Live Feed, Patriots at the Capitol

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    Did a bit of Google-Fu. Looks like I got it right about the swap in policy. Wasn’t over night but it happened.
    You need to spend more time than you invested in this. You have spewed a revision of the Woodrow Wilson insult that not all Republicans are stupid but stupid people are Republicans.

    You have signally failed to account for changes in the definition of racist extremism. A century ago it revolved around issues including grossly unequal treatment in the public square, savage beatings, and stretching necks. In today's landscape the left brands me a racist for holding to the notion that all lives are created equal with no need to worry about 50 acres, a mule, or any other restitution to be paid by me to people I never harmed in recompense for harm that none of the potential recipients received themselves.

    At this point I am left to suppose that you are either trolling or have s severely underdeveloped grasp on reality.
     

    maxipum

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    24   0   0
    Feb 6, 2012
    771
    93
    Bloomington
    I’ve always said “Not all Republicans are racists, but all KKK members are Republicans”. It’s a generalization but for the most part true.
    I also remember hearing the Democrats of the 1800s were equivalent to Republicans today and vice versa. The Uni-Party has to keep you guessing.
    Well if that is something you “say” then you are a
     
    Last edited by a moderator:

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    11,794
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    I don't think I carried your words to a logical extreme. Many of you guys have used the word "murder" to describe it. I think given that context it's not a great stretch, if I'm applying it to the general consensus of the group.

    That's fair. If you're not one of those classifying this as murder, then I'm wrong about your position.
    You carried my words to an extreme alright - but it was not logical. Don't you know the difference between "killed" and "murder"?
     

    Hatin Since 87

    Bacon Hater
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 31, 2018
    11,402
    77
    Mooresville
    I’ve always said “Not all Republicans are racists, but all KKK members are Republicans”. It’s a generalization but for the most part true.
    I also remember hearing the Democrats of the 1800s were equivalent to Republicans today and vice versa. The Uni-Party has to keep you guessing.
    Ya that’s why all the democrat politicians are friends with ex kkk members, right? That’s why southern states had democrat governors until the 90s, right? That’s why every time a black conservative speaks democrats make racist comments, right?


    Wow
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Well if that is something you “say” then you are a jackass
    KKK was founded by Democrats. That doesn’t mean Democrats are KKK today. Rather than getting pissy, you could just list all the Democrats you know are in the KKK. That would show him.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I’ve always said “Not all Republicans are racists, but all KKK members are Republicans”. It’s a generalization but for the most part true.
    I also remember hearing the Democrats of the 1800s were equivalent to Republicans today and vice versa. The Uni-Party has to keep you guessing.
    If you’re gonna say that you might as well also say not all Democrats are Socialist ********ers but Socialist ********ers vote Democrat.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    You carried my words to an extreme alright - but it was not logical. Don't you know the difference between "killed" and "murder"?
    It seemed to me that you’ve been agreeing with the people who’ve been saying Babbitt was murdered. It wasn’t a far jump from there. But since you’re not in that grouping, then I was wrong.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    I’ve always said “Not all Republicans are racists, but all KKK members are Republicans”. It’s a generalization but for the most part true.
    I also remember hearing the Democrats of the 1800s were equivalent to Republicans today and vice versa. The Uni-Party has to keep you guessing.
    Did a bit of Google-Fu. Looks like I got it right about the swap in policy. Wasn’t over night but it happened.
    I'm sure if you Google hard enough you can find what you want history to be.

    That doesn't make it true.

    My suggestion was that you study actual history. Not what the race-baiters want it to be. Or what the left would like to change it to in our schools.

    Its pretty easy to identify whether you are following actual history or revisionist history. It's pretty much the same folks who want to take our Second Amendment away who want to revise history.

    :eek:
     
    Last edited:

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    The problem is that your position turns on three separate definitions of "reasonable". First, is your personal definition, which would probably be very similar to mine all things bring equal. Besides this, we have the emerging societal definitions of "reasonable" for group A and "reasonable" for group B. At this point, my personal "reasonable" breaks down to the idea that if we aren't going to have uniform consistent standards, then let's have an equal lack of standards for everyone.
    I’m talking about the legal definition. To justify use of lethal force the officer had to reasonably believe that the force was necessary. You have rioters trying to break into a room with VIP’s or whatever. I think that burden was met legally. That’s the IS argument supporting it.

