(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

In your opinion, SCV plate = endorsement. Pro life plate = ????
It's sad that you don't get it and are too stupid to see the hypocrisy.

(08-31-2015 09:56 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

In your opinion, SCV plate = endorsement. Pro life plate = ????
It's sad that you don't get it and are too stupid to see the hypocrisy.

Those are pro-Choice plates.

(08-31-2015 10:02 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:56 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

In your opinion, SCV plate = endorsement. Pro life plate = ????
It's sad that you don't get it and are too stupid to see the hypocrisy.

Those are pro-Choice plates.

Wrong

Choose Life license plates are specialty license plates available in 29 states in the United States that express a pro-life message. The plates are the concept of Choose Life, Inc., a pro-life advocacy group based in Ocala, Florida. Wikipedia

(08-31-2015 10:04 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 10:02 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:56 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

In your opinion, SCV plate = endorsement. Pro life plate = ????
It's sad that you don't get it and are too stupid to see the hypocrisy.

Those are pro-Choice plates.

Wrong

Choose Life license plates are specialty license plates available in 29 states in the United States that express a pro-life message. The plates are the concept of Choose Life, Inc., a pro-life advocacy group based in Ocala, Florida. Wikipedia

Well, then they are using the wrong slogan. Duh!

(08-31-2015 09:56 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:08 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 08:15 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

What exactly is your point?

Should be obvious based on your prior dumb*** comments.

It honestly isn't, I've addressed what I thought was your point but your response of doubling down on the license tags implies you thought that posting one in the first place is somehow relevant to my point when it clearly isn't. If you'd be so kind as to spell it out for me instead of rudely evading doing that, we could perhaps get somewhere.

In your opinion, SCV plate = endorsement. Pro life plate = ????
It's sad that you don't get it and are too stupid to see the hypocrisy.

What am I not getting? Let me repost a reply I already made earlier in this thread.

Quote:I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but if it's that some state governments support a pro-life agenda, then you're absolutely correct. Legislation passed at the state level shows that all the time, and it's no secret that if not for Roe v. Wade abortion would be illegal in many states.

To get approved for these plates requires a level of tacit endorsement along the lines of not containing any offensive images or text. I guess it could be more accurately described as approval, but the act of approval implies a tacit level of endorsement. But if that's your argument, one based on the semantics between approval and endorsement, wow. Good way to spend your time.

Wow, it is not semantics to distinguish between the two. Approval means legality. Endorsement means support. That ain't semantics, that is relevent. Try harder.

Just saved me from trying one more time.

(08-31-2015 10:39 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Wow, it is not semantics to distinguish between the two. Approval means legality. Endorsement means support. That ain't semantics, that is relevent. Try harder.

I certainly didn't intend the meanings to be any different, but I apologize for the confusion if that's the case. I thought it was pretty clear what I meant given this post

Quote:No, it also means it conforms to a standard set that limits things of an outwardly offensive nature. Hence why there are no licenses with pornographic images or images of a graphic nature, plus I think they tend to be limited to organizations set up as non-profits though I'm not certain about that.

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

This is the comment on which I pinged. You normally construct good arguments, but this nugget was just too fat to pass up.

(08-31-2015 11:06 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:46 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 07:52 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  He removed them from a government issued license, that is not even close to the same as 'banning' them. It just removes the implicit government support that goes along with allowing them on a license plate, much like a plethora of other controversial images. Do you not understand the difference?

Allowing something doesn't equal implicit support.

It sure does on some level if it's on a government issued license. There's a reason there is a policy that requires approval before specialty tags and the like are approved.

This is the comment on which I pinged. You normally construct good arguments, but this nugget was just too fat to pass up.

Fair enough, I can see where I chose my wording wrong and should have definitely stuck with 'approved'.

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

A firearm ban would have likely prevented this from happening given the fact he bought his gun legally. That sort of ban is untenable, both politically and constitutionally, but the question itself seems a silly one to ask.

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

(09-01-2015 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  A firearm ban would have likely prevented this from happening given the fact he bought his gun legally. That sort of ban is untenable, both politically and constitutionally, but the question itself seems a silly one to ask.

Really?

What would have prevented Flanagan from obtaining an illegal firearm?


Are we to believe that a man who had committed himself to committing at least two murders would have abandoned his plan because it would have been illegal for him to buy a firearm?

If everyone were required to carry a fire arm it would help

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

Gun owners are 100% supportive of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. The problem is that in almost every case like this, any proposed law or other regulation would do nothing to accomplish the goal, only to further restrict the rights of gun owners.

(09-01-2015 01:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:54 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:26 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-31-2015 09:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Still want one of the gun grabbers to tell me which proposed law or which one of their idiotic ideas would have prevented this shooting.

Bump.


Anyone?

They won't because they don't want to admit what they all secretly wish, but I will.

Their honest answer would be 'If the police were the only ones with guns this wouldn't have happened.'

You are missing the point if you want a specific law that would have stopped this particular event from happening.

Once again, your conservative logic that forces you to accept only 100% guarantee that a law will work before you accept it fails you.

If a law can improve a problem then it's worth considering. Nothing will ever prevent gun violence. Even eliminating the second amendment won't do that.

But if there are ways to prevent the wrong people from purchasing guns, why would you be against that?

So what you are saying is that the anti-gun cretins are exploiting this tragedy to advance their cause even though nothing they have proposed, even an all out ban, would have had an effect on this situation.

What you are saying is anti-gun cretins are opportunists.

Opportunists? Is that what you would call family members of the victims who are bringing this issue up?

Perhaps you would just prefer to have these sort of things happen and no one make a fuss.

Because honestly , that's what it sounds like.

(09-01-2015 01:04 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  A firearm ban would have likely prevented this from happening given the fact he bought his gun legally. That sort of ban is untenable, both politically and constitutionally, but the question itself seems a silly one to ask.

Really?

What would have prevented Flanagan from obtaining an illegal firearm?


Are we to believe that a man who had committed himself to committing at least two murders would have abandoned his plan because it would have been illegal for him to buy a firearm?

He didn't buy a gun illegally, so neither you nor I have any idea whether or not he had any way to obtain one illegally. I know I wouldn't have the first idea where to go about purchasing an illegal firearm, and it doesn't seem this person was involved in a criminal world that would have afforded him that ability either.