Cali puts Nads on ignore

[Tess Anderson]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002986378

the original post by Nadin:

nadinbrzezinski (106,468 posts)

 Don't shoot the messenger
When Columbine happened I went... this has to finally click.

Nope.

When Tucson happened, same thing.

When Virginia tech happened, well you get the picture.

I expect to have reasonable laws SOMEDAY... but that will only happen only after shootings, mass casualty shootings, become such a new normal that people finally get it. Mostly because they get tired of it.

Chalk it to years in the streets as a medic, but Columbine horrified me... this... not really, not anymore... and I know now a lot more of these incidents will occur, before we, as a people, finally get it.

And no, this does not mean I want to grab your guns... but when we cannot even have a civilized discussion on background checks at the local gun show... well then... this is the result, and we will get more of then, more often... until politicians say enough is enough, and citizens say enough is enough. Until then, welcome to the new normal.

Of course politicians may also over react and increase the security state, but hey... it would be a consequence of this.

My question now, should I go watch a movie at a movie theater or just wait for it to come out in DVD and rent it? And no, that is not a question in jest. What other places should I avoid, unless the job requires it? Again, not kidding... but if this is the new normal, one has to adjust to the new normal. I am reminded of the conversations I had with Israelis, who avoided things like Pizza shops after they became well... targets...

By the way, getting it also means taking mental health seriously. It also means taking things like what some of our radio shock jocks say seriously as well.

Yup, if I could, at times I wish I could leave this insane asylum... which is what at times the country is starting to resemble.

 

first reply:

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:33 PM
Tejas (4,478 posts)
1. As a cause, why do you put guns ahead of mental health?

cart/horse

Nadin fires back:

Response to Tejas (Reply #1)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:34 PM
 nadinbrzezinski (106,468 posts)
2. Can you think parallel tracts?

Or is this too difficult for you?

then:

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 07:50 PM
 zappaman (5,446 posts)
4. "Yup, if I could, at times I wish I could leave this insane asylum"

What's stopping you?
Can I be of assistance?

Finally:

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Original post)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:01 PM
cali (72,083 posts)
10. whatever. another condescending misguided faux knowledgeable

post.

I never do it, but I'm making an exception and putting you on ignore.

Response to cali (Reply #10)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 08:02 PM
 zappaman (5,446 posts)
13. Don't do that!

Where else can you learn there are 60cm in a meter or that the US has 51 states!

and:

Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #36)
Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:24 PM
 zappaman (5,446 posts)
45. "Been in a few shoot outs myself"

OH
MY
GOD

 

[Revolution]

I saw that earlier when the cave went down. Doubt she cares though. She doesn't look fondly on all the lowly peasants in DUmmie land anyway.

[ChuckJ]

Nads is screaming about background checks and the gun show loophole so I have a question for the good people here who I know will know the answer. It's my understanding that there are a couple of type of gun shows. The first type is like a flea market for firearms. People in the firearm business (licensed dealers) go there to sell and private individuals also go there to sell. The second type of gun show only allows people in the firearm business to sell. No private sellers are allowed. Regardless of the type of gun show a licensed dealer has to do a background check. A private individual, whether he is selling a gun at a show or his house, does not have to do a background check. Is this correct? If it is, wouldn't this mean that the so-called gun show loophole doesn't really exist?

Also, I assume for a background check to get a firearm you would have to prove who you are which would include providing picture ID. Is this correct? Haven't we learned that forcing someone to produce an ID is a suppression of that person's rights?

Finally, nads lunacy and delusion is making her one of the greatest DUers of all time.

[diesel driver]

Nads is screaming about background checks and the gun show loophole so I have a question for the good people here who I know will know the answer. It's my understanding that there are a couple of type of gun shows. The first type is like a flea market for firearms. People in the firearm business (licensed dealers) go there to sell and private individuals also go there to sell. The second type of gun show only allows people in the firearm business to sell. No private sellers are allowed. Regardless of the type of gun show a licensed dealer has to do a background check. A private individual, whether he is selling a gun at a show or his house, does not have to do a background check. Is this correct? If it is, wouldn't this mean that the so-called gun show loophole doesn't really exist?

Also, I assume for a background check to get a firearm you would have to prove who you are which would include providing picture ID. Is this correct? Haven't we learned that forcing someone to produce an ID is a suppression of that person's rights?



Finally, nads lunacy and delusion is making her one of the greatest DUers of all time.

Nads will be happy to know that Virginia repealed its "one gun per month" law this year.  

Prior, one could purchase 1 handgun/per month.  If you had a CCW permit, this didn't apply to you.  Your permit allowed you to be "fasttracked" when buying a handgun:  no background check, no waiting period, since all that was done to get the permit in the first place.

