearm?