Posts by ThotuWasAToad

    And they can bomb Iran into a sea of glass for all I care.


    My point is that there's no reason in the world why we need to be involved. Let those shithole countries fight their own wars.

    We're just gonna have to disagres on that last point laz.


    But as for the 1994 assault weapons 'ban', you know as well as I do that it was purely symbolic. SK's, AK's, AR's, and shit like that were still readily available and perfectly legal.


    But you know that. You're just lying about it.


    So tell me Lazhole... why don't we see more shooters with full auto weapons? Or are you even capable of a rational discussion on this issue?

    If by the magic of baby Jeezus that was to happen. Then yes the numbers probably would probably reduce similarly.


    But the numbers of other weapons used would go up.


    There, you own me a straight answer sometime. Mark it down...

    Thanks RW. I wasn't sure if you had it in you :blueflower


    Now all that said, I do think it's emotionally-driven bullshit that we spend so goddamn much media coverage, hand-wringing, and political capital on this particular type of murder that makes up less than 1% of all murders.


    But you know how we human apes are. We're driven by whateverthefuck hits us in the feels. Well, some folks more than others.


    You were saying?


    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/0…anker-gbr-intl/index.html



    Live TV 

    Gibraltar defies US and releases seized Iranian tanker Grace 1

    By Sara Mazloumsaki and Lauren Said-Moorhouse and Vasco Cotovio, CNN


    Updated 12:47 PM EDT, Thu August 15, 2019

    article video

    (CNN)A seized oil tanker at the center of a standoff between the UK and Iran is free to set sail, despite eleventh-hour efforts by the United States to halt the move to release it.

    The Supreme Court in the British territory of Gibraltar approved the release of the Grace 1, which was seized off the country's coast by authorities last month, after officials said they no longer wished to detain it.

    Gibraltar said it had received assurances from Iran and the owners of the oil that, were the tanker to be released, its cargo would not be taken to Syria, which would be in breach of European Union sanctions.

    The ship was seized six weeks ago as it passed through Gibraltar's territorial waters. Two weeks later, Iran seized a British ship in the Gulf, in what was widely regarded as a tit-for-tat operation.

    As tensions increased, the two sides conducted delicate negotiations in London. "Gibraltar has taken a very careful approach to the detention of Grace 1," Gibraltar's Chief Minister Fabian Picardo told CNN "We only acted in July when we had evidence that the cargo aboard the vessel was going to Syria."

    "What we found aboard the vessel has confirmed the view that we took was the correct view. We have only released the vessel... when we have been convinced that the vessel is not now going to Syria," he added.

    A last-minute intervention by the US threatened to scupper the deal to release the Grace 1. In a court hearing Thursday morning, instead of announcing the release of the tanker, Gibraltar attorney general Joseph Triay said the US Department of Justice had applied to extend its seizure. The basis of Washington's legal efforts was unclear Thursday. The State Department referred CNN to the Department of Justice, which declined to comment.

    The court adjourned until later Thursday afternoon, when the release of the Grace 1 was confirmed.

    Picardo told CNN that Gibraltar was still looking at the request from the US and "making an independent assessment" of it. That review had not been completed ahead of Thursday's court hearings "but could of course come at any time before the vessel sails." Picardo declined to elaborate on the basis of the US request to extend the seizure of the vessel.

    A stern view of the Grace 1 super tanker in the British territory of Gibraltar on Thursday.A stern view of the Grace 1 super tanker in the British territory of Gibraltar on Thursday.

    Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif denounced the US move as a "piracy attempt," in a post on Twitter.

    Tehran's ambassador to the UK, Hamid Baeidinejad, said the Grace 1 would leave Gibraltar soon. "The US in a last minute attempt made a futile effort to block the release of the oil tanker and were faced with humiliating defeat. With recent attempts, all necessary preparations and technical issues to release the tanker to an open sea have been arranged and the ship will soon leave Gibraltar," he wrote on Twitter, in Farsi.

    British Royal Marines and Gibraltar port and law enforcement agencies stormed the ship on July 4. It was accused of carrying oil destined for Syria, which would have been in violation of EU sanctions.

    Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said at the time that the United States had asked the UK to intercept the ship. Gibraltar is a British overseas territory on the edge of southern Spain.

    Iran has criticized the seizure as "illegal" and condemned the operation as "piracy."

    Less than two weeks later, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) captured the British-flagged Stena Impero in the Strait of Hormuz and accused it of "violating international regulations."

