ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

How about this incident? Why isn't the msm and resident posters here all over this story. It was another mass shooting with four dead and others injured. Perhaps it's the twist at the end that's the problem?????

thepostmillennial.com

BREAKING: Shooter at Indiana shopping mall killed by ‘good Samaritan with a handgun’

Greenwood Chief James Ison said in a press conference that “a good Samaritan with a handgun” at the mall killed the shooter. He said the two others who were wounded and are being treated in area hospitals.
thepostmillennial.com thepostmillennial.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant, chickenhunter, Hark_The_Sound_2010 and 3 others
pooponduke said:
How about this incident? Why isn't the msm and resident posters here all over this story. It was another mass shooting with four dead and others injured. Perhaps it's the twist at the end that's the problem?????

thepostmillennial.com

BREAKING: Shooter at Indiana shopping mall killed by ‘good Samaritan with a handgun’

Greenwood Chief James Ison said in a press conference that “a good Samaritan with a handgun” at the mall killed the shooter. He said the two others who were wounded and are being treated in area hospitals.
thepostmillennial.com thepostmillennial.com
Click to expand...
Exactly. The MSM hate it when a law abiding citizen shoots a bad guy. More dead bodies would have made a bigger news story. How many lives did the good guy save?

I own one gun, a registered 9mm that I keep in my apartment because I live in a poor neighborhood that is dangerous. I’m going to purchase an older gun that is unregistered because I believe there are large numbers of Dems that would make private ownership illegal if they could snap their fingers and just make it happen. So if I’m forced to turn in my 9mm or face the legal consequences, I’d still have some protection. Of course, I could just say it fell overboard when I was fishing at my buddy’s pond.

As corrupt as our government has become, as intrusive as it’s become, as our country becomes more like Oceana every day, anyone who would voluntarily turn their guns over to the government is a fool.


”Government, even in it’s best state, is but a necessary evil; in it’s worst state, an intolerable one.”

Thomas Paine
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe and uncfootball-
pooponduke said:
This is why there is no answer to this and the debate will continue to rage. It's a matter of what one believes that thing is at any given point.
Click to expand...
I have posted this before. There are things in life that there are no answers for, and this is definitely one of them. It's ridiculous to claim that one has figured out an answer that we all should be happy with, because that possibility does not and never will exist.

It has to be like deciding on a speed limit for a certain street or highway. It's somewhat to highly arbitrary to do so but you can't just leave it up to the individual driver to determine his/her own limit according to their own self-indulgent purposes, because people would die as a result. You just set a limit that seems reasonable for the location and expect drivers to adjust to and obey it.

Some will see this and shake their heads over comparing speed limits with abortion and fail to see the common thread of uncertainty that must come in to play in making laws and regulations. Just to make laws is the compromise that free people have to accommodate in order to exist together. The actual line that is drawn will always be debatable no matter where it is drawn, but that a line must be drawn and respected shouldn't be arguable.

My hope is that these abortion laws will make people much more responsible about prevention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncfootball-
Archer2 said:
If we can’t come to a general consensus as to when life begins(conception, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, or when the baby is delivered?), we’re never going to agree on abortion. I’m pro life with certain exemptions (no abortion after the first trimester unless the mother’s physical life is endangered or in cases of rape). For those who are pro choice, at what point during a pregnancy do you think human life begins? And I’ll ask this question again. If a fetus isn’t considered to be a child, why do our laws allow for someone who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter? This issue was exacerbated when the SC overstepped their bounds and ruled that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It isn’t. We may have resolved the abortion issue by now if they hadn’t. Whether Liberals like it or not, the SC did the right thing by reversing the original decision. Now, let’s work to come up with some common sense laws to deal with it. That means a little compromise by both lunatic fringes.
Click to expand...

This is a reasonable poast.

Hence why we need to block out all lunatic fringes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2 and bluetoe
bluetoe said:
pregnant is pregnant, whether male or female or other. I find it difficult to think how hard a childbirth would be on a ten year old girl, but I can't even imagine what it would be like for the male.
Click to expand...
When a male gives birth does the baby pop out of his ding-a-ling?
 
bluetoe said:
My hope is that these abortion laws will make people much more responsible about prevention.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in a perfect world this would be the case. But for anti abortion folks who think that banning it will make people more 'responsible' miss the forest for the trees. They have it in their heads that abortion is always somebody who gets knocked up because they were being loose or irresponsible and now they don't want to deal with the consequences. Perhaps that's the case for some people.

