Kansas Crimson

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:25 pm

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:19 pm I think the fact dozens of not close to 100 other “militia” type people open caring guns should prompt more scrutiny from cops, not less.

Chalk it up the “well-regulated” part of 2A, being necessary to the security of a free state.

Cuz if cops DONT subject militias to increased scrutiny and just let them run around at large, look what happens!

Rittenhouse was the only 1 that shot anyone. A 17 year old kid with a gun that wasn't his.

You act like the cops knew he just shot people (they didn't) and knowingly ignored him on purpose for some reason. This is so stupid. Rittenhouse is in jail now and that was a unique situation. Nobody let him get away on purpose.

Come on man!


(And fwiw the dude in Las Vegas ran and got away too.....and some reports speculate this was a drug deal gone bad)

I don’t know whether cops knew Kyle just shot the place up.

But I DO know Kyle ran at the cops with an assault rifle, waving his raised arms, right up to the police vehicles.

Somehow, some way, cops didn’t even bother to question the guy with the gun who was trying to get their attention.

Why not?

What were the cops looking for that was more important than that?

From what little I know, the Las Vegas situation and Kenosha situation couldn't be more different.
Those trying to make comparisons might as well try and convince me that my mother driving on Lake Shore Drive is similar to Helio Castroneves driving at the Indy 500. I mean, they are both driving cars where other people are driving cars so how it is different?

i was actually thinking your mom would be more like Mario Andretti

Maybe. I don't know about the guy in Vegas but she's very similar to Kyle Rittenhouse. They both have the letters E and L in their first names and U, E, and R in their last names. They both are short. They both like to help people.

Getting back on topic now, I am amazed at how many people can shoot someone when there are a lot of people around and they are able to escape and not be found. At least not be found soon (within a few hours) after the shooting.

Grandma wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 4:55 pm From what little I know, the Las Vegas situation and Kenosha situation couldn't be more different.
Those trying to make comparisons might as well try and convince me that my mother driving on Lake Shore Drive is similar to Helio Castroneves driving at the Indy 500. I mean, they are both driving cars where other people are driving cars so how it is different?

Again, it's somebody not armed going after an armed person, and when the not armed person gets close enough, the armed person shoots the unarmed person.

What is different about these scenarios that would change whether or not shooting the aggressor should be allowed (by human standards, not state laws).

One of the people Rittenhouse shot was armed. I don't know for sure about the other people he shot.
I also don't know for sure if the person who was shot in Vegas was armed or not. Do you? Does anyone?

What I do know is that a 19 year old fucknut felt the need to bring a gun to a "protest"/"riot"/whatever people want to call it and my guess is he thought his having it would be a deterrent. Well, how did that work out for him and those he shot? If he didn't bring it with him, he wouldn't be facing "homicide" charges and the people he shot wouldn't be dead. That's pretty simple logic.

The guy in Vegas, not sure how people know but allegedly drugs were somehow involved in the altercation. He felt the need to shoot the person who was approaching him. I have no idea why.
Self defense is what I am assuming.

Obviously I don't know the exact statistics but my uneducated guess is that 85% to 90% of people who have been shot - were not armed.
Now in terms of people who were shot that were not armed but were the aggressors, fuck em' if they knew the person they were being aggressive towards was armed - UNLESS they felt their life or other's lives were in danger and they were trying to disarm the person with the gun.
That is/was what I am ASSUMING is the major difference between what happened in Kenosha and what happened in Vegas.

Gunmen kill at least 19 at Kabul University

This could have gone on any of many threads but decided to put it on here.
Reason being, this is an example of why cops better watch their shit and realize THEY are going to be "mass shot" for doing things like this.
Two thoughts.....
1) Many of us have discussed how cops are not properly trained. So when does/will it become mandatory that ALL cops in the USA have to be "re-trained"? I am often overdramatic but I'm not too sure I am being overdramatic when I say I wouldn't be shocked if one day in the not too distant future there will some type of MASS "purge" against cops. Worst part is good cops will be victims too.
2) The video is a perfect example of one of the many reasons why I am exactly 50/50 on being a gun owner. If the guy in the video who was tased was my son and I watched this go down, decent chance I leave my house with a gun in my hand and tell the cops to fucking stop or I will start shooting. Then what? Do I get shot? I figure there are two scenarios that happen if I were to do that. I am the one getting shot or I am going to jail. Both are lose lose situations. I get shot (killed?) or I go to jail. For what? Trying to keep my son from possibly being killed by ignorant f*ck cops.

Here is yet another example of why I say we may live in the best country in the world - and yet it's still a f*cking sh*thole country.

https://twitter.com/Dopeslangjr_/status ... 3732387840

God bless America! Or..... Fuck America?

https://twitter.com/Rigel2112/status/13 ... 6455533570

House passes bill expanding background checks

(seems like a step towards reasonable gun control)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 923667002/

I didn’t know these guys were even still a thing.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CMSal0pp7Gj ... 1hna4jaues

Seriously? Private gun transfers are banned? So....if you buy a gun you can only sell it to an authorized dealer or keep it forever? Seems a lot like the failed war on drugs. Its gonna make a lot of "criminals" out of regular people

No just another lie by the NRA.

The first measure, which passed the Democratic-led House 227-203, would close a long-standing loophole in gun laws by expanding background checks to those purchasing weapons over the internet, at gun shows and through certain private transactions. Only eight Republicans joined the Democrats in backing the bill.

The second bill, passed 219-210 with only two Republicans supporting it, would give authorities 10 business days for federal background checks to be completed before a gun sale can be licensed. Currently, such sales can proceed if the government cannot complete complicated background checks of prospective buyers within three days.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2B32MA

shame on ousie for posting an nra tweet without a fake news disclaimer

TDub wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 9:46 pm Seriously? Private gun transfers are banned? So....if you buy a gun you can only sell it to an authorized dealer or keep it forever? Seems a lot like the failed war on drugs. Its gonna make a lot of "criminals" out of regular people

Hopefully colbond's post helped clarify that a bit but I'll say that I feel a "private gun transfer" should 100% be "banned" IF (capital letters) the guns are not being registered properly/legally and/or the buyer is not "licensed" to be a gun owner.

but why help clarify when you’ve got outrage rhetoric instead?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:17 am but why help clarify when you’ve got outrage rhetoric instead?

Are you talking to yourself?

colbond wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:29 am No just another lie by oussie

The first measure, which passed the Democratic-led House 227-203, would close a long-standing loophole in gun laws by expanding background checks to those purchasing weapons over the internet, at gun shows and through certain private transactions. Only eight Republicans joined the Democrats in backing the bill.

The second bill, passed 219-210 with only two Republicans supporting it, would give authorities 10 business days for federal background checks to be completed before a gun sale can be licensed. Currently, such sales can proceed if the government cannot complete complicated background checks of prospective buyers within three days.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN2B32MA

Gotcha. Makes more sense. Thanks

We live in a country where 15 people can be shot (at least 2 dead) in the same incident and 99.5% of the country has no clue it happened.
Because they were black?
I feel it's a very legitimate question.

Here is one more legitimate question. After reading this........
"Green noted that he and his team spoke to “folks who were at the party” and some family members, saying the shooting was sparked by a “petty” dispute that escalated into an “exchange of gunfire between a few different people.”
My question is I don't know all the advantages and disadvantages to allowing "open" and "closed" "carry" but why does anyone need a gun at a party? Before you answer - to protect yourself - if NO ONE has/had a gun what are you protecting yourself from? Yes, PERHAPS less people are dead because multiple people had guns but NO ONE would have been shot if NO ONE had a gun. Right?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021 ... newsletter