= new reply since forum marked as read
The gungeon's version of IOKIYAR. Replace "repiglican" for the last "R" with Gun Religionist for the "GR".
> pro-liberty posters
Sounds like you're trying to co-opt the repigs' lying phrase "pro-life".
> Carrying a gun is a Liberty, someone who wants to take that away is anti liberty.
I wanna go 200 MPH on city streets. Someone who wants to take that away is anti liberty.
> The right to drive 200 MPH is also not a Constitutionally-enumerated right.
Neither is using the Internet.
> A person lawfully carrying a gun is statistically far, far safer than someone driving 200 MPH on city streets
Depends on the streets. They don't QUITE hit 200 MPH on some of the straights in the various Grand Prix races around the world, but it isn't for lack of trying.
And who cares anyway? Safety shouldn't determine what makes my freedom!!! If that was so, then the safest course of action would be to get rid of all guns.
You heard it here first, folks. A gun-relgionist is now advocating to have all your Preciouses taken away!
> Really? You really think that speech, particularly political speech, over the internet is not Constitutionally protected? Really?
Really? You think I can't come up with another easy rebuttal to your ridiculous Talking Point besides the Internet? Really?
> I assumed we were talking about firearms in public, not in special-use places.
I assumed we were talking about FREEDOM, which has no limitations set by you!
> Safety should not determine what makes freedom.
Exactly! That's why your post gives me carte blanche to dump heavy metal pollution into your back yard, since you're all for freedom!
> Or live in little padded cells with each of us having our own police officer watching over us.
Or have fields filled with Strawmen, all NRA-Approved of course.
Overall, I would rate your post at 5 machineguns out of 5 on the Ted Nugent "Empty Talking Points Filling Up A Post" scale.
> You said that the Internet is not protected speech.
Never said it. If you can find where I said that, I'll buy you a sandwich.
> No, we were talking about driving cars at 200 MPH, and then you stipulated race tracks.
No, I was talking about FREEDOM! And the only mention of race tracks was because you said it's unsafe to drive 200 MPH on city streets, and I pointed out that some cars do, indeed, reach that speed or close to it on city streets.
You gun-relgionists can't really keep threads straight, can you? Too much Precious-worship has clouded your thinking. Hint: you can use your computer mouse to look at sub-threads within one thread.
You're Welcome.
> No one is advocating for anarchy or some kind of libertarian wet dream with no government regulation.
Gun-religionists are. The most extreme of them want to have unlimited firepower available 24x7 with no checks of any kind, and the "less extreme" gun-nuts want just a little bit less anarchy.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to respond.
> Neither is your assertion (flawed as it is) that someone legally carrying a gun is injurious to your safety grounds to bar the exercise of that freedom.
Judging by all the massacres by "law-abiding" gun-religionists, you're going to have an uphill battle proving THAT False Equivalence.
Further, to make your ludicrous "point", you'll have to prove that an unarmed person is as dangerous as somebody walking around with guns and ammo.
I pity you guys, really I do. Too scared to go to the supermarket without a weapon on you. The world is a SCARY place!
Gun-religion is simultaneously very popular, but at the same time very persecuted.
Gun-relginoists are simultaneously very tough, but at the same time too scared to walk out the door un-strapped.
Liberals are simultaneously wimpy for not carrying a gun, but at the same time tough as nails for not needing a gun to conduct everyday life.
It seems the DU Gun Lobby has solved the riddle of Shroedinger's Cat!
...Is there a term for misspelling a non-word? Hypoginoistically speaking.
(No I don't mean Schrödinger, Schrödinger is a name.)
I still feel ignored by you gun-religonists, compared to your BFF DanTex!
...please note from yesterday: < http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=69515 >
You're not ignored. 
> That explains the behavior I suppose.
You got me all wrong. I comment on gungeon posts because I love reading the same NRA Talking Points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ....
...have a dog that carpet bombed the basement if it was left alone. We got a cage and that stopped. 
I would suggest a thicker skin. 
And I'm sure you did miss some, but who could possibly keep track of them all? 
Happy hour!
...there's never any gratitude for gratuitous personal attacks; the horror of it all! 
> you have NRA on the brain.
A barrage of NRA Talking Points (AKA Big Lies) slimed onto the DU servers by the gun-religionists, seeking to soften the Liberal position on gun control, will do that.
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Sep 6, 2012, 09:46 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
A blatant personal attack in the gungeon, and the jury let it slide! Gosh, it must be nice to be the host, so then I could just ban Missycim for hurting my feelings.
Whatever shall I do?
Sorry 
To be honest I am shocked myself, even mild criticism of an anti-gunner is usual grounds for a blocking.
Look at what slackmaster said to me in his post #17:
"Oh. That's just stupid."
Do you think I should alert on this personal insult like the gun-religionists do?
Naw, I got better things to do, and I have a thick skin to boot. Lots of "keep smoking that bong" type reply-posts from gun-relgionists will do that
> Pointing out that a post is stupid? Not a personal insult.