But it's not that simple. Ectopic pregnancies require abortion. Septic uteruses also require an abortion. A miscarriage the body won't release requires an abortion. If these procedures don't occur, the woman dies or suffers immensely. Period. And of course sometimes a girl or woman is raped. Sometimes there is incest involved as well.

I know many believe Roe v. Wade was an overstep and there is a legal argument to be made that it was. But situations like this poor girl in Indiana are we so many were so afraid of what would happen if it was overturned. All of these laws popping up in red states aren't just restrictive. They're crazy and inhumane. It's exactly what the extreme anti abortion lunatics wanted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
carolinablue34 said:
Perhaps in a perfect world this would be the case. But for anti abortion folks who think that banning it will make people more 'responsible' miss the forest for the trees. They have it in their heads that abortion is always somebody who gets knocked up because they were being loose or irresponsible and now they don't want to deal with the consequences. Perhaps that's the case for some people.

But it's not that simple. Ectopic pregnancies require abortion. Septic uteruses also require an abortion. A miscarriage the body won't release requires an abortion. If these procedures don't occur, the woman dies or suffers immensely. Period. And of course sometimes a girl or woman is raped. Sometimes there is incest involved as well.

I know many believe Roe v. Wade was an overstep and there is a legal argument to be made that it was. But situations like this poor girl in Indiana are we so many were so afraid of what would happen if it was overturned. All of these laws popping up in red states aren't just restrictive. They're crazy and inhumane. It's exactly what the extreme anti abortion lunatics wanted.
Click to expand...

What would you say is the percentage of abortions that are due to rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger? Let's start here. Be truthful.

And what exactly was the worst thing about the 10 year old Ohio girl? She got an abortion, right? Where was the horror? How was she punished unmercifully?
 
carolinablue34 said:
Obviously that is also a very sticky topic.
Click to expand...
but at least when we get to that point, it shows we are closing in on a reasonable solution. This is where sometimes people forget that principle should rule over expediency. Instead of identifying those with wayward opinions compared to our own, just keep in mind that the sanctity of human life is what all opinions should be considerate of.


carolinablue34 said:
Perhaps in a perfect world this would be the case. But for anti abortion folks who think that banning it will make people more 'responsible' miss the forest for the trees. They have it in their heads that abortion is always somebody who gets knocked up because they were being loose or irresponsible and now they don't want to deal with the consequences. Perhaps that's the case for some people.

But it's not that simple. Ectopic pregnancies require abortion. Septic uteruses also require an abortion. A miscarriage the body won't release requires an abortion. If these procedures don't occur, the woman dies or suffers immensely. Period. And of course sometimes a girl or woman is raped. Sometimes there is incest involved as well.

I know many believe Roe v. Wade was an overstep and there is a legal argument to be made that it was. But situations like this poor girl in Indiana are we so many were so afraid of what would happen if it was overturned. All of these laws popping up in red states aren't just restrictive. They're crazy and inhumane. It's exactly what the extreme anti abortion lunatics wanted.
Click to expand...
can you provide some evidence that the unusual circumstances you cite are the main reason for abortion, and that most abortions are not a matter of convenience...convenience meaning simply not wanting to have and raise a child? Of course there are exceptions that laws should take into account, but those exceptions don't justify a general loosening of the law to allow more abortions in general. Simply accommodate them.

And Roe vs. Wade was wrong from the start because the SCOTUS is not supposed to legislate, period. Just because you don't like the repercussions of overturning what should never have taken place does not somehow mean that it shouldn't have been shitcanned. The present SCOTUS got it right, now we have to leave it up to actual legislators to get it as right as possible.

The poor girl in Indiana might not have been in such a predicament if we had better control of illegals, the reality that you said was just a distraction from the real issue here. I think you're tuning out the real issues to further your own agenda, which is a loosening of abortion law. To solve any problem, don't start with the symptoms. Target the cause, and in my opinion a lowered sense of responsibility in preventing pregnancy is a root cause of the abortion problem.

