Nothing on New Mex Governor gun ban?

[Dizkneelande 1,101]

46 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

FDR doesn’t count to Tim. 

Trump was horrible on Covid but the states could have said fu so if that makes him worse than Obama drone bombing us citizens and, Biden completely violating the first amendment we’re lost as a republic. 

[BuckSwope 654]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

What an idiotic post.  I addressed the points that you were making.  And you just go on some stupid rant about nothing. 

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

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

59 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Your quote “no President in our history has ever so disrespected the Constitution as Donald Trump, not even close” 

Yes that would be an accurate representation. Of my opinion. 

[Strike 5,553]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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

I'll let you go back and reread all the posts and figure it out for yourself.  I also asked you what regulations you would propose that are reasonable and like a lot of the libs here you got nothing.

[BuckSwope 654]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

I'll let you go back and reread all the posts and figure it out for yourself.  I also asked you what regulations you would propose that are reasonable and like a lot of the libs here you got nothing.

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? 

[Strike 5,553]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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? 

I don't know man.  you're the one who said that conservatives are against all regulations regarding guns.  I gave you specific examples of the types of regulations the libs usually offer.  You seem to agree with me that those are unreasonable.  I'd like to hear what regulations you think are reasonable that conservatives won't support.  instead of bitching about me not knowing your stance why don't you literally state your specific stance dumbass.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

She’s a Soros puppet.  I’d like to see him catch a bullet to the head. His son even more. 

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

I don't know man.  you're the one who said that conservatives are against all regulations regarding guns.  I gave you specific examples of the types of regulations the libs usually offer.  You seem to agree with me that those are unreasonable.  I'd like to hear what regulations you think are reasonable that conservatives won't support.  instead of bitching about me not knowing your stance why don't you literally state your specific stance dumbass.

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.   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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.   

Another shitlib denying they are a shitlib. It’s played out. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

5 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Almost like you have actually zero knowledge of this country and the constitution. Not surprised you openly vote to destroy the country. Here I’ll help you

states rights only apply on topics not covered in the constitution. The United States constitution is absolute 

What we have here is selective interpretation of the Constitution.

MAGAturd: The Constitution protects the right of a fentanyl addict to openly carry an AR15 while staggering down the street and looking for a place to score. Oh, and states' rights! 

MAGAturd: The Constitution does not protect the right of a 12-year-old girl who likely will die during the delivery of a deformed blob that can't live outside the womb and was the product of violent rape at the hands of her psychopathic, child-molesting older brother. Oh, and states' rights! 

Just more MAGAturd hypcrisy!

 

[Strike 5,553]

36 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

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.   

1)  I never said you were a lib.  I simply cited the types of regulations that are always offered after a gun incident.  And then the media and libs go apesh*t when reasonable people balk at them because they won't change anything.

2)  I'm trying to find middle ground here.  If you can't cite reasonable regulations that conservatives have balked at then your argument fails.

3)  Why are you including me in the "all you idiots" statement?  By your own words earlier, you and I don't interact much.  So, when you thought I was including you in a certain group it was a problem, but now you're including me?   Try following your own rules.

4)  As usual, trying to get people who want more regulation (I'm assuming you do by your posts but you keep avoiding posting a specific stance) to state specific, reasonable, regulations they'd enact to combat the issue results in nothing.  And then you wonder why you're always arguing with the "other' side.  If you want specifics, offer me a regulation that should be enacted to combat the issue this governor enacted an unconstitutional mandate to address.

[Strike 5,553]

So these are the incidents the Governor cited to justify her order:

Quote

Lujan Grisham referenced several recent shootings in Albuquerque in issuing the order. Among them was a suspected road rage shooting Wednesday outside a minor league baseball stadium that killed 11-year-old Froyland Villegas and critically wounded a woman as their vehicle was peppered with bullets while people left the game.

Last month, 5-year-old Galilea Samaniego was fatally shot while asleep in a motor home. Four teens entered the mobile home community in two stolen vehicles early on Aug. 13 and opened fire on the trailer, according to police. The girl was struck in the head and later died at a hospital.