    A spokesperson for the Stena Impero's owners said that the Grace 1 "is an entirely separate situation from our perspective" but its release "could be seen as a positive step" for the Stena Impero.

    Crew members stand on the Grace 1 supertanker earlier on Thursday.

    Prior to the seizures, tensions in the Persian Gulf had been steadily escalating after Iran confirmed it would stop complying with several parts of the 2015 nuclear deal, which the Trump administration withdrew from last year.

    CNN's Artemis Moshtaghian, Barbara Wojazer, David Shortell, Kylie Atwood, Bianca Britton and Ivana Kottasova contributed to this report.
    View on CNN


    © 2019 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | AdChoices

    I thought you would.


    But the answer is probably not. Maybe if it was instituted long before there was a gun in most homes maybe. But then remember that cities that have the strictest gun laws have the most gun deaths. Now most are not considered "mass" shootings but those numbers far outpace "mass" shootings.

    Mass shooting are sensationalized so that the left can push their gun agenda. Why is it that 5, 10, 20 shooting deaths at once are spotlighted of 2-3,000 death a year in Shitcongo?

    You're still not answering the question. It's interesting to zee how powerful your indoctrination here is.


    You're saying that semi-auto guns can't be effectively restricted... which is not a point that I'm disputing.


    I'm asking *if* semi-auto assault rifles were (magically?) restricted similarly to how we restrict full-auto assault rifles... *then* would we see their use in mass shootings and other crimes be reduced similarly to what we've seen with full auto weapons.


    My question isn't hard to understand. Why can't you answer it? :biggrin

    I'm going to answer it in the same exact way you would if you were on this side of the question.


    It's a moot point because it will never happen. And even in the worst scenario were .gov decides to try to go door to door it would probably set off civil war 2.


    Now say what I posted about this morning in the random thread ends up being true. That person scares the shit out of me more than an idiot with a gun. 5-6 ied's (military grade) in the hands of someone who has possibly had training, that's bad news. Possible big body count, way more than a shooter.

    That's a good answer. I like it.


    But humor me here... are you capable of giving a straight answer to my question? Or does it hurt your little teabilly soul to give a truthful and straightforward answer?

    Not really. The Laws that outlawed them came from the Gangster era . Tommy Guns in Movies. Back in the 30s one could purchase anything one wanted, there were no mass murders except between criminals. There has never been a "Mass Shooting"that killed innocents and used fully Auto weapons that I am aware of. (Bump Stocks don't count) Just another "Feel Good" Law enacted by Politicos who wanted to show how much they were doing.

    That's stupid.


    You just said yourself that full auto weapons aren't being used... because they're not widely available due to byzantine government regulations. AKA 'gun control'.


    The era in which said laws were passed and the reasons for those laws at the time have no bearing on these FACTS.


    But you do bring up an interesting and corroborating point: we don't see many gang shootings these days involving full auto weapons. Isn't this a case of gun control working *precisely* as intended?

    A certain amount of socialism has been forced upon us. Just because we are forced to partake does not mean we should reject receiving those goods that we paid for over the decades. Nor does it mean we must like it.

    You're voluntarily taking money that you damn well know is being taken from others under threat of force. You don't have to cash those checks. You *choose* to cash them. Because you want your government freebies.


    And yet you self-loathing socialists claim to hate soshalism.


    You're.


    Full.


    Of.


    Shit.

    You're one to talk about a 'shred of honesty'. You know damn well that the 1994 ban wasn't a 'ban' in any real sense. Numerous work-arounds. Hell I bought my Chicom SKS and some 30 round clips during the ban. All perfectly legal, which you damn well know.


    Now, I'm not saying I want an assault weapons ban. I'm ambivalent about that. I'm asking a pretty narrow question:


    *IF* ownership of semi-auto guns with high capacity magazines was restricted similarly to how full auto weapons are restricted, *then* would that not similarly reduce their use in mass shootings and other crimes?


    Are you capable of answering that narrow question? Or can you just not help muddying the waters?

    These shooters aren't the sharpest tacks around. They're relatively rare... a tiny tiny fraction of the murders in this country. It requires a special confluence of crazy, misanthropy, and basic technical ability... many people have one or two of these. Few have all three.


    Now, I'll readily agree that since there are millions upon millions of semi-automatic assault rifles out there, it'd be a herculean task to control those. It's be a long time befor such a.law would be effective.


    But once fully implemented... why would it be any different than laws restricting full auto weapons?