Keep in mind I have not once disagreed that there are circumstances where abortion is almost a requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
gunslingerdick said:
Right. Because I view @carolinablue34 as the lunatic left. I'm sure he views me as the lunatic right.
Click to expand...
you might be right about that, but I view neither of you as extremists. I just happen to be much closer to your place in the spectrum than his. But he has posted some pretty reasonable limitations on abortion (compared TO the extreme), so all I want at this point is for the reasoning behind abortion law to be considered on principle instead of emotion. I want every problem to be solved that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
gteeitup said:
lol
Click to expand...
blazers said:
100%
Click to expand...
look who's telling us what a moderate is...

NUi8.gif

laugh-cant-hold-it-in.gif

trump-laughing.gif

200w.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Archer2, uncfootball- and gunslingerdick
bluetoe said:
Nothing I have posted suggests otherwise. All I have been trying to point out to your stupid ass is that consensual sex with a minor is not forcible rape, which is a much worse crime.
Click to expand...
There’s no such thing as consensual sex with a 10 year old child you stupid fvck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2, uncfootball- and bluetoe
prlyles said:
There’s no such thing as consensual sex with a 10 year old child you stupid fvck.
Click to expand...
That's your stupid take, dumbo.

If a child or an adult is physically forced to have sex against their will, that is forcible rape. If a child or an adult willingly allows sex to occur without objection, that is consensual sex. Maybe somewhere in the dim recesses of your mind, you could consider why there is a legal distinction between the two circumstances. If an of age adult OR underage child is just flat out physically forced to have sex against her will, the perp is charged with rape in either case. Plain rape. Scum are sometimes charged with forcibly raping a child, and it is not considered merely statutory. If the of age adult consents, there is no crime. But If the underage child is not forced to have sex, the sex is consensual but still illegal due to the assumed inability of a child to make good decisions regarding sex....hence statutory rape, meaning it isn't rape in the usual, forcible sense but illegal by statute....which as I have pointed out varies significantly from State to State.

You are only confirming your village idiot status here. You should know that, especially in this time of lunacy, that plenty of ten year olds know a lot about sex. More than you apparently. This very episode illustrates that even a ten year old girl can functionally be a woman, and have the feelings of a woman if not the mental maturity. I don't know what the exact circumstances were here, but I do know that it is entirely possible that this little girl simply and consensually wanted to go along with the advances of the scumbag. I can't even rule out that she was the one that initiated the subject.

A man who once worked for me years ago came in one morning visibly flustered because his ten or eleven year old daughter came up to him and asked when it was OK to start having sex, and he said she asked just as casually as if asking if she could stay over at a friends house. I was as stunned as he was, but I knew he wasn't lying.

I've explained it well enough that even your dog should understand it. I'm going to leave it to him/her to try to explain to you what is so simple it defies even needing explanation.

I hope you got at least a little way past the first sentence, you fvcking cretin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncfootball-
gunslingerdick said:
Weird. You mean less police equals more crime? I simply can't believe it. We probably just need more social workers.

www.foxnews.com

Portland, the site of massive George Floyd protests, has been ravaged by violent crime since

A study examining crime in Portland found a 144% increase in homicides from Jan. 2019 to June 2021, and a 241% increase non-fatal shootings in from Jan. 2019 to Dec. 2021.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
we better be tearing down more Confederate statues to make room for statues of criminals who perish while being detained by police. No wait, we aren't molesting criminals anymore I guess. Never mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncfootball-
bluetoe said:
That's your stupid take, dumbo.

If a child or an adult is physically forced to have sex against their will, that is forcible rape. If a child or an adult willingly allows sex to occur without objection, that is consensual sex. Maybe somewhere in the dim recesses of your mind, you could consider why there is a legal distinction between the two circumstances. If an of age adult OR underage child is just flat out physically forced to have sex against her will, the perp is charged with rape in either case. Plain rape. Scum are sometimes charged with forcibly raping a child, and it is not considered merely statutory. If the of age adult consents, there is no crime. But If the underage child is not forced to have sex, the sex is consensual but still illegal due to the assumed inability of a child to make good decisions regarding sex....hence statutory rape, meaning it isn't rape in the usual, forcible sense but illegal by statute....which as I have pointed out varies significantly from State to State.