The governor also cited an August shooting death in Taos County of 13-year-old Amber Archuleta. A 14-year-old boy shot and killed the girl with his father’s gun while they were at his home, authorities said.

 

I'm really curious which one of the above incidents anyone thinks would have been prevented by this unconstitutional order.  TIA. 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

It’s one thing to criticize this policy and to call its constitutionality into question. 

It’s quite another thing to wish death on this woman, or on George Soros who has contributed to her campaigns, or on George Soros’ son. 
 

There is an ugly extremism among many who are  pro gun rights that we are over and over. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

4 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s one thing to criticize this policy and to call its constitutionality into question. 

It’s quite another thing to wish death on this woman, or on George Soros who has contributed to her campaigns, or on George Soros’ son. 
 

There is an ugly extremism among many who are  pro gun rights that we are over and over. 

Not surprising that MAGAturds are calling for death, violence and civil war as they twist the Constitution and states rights into what they want them to be, just like what their beloved T-pump in his quest to become America's first dictator!

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

Funny when I wished someone would put a bullet in Putins head there was no outcry. 

[JustinCharge 2,397]

10 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s one thing to criticize this policy and to call its constitutionality into question. 

It’s quite another thing to wish death on this woman, or on George Soros who has contributed to her campaigns, or on George Soros’ son. 
 

There is an ugly extremism among many who are  pro gun rights that we are over and over. 

what do you think of the founding fathers who shot and killed the British in a war for some freedom and less taxes?

Now I know that is an uncomfortable question for you, so you will shout "NUKES!" or something.  but the question is more for the board to recognize your shiity guilt trip for what it is.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

5 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

what do you think of the founding fathers who shot and killed the British in a war for some freedom and less taxes?

Now I know that is an uncomfortable question for you, so you will shout "NUKES!" or something.  but the question is more for the board to recognize your shiity guilt trip for what it is.

Yeah, a MAGAturd calling for the execution of a governor exercising a state right to confront a shooting and fentanyl problem in a very specific area is just like the Revolutionary War against British rule. 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

49 minutes ago, JustinCharge said:

what do you think of the founding fathers who shot and killed the British in a war for some freedom and less taxes?

Now I know that is an uncomfortable question for you, so you will shout "NUKES!" or something.  but the question is more for the board to recognize your shiity guilt trip for what it is.

 Don’t really think that a guy on a message board wishing that people would die has a whole lot in common with Patrick Henry. But hey you do you. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

56 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Funny when I wished someone would put a bullet in Putins head there was no outcry. 

But there was when you wished rape and death on Geeks' children here, because you're a P.O.S.

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

5 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

 Don’t really think that a guy on a message board wishing that people would die has a whole lot in common with Patrick Henry. But hey you do you. 

I'm particularly fond of his "nukes" remark, coming from a clown who can turn a church picnic into a nuclear-war catalyst.

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

Just now, Pimpadeaux said:

I'm particularly fond of his "nukes" remark, coming from a clown who can turn a church picnic into a nuclear-war catalyst.

Now that Prime has won his second game at Colorado, Putin will have NO CHOICE but to launch a nuclear strike against the USA. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Now that Prime has won his second game at Colorado, Putin will have NO CHOICE but to launch a nuclear strike against the USA. 

Texas is up 13-9 on Alabama. Putin has NO CHOICE but to nuke.

[BuckSwope 654]

1 hour ago, Strike said:

1)  I never said you were a lib.  I simply cited the types of regulations that are always offered after a gun incident.  And then the media and libs go apesh*t when reasonable people balk at them because they won't change anything.

2)  I'm trying to find middle ground here.  If you can't cite reasonable regulations that conservatives have balked at then your argument fails.

3)  Why are you including me in the "all you idiots" statement?  By your own words earlier, you and I don't interact much.  So, when you thought I was including you in a certain group it was a problem, but now you're including me?   Try following your own rules.