Since so many residents now have CCW permits, the law was basically useless.

Where I live here in the "boonies", the only people who end up DRT (Dead Right There) are druggies and transients who don't realize we are extremely well armed, and not afraid to use them.  IOW, you shoot at us, we WILL shoot back!

As far as the "gun show loophole", it doesn't exist.  Nads is full of shit, as usual.  If she is "seeing" people buying guns at gun shows and leaving with them the same day, they are CCW permit holders.  No background check needed.  Otherwise, they are shipped to the buyer (actually a gun dealer close to where the buyer lives) after the background check is performed.

NYC mayor Bloombutt had to remove his foot from his mouth years ago when he accused Virginia and other southern states of "supplying" the guns used by NYC criminials thru gun shows.  He found out the criminal's guns came from B&E crimes, not gun shows.

[Mr Mannn]

nadinbrzezinski (106,468 posts)
36. Been in a few shoot outs myself

And it could work

Update the resume: Gunslinger. Nadin had gunfights at the OK Corral. more than once. Bad guys were shot, but Nadin ** the dwarf with a gun ** came through unscathed.

Nadin is the new Yosemite Sam, the rootin tootin shootinist dwarf with a gun ever!
and she hates the sacking fracking rrrrabit.

[formerlurker]

nadinbrzezinski (106,468 posts)
36. Been in a few shoot outs myself

Nads is the one with mental health issues.

[formerlurker]

The Straight Story (37,642 posts)
34. Oh, and while you are looking up things

How many of our troops have used their guns to kill innocent people? And is that percentage close to the one of people getting guns from gun shows and using those guns to kill people close?

Who do you trust more with guns and other weapons - we the people or the government and their Xe warriors/troops? Cops?

I tend to trust my fellow American more because I have still not bought into the whole 'the government is best' scenario of things.

I, for one, don't want to live in a society where the government has easier access to guns than it's citizens. It's a trust issue - and I think the government has done more wrong with said weapons than the avg person here - and yet some want us to fear one another more.

Dude....

[franksolich]

Okay.  I went and read the whole campfire in its original state on Skins's island.

What's up with this?  Another one of nadin's cryptic remarks?

It also means taking things like what some of our radio shock jocks say seriously as well.

Now, really, who's going to take Mike Malloy or Ed Schmultz or that Turkish guy or Randi Rhodes seriously?

[formerlurker]

Okay.  I went and read the whole campfire in its original state on Skins's island.

What's up with this?  Another one of nadin's cryptic remarks?

Now, really, who's going to take Mike Malloy or Ed Schmultz or that Turkish guy or Randi Rhodes seriously?

Welcome back Frank!  I missed you!

[JohnnyReb]

Okay.  I went and read the whole campfire in its original state on Skins's island.

What's up with this?  Another one of nadin's cryptic remarks?

Now, really, who's going to take Mike Malloy or Ed Schmultz or that Turkish guy or Randi Rhodes seriously?

DUmmies????????

[whiffleball]

GB shows up to brag about her new pink lady.

[franksolich]

DUmmies????????

You know I don't listen to radio or watch television; all that I get is via text.

I fail to understand how a "right wing" radio host can inspire left wing lunatics to go out and hurt other people.

I suppose when one looks at text of comments, rather than hearing them, one gets a different "read" off of them.

If nadin wants to take radio (and television) "shock jocks" seriously, and their influence on the actions of nuts, when it comes to incendiary, inflammatory, baiting, bullying, divisive, violence-inspiring comments, she needs to read what.....the current president of the United States says.

[JohnnyReb]

You know I don't listen to radio or watch television; all that I get is via text.

I fail to understand how a "right wing" radio host can inspire left wing lunatics to go out and hurt other people.

I suppose when one looks at text of comments, rather than hearing them, one gets a different "read" off of them.

If nadin wants to take radio (and television) "shock jocks" seriously, and their influence on the actions of nuts, when it comes to incendiary, inflammatory, baiting, bullying, divisive, violence-inspiring comments, she needs to read what.....the current president of the United States says.

"If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun."

I posted the below in another thread.........

Last night the wife was fussing ABC, CBS, NBC all were running a "Shooting Special" and she couldn't watch "Her Show". I was minding my own business and not paying much attention to the TV....then it happened...dude was describing the mental state of a person like this shooter and other shooters in his catergory. He said they think of themselves as having superior intelligence, better equipped than others blah-blah-blah and blame others for their problems/failures....WAIT A MINUTE   WAIT A MINUTE....He just described every DUmmie and the President too....I asked the wife exactly what the guy had said and she wasn't listening closely either but I thought how ironic that one of the MSM TV channels just described every left wing idiot, DUmmie, the prez and maybe even themselves and aired it.

