BuckSwope

But come on it's not really what he said. IF there has to be rapin' by illegals going on he wants it to be your kids because you support having illegals here. SO much better. I get what you are saying about the difference between the sites. I also didn't see posts about rapin' kids, shooting politicians, etc. There is a difference in the uglier posts, but again I am not sure it's the people or the moderation on the other site that makes it that way. I'd guess a little of both, as I wouldn't have been surprised if it was allowed on FBGs it would have gotten to that point too. Who knows.

I think it was some thread about a rape in a school and there was a comment how they wished it was a posters kid instead. But that was to gutter, I think not sure where Tim encountered it too

There was some pretty ugly stuff posted about Trump and the right on fbgs. It just got squashed quicker because of the tighter moderation.

Small minded people think a criticism of the right is praise of the left.

1. No you didn't, you did what all the other idiots do, assume a position and post based on that. 2. I did - I listed things that have been balked at in previous discussions on these boards: raising age to buy guns, opening access to juvie records, safe storage laws. In my experience, on top of that base % that won't listen to any regulations, you have a varying degree of others agreeing on any of those listed when debates are had. 3. We don't interact much, but also in the past you have done what I describe - go right to posting as though my positions are the dumb lib positions you assume I have. Hence, my comments and inclusion with you in the rest. 4. I already also said I agree with most of what she was proposing, but not how she was doing it, so I guess start there. Inspection of firearm dealers and Department of Health to be able to do research sound reasonable to me. Probably don't do much to reduce gun violence though. Prohibition of guns in state areas and where kids gather? Why is that not a thing already? I can agree with that. Largely any regulation of guns that I advocate for revolve around training, storage, and access. IMO gun regulations are the way to go to if you want to drop the overall gun DEATHS in our country. When we talk about gun violence/murder, that is largely not done through gun regulations, IMO. One idea I specifically like is a higher age for purchase and/or opening up juvie records for background checks at 18. From what I have seen that would help a little with mass shootings, specifically school/mall type shootings. But that is a tiny% of the overall deaths and murders. So there you have a regulation I would be for that I have seen conservatives reject, but I don't think would address what this governor is trying to do so I guess take that for what it's worth. Largely where I differ from the typical pro-gun people is that I am against carrying in public, but if that's where we are now I would be for having a much higher bar in order to be able to do so. I would also be open to better requirements and harsh penalties revolving around safe storage at home, another place I differ from the pro-gun people usually. I differ from the left because I don't believe in bans and I am open to people having the guns they want in the home. I differ from the right in the ways I described above - IMO that's where it ends and I disagreed with the majority open of the recent SC ruling.

I mean I know you think dems are dumb, but everywhere I look I see articles about the rising support of the GOP among Latinos. So the theory that you agree with is that Dems (and only Dems?) want these people here, and what they are currently doing is trying to flood Texas with Latinos, then make it so they can't leave, so they can control federal elections? You could be right, but it seems really dumb and out there as their plan. Much easier would be ditch the woke and focus on policies that connect with the populace. When I read articles like I describe, I wonder if the Latino vote would get to a point for the GOP where they magically stop pretending to be so anti-illegal.

Correct, because as I said - all you idiots constantly post as though: a) I am a flaming lib (incorrect) 2) all libs must believe THIS dumb that I saw online (also incorrect). Thanks for proving my point again. It would be funnier if it wasn't about 80% of you around here doing this crap. Again, it doesn't matter what the regulation has been, largely. I have been told by many flat out that they are done hearing about regulations - won't budge an inch and they feel they've given up too much as it is. A couple here, and more at FBGs. I've been told that IRL as well. I don't know what to say if you don't think there is a big, vocal group of them on that side of the debate, and mostly conservatives. That's why I posted my opinion that many on that side of the aisle are against all regulations. That's some of them. I have seen others on top of that reject anything from more training and certification, safe storage laws, additional background checks, whatever. I can't talk more specifics unless as I said - you are more specific. Largely in these threads from the pro-gun side the only solutions they are largely good with is more guns.

And like most idiots here you ask non-specific open questions and always come from an angle of assuming my positions. It's tiring, so yeah- I skipped over that. Care to specify further what you mean by make a difference- reduce deaths, murders, accidents, what?

What does posting about assault bans and not enforcing laws have to do with any points I was making or have made?

None of which are my stances, so what the fock is your point? And you understand I am talking in general about people that I have interacted with, not you - correct? I barely converse with you, largely because you seem to do what you did here - apply dumb lib ideas you see online to me.

My point was more that the pro-gun people seem to care more about state's rights now when it supports them, but don't bring it up when it doesn't. We will just have to disagree on that opinion. I think for the pro-gun people as a whole, keeping guns as accessible and unregulated as possible >> state's rights or the constitution as a whole.

Correct, currently. I am speaking of attitudes not just now, but when they could have been enacted at state level. Probably be a long time now thanks to Trump's court. My point was I largely see the same thing then vs. now - being against any regulation.

I've read enough posts in these threads to stand by my statement. Many people on that side of the aisle will fight about any regulation, no matter how it was brought on. To me the fact that she did it this way is wrong, but largely irrelevant to the reaction from the usual gun folk I interact with on these sites.

She is wrong to do it how she is doing it, but I will largely agree with what you are saying. They are able to hide behind how she did it, but we know they would be saying the same thing if it was passed in the correct way.

Come on tim, he was probably just joking when he wrote that.

Gee, thanks. I can read, and if you could when it comes to my posts, you would understand that I agree with you.

Disagree about how she did it, f0ck that, but didn't see much I disagreed with as far as regulation changes. Health emergency to get your way, though? Nah.

Weird, I thought the right was about protecting kids and battling our fentanyl problem.

It's about time they get a win.

“Supporting that inference, Munchel explicitly stated that his intent in storming and occupying the Capitol was as a show of force to threaten violence against those same members of Congress and thus intimidate them into doing what he wanted them to do.” So they all weren't just on a field trip taking photos?

That's bad when the actual Boomer politicians are rolling their eyes and giving Nancy the "ok boomer".

I was with that first one that I deleted and switched to more playful humor.

I feel like we read 2 different sets of posts around this place.

So now you are bagging on her for being an extremely good investor?

And?