4)  As usual, trying to get people who want more regulation (I'm assuming you do by your posts but you keep avoiding posting a specific stance) to state specific, reasonable, regulations they'd enact to combat the issue results in nothing.  And then you wonder why you're always arguing with the "other' side.  If you want specifics, offer me a regulation that should be enacted to combat the issue this governor enacted an unconstitutional mandate to address.

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.  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,351]

54 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

What we have here is selective interpretation of the Constitution.

MAGAturd: The Constitution protects the right of a fentanyl addict to openly carry an AR15 while staggering down the street and looking for a place to score. Oh, and states' rights! 

MAGAturd: The Constitution does not protect the right of a 12-year-old girl who likely will die during the delivery of a deformed blob that can't live outside the womb and was the product of violent rape at the hands of her psychopathic, child-molesting older brother. Oh, and states' rights! 

Just more MAGAturd hypcrisy!

 

You have the IQ of a 5 year old and the behavior of a 3 year old 

constitution 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s one thing to criticize this policy and to call its constitutionality into question. 

It’s quite another thing to wish death on this woman, or on George Soros who has contributed to her campaigns, or on George Soros’ son. 
 

There is an ugly extremism among many who are  pro gun rights that we are over and over. 

The right wing has gotten uglier and uglier

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,107]

8 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

The right wing has gotten uglier and uglier

I love how you're just ignoring how far left the "Democrats" have moved.  How they burned down cities and neighborhoods, assaulted and murdered people during those riots and taken out cops.  How their racist policies then and now have fomented all of the problems we're seeing today as blue controlled states and cities turn to shiat in front of your eyes.  Just ignore all that over some nebulous "the right wing has gotten uglier and uglier" comment to acquire virtues from your online boyfriend.

But, hey, keep slurping up those DNC talking points you're getting at the plantation glory hole.  GTFO.

[Thornton Melon 620]

I think this is a great move by the governor. It'll really reduce crime. Because, you know, there are criminals out there thinking "Geez, I really wanted to commit armed robbery in Alberque, but I see they don't allow guns there. Damn..."

[BuckSwope 654]

45 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I love how you're just ignoring how far left the "Democrats" have moved.  How they burned down cities and neighborhoods, assaulted and murdered people during those riots and taken out cops.  How their racist policies then and now have fomented all of the problems we're seeing today as blue controlled states and cities turn to shiat in front of your eyes.  Just ignore all that over some nebulous "the right wing has gotten uglier and uglier" comment to acquire virtues from your online boyfriend.

But, hey, keep slurping up those DNC talking points you're getting at the plantation glory hole.  GTFO.

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

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I love how you're just ignoring how far left the "Democrats" have moved.  How they burned down cities and neighborhoods, assaulted and murdered people during those riots and taken out cops.  How their racist policies then and now have fomented all of the problems we're seeing today as blue controlled states and cities turn to shiat in front of your eyes.  Just ignore all that over some nebulous "the right wing has gotten uglier and uglier" comment to acquire virtues from your online boyfriend.

But, hey, keep slurping up those DNC talking points you're getting at the plantation glory hole.  GTFO.

I was referring to what I read from some conservatives on this forum and similar forums. Liberals and leftists certainly have passion about a lot of issues but I can’t recall, even once, one of them hoping that politicians they don’t like will get a bullet in the head. I can’t recall them wishing death on those they’re arguing with, or hoping that their kids get raped. Yet it’s prevalent here with some on the right.

That particular criticism, so far as I know, doesn’t apply to YOU. But what does apply to you is this confounding loyalty to your “team” which seems to force you to respond to any perceived attack by arguing that the other side is just as bad or worse: it’s exhausting, 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

There is a line. You’re on one side or the other. It would be great if it weren’t so, but it is. Squishy small minds can’t recognize it.  

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

I was referring to what I read from some conservatives on this forum and similar forums. Liberals and leftists certainly have passion about a lot of issues but I can’t recall, even once, one of them hoping that politicians they don’t like will get a bullet in the head. I can’t recall them wishing death on those they’re arguing with, or hoping that their kids get raped. Yet it’s prevalent here with some on the right.

