Decoy73

56 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The “garbage site” literally puts it in their article.   We’re you against the site doing that? 
 

SB 553, authored by Democrat Senator David Cortese (San Jose), requires employers to maintain violent incident logs, provide active shooter and shoplifter training, and to discard policies requiring workers to confront suspected active shoplifter 

 

 

HOWEVER…..if one would keep reading (which you didn’t and seem to be pro-shoplifting) one would see the following….

 

According to the California Realtors Association (CRA), the bill will apply to all industries - not just retail, if passed. CRA president and CEO Rachel Michelin told Fox2/KTVU that the bill "goes way too far."

"I think it will open the doors even wider for people to come in and steal from our stores," she said. 

According to the CRA, most retailers already prohibit regular employees from approaching someone who is shoplifting. These situations are handled by employees specially trained in theft prevention instead.

If employees trained in theft deterrence are not allowed to do their job per the bill, “What does that mean? We are opening up the door to allow people to walk into stores, steal, and walk out,” Michelin added.
 

 

The first paragraph you conveniently left out. 
 

Shoplifting in California may get a lot easier, after the state Senate passed a controversial bill on May 31 that would make it illegal for store employees to confront thieves.

simply not true.  It’s misleading garbage and you know it.  And don’t be a d!(k and accuse me of being pro shoplifting.  I’m anti bulls#!t.  Which means I’m anti-posts like this. 

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

of course they are.   

I took the bait and researched California SB553.  It would prohibit employers from requiring employees to confront shoplifters.  Are you against that?  Because this garbage site, zerohedge.com completely and intentionally misrepresents it stating that the bill makes it illegal to confront shoplifters.  I recommend avoiding posting crap like this and your posts could get more respect.

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It did 

He’s always been this way.  Many just couldn’t or wouldn’t see it.  

I get the feeling that the government supports (maybe unofficially) this whistleblower coming out with this.  I’m not sure why.  Just a hunch.  

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Donald J. Trump is the epitome of an American Patriot - exemplified by his combat service in Vietnam, giving him Conservative credentials. This is supplemented by his well established work with Christian communities, extensive work with Conservative causes and his steadfast belief in his America First policies.

 

He's not just some grifter who was able to take over the Republican Party by appealing to conservatives paranoia and conspiratorial nature. I mean, so you think we'd just ignore decades of evidence to vote for any idiot with a shiny 'R' next to his name? 

I agree 100%.  Well stated. 

16 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

who would self sacrifice anything for the greater good. Now look what the democrats did to him  

You can’t be serious.  

45 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Interesting. I haven't seen anything suggesting this guy is a wingnut. Of course, he hasn't provided any details or proof, either.

 

Presuming, arguendo, that he's correct, that raises a couple of questions:

 

When did we start collecting this stuff? - It'd be easier to hide this kind of thing in more recent history, as technology would tend to blend in a bit. During the era of stagecoaches and steam trains... not so much. If the collection of these artefacts was recent, why? Did they only just start coming here and crashing here? Why are they crashing? Are we shooting them down or are they capable of interstellar travel, but bad at flying in Earth's atmosphere?

 

What branch of the government was involved in hiding it, and for how long? - The intelligence arms of the US Government haven't existed as they do today for eight decades. We only had a CIA-like agency since the WWII era. How would alien craft collection and cover-up look in a pre-WWII era? And if they weren't traveling here prior to that, why? And what made them come after that (the advent of the nuclear era?)

 

 

 

 

It’s weird.  20-30 years ago people would be freaking out about this revelation.  Now it’s almost like, hmm yeah not really too surprising.   Then again the skeptic in me thinks all this UFO stuff over the years since probably the Roswell Incident, could just be some ongoing misinformation program by the government in order to keep our enemies thinking we are reverse engineering some crazy stuff.  I would think some pictures or physical evidence would have leaked out by now.  I don’t know what to believe.  It sure is interesting, though.  

2 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Why do they shoot up the workplace ever? Why do people commit murders?

 

Is it difficult to comprehend walking up and not wanting to harm people that day, everyday?  

Why do they pick the AR?

9 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

What % of these private citizens are the problem with "assault weapons?"

 

Why do more people die from pistols than ARs?  

 

Why do more people die is places where leftist policy reigns as inherent?  

There you go again dodging a simple question.  The truth is inconvenient, isn’t it? 
 

16 minutes ago, DefenderAO said:

 

The thread often focuses on ending gun violence, right?  Saving lives seems to come up often.  Is pointing out where, and with what tool, people are being harmed with out-of-bounds?

 

If so, the mental and moral brokenness of the shooter's is always relevant.

I'd comfortably wager the majority of the "regular" posters of this thread are here because of gun violence as it relates to mass shootings.  Not to minimize the terrible problem of other types of gun violence, but that's not the focus of the thread.  Pointing out these other types is fine, but not when doing so to dodge direct questions about assault weapons in the hands of private citizens.

Of course the brokenness of shooter is relevant, but so is tool of choice for the deed.  Why do they grab the AR instead of the S&W 6 shot revolver when they want to shoot up a school or a workplace?  Are you willing to answer that question?

5 hours ago, DefenderAO said:

Why all the clamoring about ARs when pistols are FAR more prevalent in shootings?  

 

Many are at least forthright and want all guns banned.  

 

And it seems murder will always continue.  Evil is very real.