Sorry, I was using the gun-relgionists' meaning of "personal insult".
> And all because I pointed out that there is much less homicide in Western Europe where gun ownership is more heavily regulated.
At least you got that much. All I got was, among others, protests about my use of smillies, and pointing out that "your POST was stupid" is not a personal insult.
Delicate Flowers indeed.
> Do you have anything to suggest that the term "because" would be appropriate?
That, along with the rest of your post, is quite an erudite way to say "guns don't kill people, people kill people!"
Who said the NRA bots wouldn't figure out new ways to slip their Standard (AKA, long-debunked) Talking Points (AKA, Big Lies) into the discussion?
> that prior to "...during the course of committing another crime" one would choose that particular time to carry a gun?
Well, we know that gun-relgionists are too scared to walk in public without being strapped, and the most extreme of them take their Precious into the shower with them. So a lot of them will have their Security Blanket with them during all waking hours.
Naturally those "law-abiding" gun-nuts will shoot first, ask questions later, after their fear reaches a breaking point - which seems to happen often in the USA with its ultra-lax gun laws.
handling all your fear.
As for me, join me in celebrating the 19,000th day I've been able to fully function and walk around in public amongst other people without a gun. That's 19,000 days of "gut-wrenching" bravery!
...you might as well just make it part of your sig line. Might as well include "gun-religionists" in there as well. And if you care about other posters, perhaps a warning about how you have no interest in a serious discussion on issues, but instead would just rather be as insulting as possible to those who don't go in lock step with your beliefs. That would save both you and others a lot of trouble.
> Ya know, you use that same smiley so much you might as well just make it part of your sig line.
Always glad to note obsession with me by a gun-relgionist!
> That would save both you and others a lot of trouble
If your poor "delicate flower" (as Tom Tomorrow puts it) gun-religionist psyche is so upset with my posts, you can put me on ignore.
The ability to read through a variety of thread and pick up on a pattern of behavior is not a sign of obsession. However, always thinking people are obsessed with ones self, now that IS a sign of something.
> However, always thinking people are obsessed with ones self, now that IS a sign of something
If you've seen me mention "obsession" any time other than this one, let me know. That would tend to support your word "always", above. Otherwise, you might just get accused of throwing crap on the wall and seeing if it sticks.
"Always glad to note obsession with me by a gun-relgionist! " The clear implication here is that you seem to think this is a semi-regular occurrence. If I miss interpreted, then I apologize.
> The clear implication here is that you seem to think this is a semi-regular occurrence.
Not at all. I could easily be "always glad" to see something even if it was once a year. How about "I'm always glad to see Paris", after seeing it 2x in 20 years.
> If I miss interpreted, then I apologize.
Yeah, you "miss interpreted" (whatever that means). Thanks for the apology, and no charge for the grammar lesson.
But thanks for the grammar lesson nonetheless.
Stalkers with gunz on the brain. That would almost - almost - scare me enough to get something to defend myself with ....
... like an IQ of over 90.
(JUST KIDDING, gun-relgionists! Don't alert my post!)
> Being able to see something as an insult does not equate to one being actually upset by it.
That's very special. Thanks for clearing that up for all of us.
Tho I don't think anybody else seemed to need that cleared up for them.
>Are you afraid to walk the streets? Are you afraid to go to the grocery store?
If I was scared, I'd get a gun like all the scared gun-relgionists do so they can venture into the daylight. But I'm not.
...a fact finder finds facts that help him form an opinion.
A fault finder finds faults that help him defend his prejudices.
just sayin'
(uc) Thursday
...uncopyrighted
...What is the sound of one prejudicial fact ignorer clapping?
> Are you saying rape, murder and assault are acceptable?
I'm amazed that there is any straw left, what with the drought and everything.
> What is the solution?
You want "a general solution to crime" in one, or two, paragraphs?
Is that a question?
Finally someone said it.
(1) If they found cartridge cases of a particular caliber at the scene .i.e; 32ACP, .380ACP, 7.62×25mm Tokarev, 9mm, 9mm Markarov, .40 S&W or .45ACP, they almost certainly came from a semi-automatic pistol, or a sub-machine gun. Sub-machine guns fire pistol caliber ammunition not rifle caliber ammunition. Revolvers don't eject cartridges automatically, and revolvers that fire semiautomatic pistol ammunition are very rare.
(2) Because of the firing pin indentations on the primers in the empty cartridge cases.
Different brands and models of semi-automatic pistols create different striking patterns on the primers when each cartridge is fired. Many have a round firing pin with a rounded tip that creates a hemispherical dimple in the primer when the cartridge is fired.
Other pistols, like the Glock, use a striker instead of a firing pin. The Glock striker is rectangular in nature, and creates a rectangular mark. Once you have seen fired cases from a Glock they're instantly distinguishable from more conventional pistols. If the cartridge cases have that rectangular mark, then they came from Glock semi-automatic pistols.
See picture below. Case on the left is from a gun with a conventional firing pin. The case on the right came from a Glock. If the cases looked like the one on the right, they came from Glocks.