You are only confirming your village idiot status here. You should know that, especially in this time of lunacy, that plenty of ten year olds know a lot about sex. More than you apparently. This very episode illustrates that even a ten year old girl can functionally be a woman, and have the feelings of a woman if not the mental maturity. I don't know what the exact circumstances were here, but I do know that it is entirely possible that this little girl simply and consensually wanted to go along with the advances of the scumbag. I can't even rule out that she was the one that initiated the subject.

A man who once worked for me years ago came in one morning visibly flustered because his ten or eleven year old daughter came up to him and asked when it was OK to start having sex, and he said she asked just as casually as if asking if she could stay over at a friends house. I was as stunned as he was, but I knew he wasn't lying.

I've explained it well enough that even your dog should understand it. I'm going to leave it to him/her to try to explain to you what is so simple it defies even needing explanation.

I hope you got at least a little way past the first sentence, you fvcking cretin.
Click to expand...
Just because you are surrounded with people as stupid as you here doesn’t make your post any less stupid.
 
Greenwood, IN - another mass shooting of innocent people, another AR-15 style killing-machine, Sig Sauer Model M400 5.56-caliber. Had over 100 rounds on him. 24 shots in under 2 minutes, unclear how many of those were before or after the Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan apparently engaged almost immediately since the murderer was dead three minutes after began his rampage. This tragedy could've been much worse.

And it probably shouldn't surprise that the shooter was a young male, 20. Probably socially isolated and having an irrational feeling of entitlement.

We should all pray some more.
 
Archer2 said:
For those who are pro choice, at what point during a pregnancy do you think human life begins?
Click to expand...
I think there are 3 logical potential answers to this question. A) at conception B) once the fetus is viable to survive on its own outside of its mother, and C) at birth. Personally, I would say B).
Archer2 said:
If a fetus isn’t considered to be a child, why do our laws allow for someone who kills a pregnant woman to be charged with 2 counts of manslaughter?
Click to expand...
I think this is because prior to the child being born, it is in a way considered property of the mother. She is able to discard that property, prior to it becoming a life, via abortion if she chooses. However, if someone else were to terminate the pregnancy against the will of the mother, preventing what would otherwise have developed into a life, then they are responsible for the murder/manslaughter/etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram and blazers
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I think there are 3 logical potential answers to this question. A) at conception B) once the fetus is viable to survive on its own outside of its mother, and C) at birth. Personally, I would say B).

I think this is because prior to the child being born, it is in a way considered property of the mother. She is able to discard that property, prior to it becoming a life, via abortion if she chooses. However, if someone else were to terminate the pregnancy against the will of the mother, preventing what would otherwise have developed into a life, then they are responsible for the murder/manslaughter/etc.
Click to expand...
I probably shouldn't have liked this. Now, it's going to get resistance.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010 and uncboy10
blazers said:
Greenwood, IN - another mass shooting of innocent people, another AR-15 style killing-machine, Sig Sauer Model M400 5.56-caliber. Had over 100 rounds on him. 24 shots in under 2 minutes, unclear how many of those were before or after the Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan apparently engaged almost immediately since the murderer was dead three minutes after began his rampage. This tragedy could've been much worse.

And it probably shouldn't surprise that the shooter was a young male, 20. Probably socially isolated and having an irrational feeling of entitlement.

We should all pray some more.
Click to expand...
Yep. Yet another AR-15 shooter who was taken out by a good guy with a handgun. After all your pontificating about the police being outgunned by the AR-15 in Ulvade and how it was the gun that was the problem, I'm kinda of surprised you pointed this out.

It's not a shock that the stats are piling up that almost all these shootings are young males with issues. You left out that most of them are also white. It'll be interesting to see the source of the firearm and if he, yet again like so many others, passed a background check to acquire it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gunslingerdick
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I think there are 3 logical potential answers to this question. A) at conception B) once the fetus is viable to survive on its own outside of its mother, and C) at birth. Personally, I would say B).