    It sounds to me like you’re trying to make it a SHOULD argument using societal changing norms.

    Here’s the thing, it IS partisan in that democrats in charge of prosecuting stuff are not eager to apply the standards evenly. I get that. But the right legal thing here is right according to the law, not according to how fair prosecutors are.

    Another point is that hou guys appear to be treating this as if there are two entities in conflict here. Us/them. And it looks like you think the officer is them. But they’re all individuals. Since you treat them as one, then if one is bad then all the individuals who are thems, are all bad. So officer who shot Babbitt is like the prosecuotors and jurors in Chauvin’s trial. “Them” is the rioters who loot and burn, and the prosecutors who set them free. Maybe that contributes to the feeling that Babbitt getting shot was unjustified.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I’m talking about the legal definition. To justify use of lethal force the officer had to reasonably believe that the force was necessary. You have rioters trying to break into a room with VIP’s or whatever. I think that burden was met legally. That’s the IS argument supporting it.

    It sounds to me like you’re trying to make it a SHOULD argument using societal changing norms.

    Here’s the thing, it IS partisan in that democrats in charge of prosecuting stuff are not eager to apply the standards evenly. I get that. But the right legal thing here is right according to the law, not according to how fair prosecutors are.

    Another point is that hou guys appear to be treating this as if there are two entities in conflict here. Us/them. And it looks like you think the officer is them. But they’re all individuals. Since you treat them as one, then if one is bad then all the individuals who are thems, are all bad. So officer who shot Babbitt is like the prosecuotors and jurors in Chauvin’s trial. “Them” is the rioters who loot and burn, and the prosecutors who set them free. Maybe that contributes to the feeling that Babbitt getting shot was unjustified.
    You also forgot to mention that this didn’t happen in a bubble, and that some of the rioters were actively engaged in assaulting officers, at the time this shooting occurred. If I have a defensible position, I’m not giving up my advantage with the hopes that the people attempting to breech the door won’t do to me, what they’ve done to other officers.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    60,116
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I'm sure if you Google hard enough you can find what you want history to be.

    That doesn't make it true.

    My suggestion was that you study actual history. Not what the race-baiters want it to be. Or what the left would like to change it to in our schools.

    Its pretty easy to identify whether you are following actual history or revisionist history. It's pretty much the same folks who want to take our Second Amendment away who want to revise history.

    :eek:
    He didn’t revise history. He did nit say that Republicans started the KKK. It sounds like he’s talking about now. That’s not historical revision.

    He’s either correct about now or not. I think at this point it’s on you to prove him wrong. List the current Democrats who are KKK members.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I’m talking about the legal definition. To justify use of lethal force the officer had to reasonably believe that the force was necessary. You have rioters trying to break into a room with VIP’s or whatever. I think that burden was met legally. That’s the IS argument supporting it.

    It sounds to me like you’re trying to make it a SHOULD argument using societal changing norms.

    Here’s the thing, it IS partisan in that democrats in charge of prosecuting stuff are not eager to apply the standards evenly. I get that. But the right legal thing here is right according to the law, not according to how fair prosecutors are.

    Another point is that hou guys appear to be treating this as if there are two entities in conflict here. Us/them. And it looks like you think the officer is them. But they’re all individuals. Since you treat them as one, then if one is bad then all the individuals who are thems, are all bad. So officer who shot Babbitt is like the prosecuotors and jurors in Chauvin’s trial. “Them” is the rioters who loot and burn, and the prosecutors who set them free. Maybe that contributes to the feeling that Babbitt getting shot was unjustified.
    Fair description. You are right. I do consider most of the people you mentioned "them". Through words, actions, or both, they have established that they are actively hostile. You are further right that so far as I am concerned, if the law applies only to *some* people, but not others, then no application of that law is reasonable.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom