I think him expressing the desire to punch republicans in the face qualifies him as a member of the left.
Parkland School Shooting
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
I think him expressing the desire to punch republicans in the face qualifies him as a member of the left.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
To be clear about this, I see a wide gulf when I compare the people protesting due to the issues in the 60s against the people who went out to yell because their preferred nominee didn't win an election.
I learned in school that one day on a bus an old black lady decided the color of her skin wasn't a good reason to give up her seat. I learned later that the decision was made long before that, and Mrs. Parks was selected for the job because she would be less likely to endure physical assault for it. That didn't taint my opinion of Mrs. Parks or her cause. We all know that Dr. King was human, that doesn't change the fact that he was a great man sacrificing himself for great things.
This guy isn't fit to tie Martin Luther King's shoes and this issue isn't on the same plane as segregation. But you have hit on my point, which is that far too many adults are acting like they are.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalthoff_repeater
The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that appeared in the seventeenth century and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-nineteenth century. As its inventor is unknown, it is named after the Kalthoff gunsmiths who came to be associated with the design.
The Kalthoff had two magazines, one for powder and one for balls (some had a third for priming powder). A single forward-and-back motion on the trigger guard powered a mechanism that deposited a ball and load of powder in the breech and cocked the gun. Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. A small carrier took the powder from the magazine to the breech, so there was no risk of an accidental ignition in the reserve. Early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, but later they became flintlocks. Some carried six shots, but one claims in an inscription on its barrel to have thirty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun
A prototype was shown in 1717 to the English Board of Ordnance, who were not impressed. At a later public trial held in 1722, a Puckle gun was able to fire 63 shots in seven minutes (approx 9 rounds per minute) in the midst of a driving rain storm.[1][7] A rate of 9 rounds per minute compared favourably to musketeers of the period, who could be expected to fire between 2 and 5 rounds per minute depending on the quality of the troops, with experienced troops expected to reliably manage 3 rounds a minute under fair conditions; it was however inferior in fire rate to earlier repeating weapons such as the Kalthoff repeater which fired up to six times faster.
I do find humor in your overcooked rhetoric, yes.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
What is disingenuous about it? And does their willingness to speak forcefully about it not undercut the allegation of exploitation? I mean, I was basically just disagreeing with your, and others, dismissal of them. They're the ones carrying the weight. Why shouldn't they be heard?
sturg33
I
I broke my elbow once and had surgery on it.
But I don't think that qualifies me to speak intelligently about orthopedic surgery
sturg33
I
I notice you and your friends haven't responded much to the data that is being posted in both gun threads
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I bet you're proud of that analogy.
sturg33
I
And the map in the other thread.
Nsacpi basically said, "interesting, but doesn't change my worldview unless yiu account for 50 things that don't seem to be accounted for"
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok, would you prefer "shouldn't be trivialized and insulted"?
sturg33
I
I think offering up a 1 hour national TV special with a completely one sided audience featuring very recently traumatized teenagers isn't the best approach. Do you?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
But...he's right. On the other hand, you've already stated that data to the contrary wouldn't change your opinion. So forgive me if I don't find your admonition for a data-driven discussion to be entirely in good faith.
sturg33
I
Oh I stated that? Can you point me where?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Hmm, well I've already stated that first on the list for me would be a comprehensive, data driven understanding of the subject.
I would prefer not having their words or experienced cheapened, but that already seems quite the lost cause.