I think this is because prior to the child being born, it is in a way considered property of the mother. She is able to discard that property, prior to it becoming a life, via abortion if she chooses. However, if someone else were to terminate the pregnancy against the will of the mother, preventing what would otherwise have developed into a life, then they are responsible for the murder/manslaughter/etc.
Click to expand...

gteeitup said:
b)✅
Click to expand...
At what age can the “mass of human tissues” normally survive on its own outside the womb? Eight months? Does it count if it has to be incubated to save its life? Are you good with abortions up to that point?
 
blazers said:
Greenwood, IN - another mass shooting of innocent people, another AR-15 style killing-machine, Sig Sauer Model M400 5.56-caliber. Had over 100 rounds on him. 24 shots in under 2 minutes, unclear how many of those were before or after the Good Samaritan. Good Samaritan apparently engaged almost immediately since the murderer was dead three minutes after began his rampage. This tragedy could've been much worse.

And it probably shouldn't surprise that the shooter was a young male, 20. Probably socially isolated and having an irrational feeling of entitlement.

We should all pray some more.
Click to expand...
in a crowded food court, one could squeeze off 24 rounds in under two minutes and kill four (?) people with a blunderbuss. Not really of course but any handgun would not only do the trick but might very well have been much more effective at sheer killing. A shotgun would have been a nightmare and a bolt-action rifle would have been perfectly adequate for the achieved result. The weapon being an AR-15 is of no particular significance

" 24 shots in under 2 minutes, unclear how many of those were before or after the Good Samaritan. "

Just my gut feeling here, but I'm thinking all of the shots fired by the perp were before the good samaritan killed him. I could be missing something.
 
bluetoe said:
in a crowded food court, one could squeeze off 24 rounds in under two minutes and kill four (?) people with a blunderbuss. Not really of course but any handgun would not only do the trick but might very well have been much more effective at sheer killing. A shotgun would have been a nightmare and a bolt-action rifle would have been perfectly adequate for the achieved result. The weapon being an AR-15 is of no particular significance

" 24 shots in under 2 minutes, unclear how many of those were before or after the Good Samaritan. "

Just my gut feeling here, but I'm thinking all of the shots fired by the perp were before the good samaritan killed him. I could be missing something.
Click to expand...
You can tell he hates that the Good Samaritan saved the day. He’s stupid and warped.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I think this is because prior to the child being born, it is in a way considered property of the mother. She is able to discard that property, prior to it becoming a life, via abortion if she chooses.
Click to expand...

if the child is the property of the mother to do as she pleases with, why is the father on the hook for its support to adulthood pending childbirth? To ask this another way, if the father is considered just as responsible as the mother for the conception and raising of the baby, how can it be considered the mother's property to do what she pleases with?

If it's the mother's property to do what she pleases with, there is no way a father should be on the hook for supporting her property.. And if the mother owns the baby before it was born but the father doesn't, why should his ownership and responsibility kick in at childbirth? How is he responsible then but not before, when he has no say in termination?

All we are ever going to get passing as logic on this subject are ratioanalizations.

Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
However, if someone else were to terminate the pregnancy against the will of the mother, preventing what would otherwise have developed into a life, then they are responsible for the murder/manslaughter/etc.
Click to expand...

the viable growing human life inside the mother is the same regardless of what or who kills it. If you kill it, or the mother kills it, it is murder. If it wasn't murder, no one would be charged for ending its life. We just choose to allow the murder if it is at the mother's whim, and we rationalize it by crying 'woman's rights'. But there are no rationalizations or any verbiage or terminology that changes the reality in the slightest that murder has been committed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

strummingram

added to misc thread

Replies
1
Views
268
Four Corners
strummingram
strummingram
andrew jones

Signing Day Thread

Replies
26
Views
1K
Blue Heaven
BCox83
BCox83
RobJones__

Misc. College Basketball Thread

Replies
156
Views
9K
Four Corners
TarHeelMark
TarHeelMark
andrew jones
  • Sticky

NET rankings thread (Week of Feb. 17)

Replies
122
Views
9K
Four Corners
benjadod
B
IDUNK4HEELS

Carolina vs Alabama game thread

Replies
212
Views
6K
Tar Heel Radar
notashelbyfan
notashelbyfan
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back