That particular criticism, so far as I know, doesn’t apply to YOU. But what does apply to you is this confounding loyalty to your “team” which seems to force you to respond to any perceived attack by arguing that the other side is just as bad or worse: it’s exhausting, 

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

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

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

OK. I won’t disagree. It was.as I recall mostly collective attacks: “you’re all a bunch of white power bigots”, etc. It was stupid, and hurtful, and to my regret I participated in some of that. I regret it now. 
 

But if any Trump critic ever posted “I hope you die” or “I hope your kids get raped” I didn’t see it: This is a whole new level of ugliness IMO. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

OK. I won’t disagree. It was.as I recall mostly collective attacks: “you’re all a bunch of white power bigots”, etc. It was stupid, and hurtful, and to my regret I participated in some of that. I regret it now. 
 

But if any Trump critic ever posted “I hope you die” or “I hope your kids get raped” I didn’t see it: This is a whole new level of ugliness IMO. 

No one hoped for anyones kids getting raped. As I clearly stated , I wish no one did.  But I’d rather it be someone that defends rapists than someone that doesn’t. Just like I wish you would have to actually live with the policies you advocate for and not the rest of us. Get it straight. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I love how you're just ignoring how far left the "Democrats" have moved.  How they burned down cities and neighborhoods, assaulted and murdered people during those riots and taken out cops.  How their racist policies then and now have fomented all of the problems we're seeing today as blue controlled states and cities turn to shiat in front of your eyes.  Just ignore all that over some nebulous "the right wing has gotten uglier and uglier" comment to acquire virtues from your online boyfriend.

But, hey, keep slurping up those DNC talking points you're getting at the plantation glory hole.  GTFO.

I’m talking about on this bored. Your behavior and the behavior of your cohorts. It’s reprehensible

[IGotWorms 4,058]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There is a line. You’re on one side or the other. It would be great if it weren’t so, but it is. Squishy small minds can’t recognize it.  

That’s dangerous rhetoric. Get ahold of yourself 

[The Real timschochet 6,769]

Yes the above poster actually did wish for my kids to be raped. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

51 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No one hoped for anyones kids getting raped. As I clearly stated , I wish no one did.  But I’d rather it be someone that defends rapists than someone that doesn’t. Just like I wish you would have to actually live with the policies you advocate for and not the rest of us. Get it straight. 

I’d like to see the comments referenced, it must’ve been while I was on a forced timeout thanks to the supposed free speech lovers reporting me constantly.

Anyway, I don’t really believe you because you have gone after Geeks’ families a lot in the past ( which betrays very poor character), but I would like to see the actual thread to be sure

[BuckSwope 654]

44 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I’d like to see the comments referenced, it must’ve been while I was on a forced timeout thanks to the supposed free speech lovers reporting me constantly.

Anyway, I don’t really believe you because you have gone after Geeks’ families a lot in the past ( which betrays very poor character), but I would like to see the actual thread to be sure

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

[MDC 7,431]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

I’d like to see the comments referenced, it must’ve been while I was on a forced timeout thanks to the supposed free speech lovers reporting me constantly.

Anyway, I don’t really believe you because you have gone after Geeks’ families a lot in the past ( which betrays very poor character), but I would like to see the actual thread to be sure

Starts on page 3 of this thread:

Tardcore has repeated some version of “I don’t wish rape on anyone, but if there HAS to be rape I hope it happens to your kid” to Gutter a few times since.

Page 66 here has Tardcore saying my son is allowed to watch porn. My boy is 10 fwiw:

I’d sooner let a tranny spend time with my kid alone than Tardcore. Dude is a creep.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,439]

1 hour ago, IGotWorms said:

I’d like to see the comments referenced, it must’ve been while I was on a forced timeout thanks to the supposed free speech lovers reporting me constantly.

Anyway, I don’t really believe you because you have gone after Geeks’ families a lot in the past ( which betrays very poor character), but I would like to see the actual thread to be sure

Oh really? When I first got here you said many disgusting things about my wife as did your scumbag pal MDC. Also called my kids retarded. You puzzies just don’t like it that I’m so good at counter punching. GFY worms. You have zero place on a high horse.