Despite the generality of the name, this thread is about mass shootings.  They are what provoke all the postings.  Not gun violence in general.  If you want to discuss guns as they relate to gang violence, suicides, robberies, and other forms of gun evil, etc. that needs its own thread.  Or maybe a thread for each one would be better.  No gun problem will ever be solved by grouping all forms of gun violence together.  Back to your question, though.  Get rid of the AR's and the high capacity magazines and mass shooting deaths will go down.  Oh sure, assailants can still use other guns and there will still be shootings and deaths, but anyone with just a decent understanding of ballistics knows that AR's and other high capacity rifle/pistol firearms are far and away the most deadly if were talking about taking as many lives as possible, which sadly, appears to be the goal of these deranged murderers.  I'm pretty certain you know all of this, but chose to continually pivot to gun violence in general terms to further your defense of the AR-15.  

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

There have been rumblings that this staff really likes sprinters as defensive backs and, if Benning lacks top end speed, they might not be as interested.

That would be a big mistake.  Hopefully this isn't the case.

https://omaha.com/news/national/why-so-many-mass-killings-families-experts-seek-answers/article_cb733576-a3f6-5746-9be4-f749b40a8d94.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
 

Why is a simple question so difficult to answer?  
 

Why is the United States the only country that a broken individual can walk into a gun store and walk out the same day with a high capacity weapon designed for killing people efficiently?  And why when this person does just that, often soon thereafter and to often innocent people and in mass quantities,  do seemingly reasonable people not realize how we can fairly easily fix this problem or at least reduce its occurrence in the short term while we tackle bigger picture items involving human psychological health that are important but may take years to resolve?  
 

45 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Yep….we need more people with more guns. 
 

 

I’ll bet he wasn’t even “mentally ill”…..until he was.  

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Except with the Presidential election, it’s a series of 50 individual elections.  Meaning R’s in CA have no shot at their candidate winning and D’s in ruby red states have no shot at their candidate winning that state.   That’s what I mean when I ask are you saying they shouldn’t vote because their vote will not alter an outcome?  

I still think people should vote regardless if nothing else, to show the opposing party they’re not giving up.  Plus I think more states should split up their electoral districts like Nebraska.  

52 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

There are many instances where the R candidate is a sure loser to the D candidate or vice versa.   Voting for those candidates is no different than writing in a candidate.  So should people just not vote for the R or D candidate if they are sure losers? 

I was referring to the presidential election.   I don’t recall true sure losers in recent history.   It usually ends up being pretty close.  The polling prognosticators incorrectly predicted Trump as a sure loser in 2020 and that ended up being a close race.  The D’s have a numbers advantage and the R’s have an electoral advantage.  For the foreseeable future I expect close races.  So yes, much different than writing in a candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning.  

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Between your last two posts, you are basically saying get out to vote, but only vote for the person who’s gonna win otherwise why vote?  

If you can accurately predict the future, then sure. Why not?  But, no that’s not what I said at all.  I only said “why vote” if you’re going to just write in a non- viable candidate.  It’s not hard to understand.  The R or the D is going to win.   Vote for the one you either like the most or dislike the least.  If you refuse to vote for candidate A theN vote for candidate B.  

When it comes to "writing in" fruitless candidates, IMO it's only done to make oneself feel better.  And if that's all that matters to you the voter, then go for it.  It's a free country.  But, it does nothing to help anything or anyone else, and IMO the practice is akin to doing nothing at all.  There's no shame in voting for the "lesser of two evils."  These are all just my opinions and others may differ.  I would like to hear other points of view.  In my younger years I often shunned voting with the attitude of my vote really not mattering in the grand scheme. I now regret that stance and think it is important to get out and vote.  If nothing else, to set a good example for others (especially younger generations).

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Why would you bring me into this?  I’ve already stated ( multiple times) I won’t be voting for Trump this cycle even if he’s the nominee.  Won’t vote Biden either.  

Do you feel that voting for a candidate perpetually ties the voter to all the candidates decisions (assuming they win)?

1 hour ago, Crusader Husker said:

The fear has always been that people don't want to vote third party because it would elect the candidate from the party they hate the most.

 

I voted third party in 2020.  It was the greatest feeling ever.  I didn't vote for the lesser of 2 evil's.  

 

Look, unless these 2 day before election day, we are stuck with them.  One is insane and evil.  The other seems to have some mental health issues.

 

I will vote for someone else again in 2024.

Lots of people do this, but unless this third candidate is viable, which in 2024 they will not be, how is this not a self fulfilling exercise in futility?

Why even vote?

52 minutes ago, Decked said:

Some of you guys are crazy. Looked at the Wisconsin one as well and they threw pick galore. IT WAS THE FIRST SPRING! Good god! A lot of those fellas will get processed out and new blood in. It will be fine.

 

however portal shopping at OT should be of the highest priorities this off-season. 

Agree.  Some people may need to temper their lofty expectations a bit for this season.  Maybe we'll get pleasantly surprised.  Some key dudes didn't even play yesterday and fumbles can get cleaned up.  I am optimistic about DC White and his defense for the future.  CT vs Sims QB comp in the fall should be good. Haarberg needs to switch to WR or hit the portal.   1000% on the OT portal shopping.

TFG is in for a very unpleasant 2-3 years.  The GA case and the DOJ special prosecutors potential (and I'd say likely) case laid out against him will likely dwarf Bragg's NY charges I have a feeling.  I've heard it may be up to a year before the NY trial even gets started so these two (assuming they will result in Trump indictments) will still likely be even further out.  When he loses the next election, either in the Republican primary (unlikely) or the 2024 general (very likely) he should pretty much be screwed as he'll have limited options to shield himself.

The Minnesota game just won’t die.   

26 minutes ago, Toe said:

Meanwhile in Minneapolis...

 

Sounds like PJ may have snatched the opportunity to avoid a low fan turnout embarrassment.