[franksolich]

Welcome back Frank!  I missed you!

Hey, I don't mean to thread-jack, but this is as good a place as any--what's going on here?

There appears to be something new.

Once in a while a word in a comment--anyone's comment--is underlined, and if one punches it, one gets a link to something.

When and why did this happen?  Or am I the only one it's happening to?

[Big Dog]

Nads is screaming about background checks and the gun show loophole so I have a question for the good people here who I know will know the answer. It's my understanding that there are a couple of type of gun shows. The first type is like a flea market for firearms. People in the firearm business (licensed dealers) go there to sell and private individuals also go there to sell. The second type of gun show only allows people in the firearm business to sell. No private sellers are allowed. Regardless of the type of gun show a licensed dealer has to do a background check. A private individual, whether he is selling a gun at a show or his house, does not have to do a background check. Is this correct? If it is, wouldn't this mean that the so-called gun show loophole doesn't really exist?

Also, I assume for a background check to get a firearm you would have to prove who you are which would include providing picture ID. Is this correct? Haven't we learned that forcing someone to produce an ID is a suppression of that person's rights?

Finally, nads lunacy and delusion is making her one of the greatest DUers of all time.

Chuck,

Gun sales by a gun dealer (FFL holder) are subject to the NICS background check, unless the purchaser holds a concealed carry license issued by the state of residence. Gun sales by private citizens (from me to you, for example) are not subject to the NICS check.

Many private citizens sell their personal weapons at gun shows, which is the so-called "gun show loophole". The only way to "close the "loophole" is to outlaw private sales, which is the real goal of anti-gunners.

[Freeper]

Hey, I don't mean to thread-jack, but this is as good a place as any--what's going on here?

There appears to be something new.

Once in a while a word in a comment--anyone's comment--is underlined, and if one punches it, one gets a link to something.

When and why did this happen?  Or am I the only one it's happening to?

I think what you are seeing Frank is, sometimes when someone makes a comment they add a link to that comment which you can do in 2 ways, 1 the traditional link where the url shows up, or 2 you can make the link appear as a single word. Posters like Mosh Master D do that when they post a DUmp link.

[franksolich]

I think what you are seeing Frank is, sometimes when someone makes a comment they add a link to that comment which you can do in 2 ways, 1 the traditional link where the url shows up, or 2 you can make the link appear as a single word. Posters like Mosh Master D do that when they post a DUmp link.

Unfortunately no, sir, that's not what I'm seeing.

I'll find an example and screen-capture it, to show what I'm seeing.

I hope I'm not going nuts.

[ChuckJ]

Unfortunately no, sir, that's not what I'm seeing.

I'll find an example and screen-capture it, to show what I'm seeing.

I hope I'm not going nuts.

Look on the bright side, if you are going nuts you already have a mole at the nation's number one nuthouse.

[franksolich]

Look on the bright side, if you are going nuts you already have a mole at the nation's number one nuthouse.

Please notice "arrested" on the signature line above Skul's comment, and the word "printer" on thundley4's quote of something, and his comment.  If one clicks on the word, one gets a link.



Surely I'm not the only one who sees this.

[ChuckJ]

I see what you're talking about. The strange thing is that I'm using the Leviathan theme for the board on one browser and the default on the other and I'm not getting the link on either.

[franksolich]

I see what you're talking about. The strange thing is that I'm using the Leviathan theme for the board on one browser and the default on the other and I'm not getting the link on either.

Oh my God, I must be going nuts--or this computer is.

When I punch on the underlined word, I get a little square box that announces I can find out more by clicking on the link in the little square box.

[Big Dog]

Oh my God, I must be going nuts--or this computer is.

When I punch on the underlined word, I get a little square box that announces I can find out more by clicking on the link in the little square box.

Firefox here. Not getting the links.

[franksolich]

When I move the cursor over the underlined word "continue" for example, this is what I get:

[ChuckJ]

Oh my God, I must be going nuts--or this computer is.

When I punch on the underlined word, I get a little square box that announces I can find out more by clicking on the link in the little square box.

I notice that you're using Internet Explorer for a browser so I opened the site with that, and I'm still not getting it. I did used to be a member of a site a couple of years ago that did advertising like that. You didn't even have to click on the word. Just move your mouse over it and a pop-up would appear. Pissed me off.

I'm sure the computer savvy folks here can tell you what's going on.

[franksolich]

Firefox here. Not getting the links.

That's very odd.  Because firefox is exactly what I'm using.