|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2018 12:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:39 Sermokala wrote:
I remember people calling out LL pretty harshly for referring to Ukraine as the Ukraine due to its desoverignizeing aspect referring to it as the region instead of the country. I called it the Ukraine. The italics is a pretty important part of the presentation, don't go omitting it all of the sudden!
I appreciate the transparency and audacity of demanding to be called out for the all of your trolling. No half measures.
|
On February 23 2018 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:48 Introvert wrote:On February 23 2018 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered. To the contrary I think you could learn how to drop a topic sooner. Refusing to continue a conversation isn't a dodge and I'm not sure how many times I need links to whatever it was Plansix was apparently wrong about. That I would admit to in general, I would however disagree about that particular instance as it's about a much larger issue and the same kinda thing/larger issue looks to be happening on this very page. You use this more as a venting board than actually engaging in discussions about what it is you post though, so I wouldn't expect you to relate.
Besides yesterday do you have an example in mind? I know for instance when the immigration and shutdown debate was going on I was going back and forth quite a bit.
|
On February 23 2018 12:54 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:48 Introvert wrote:On February 23 2018 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered. To the contrary I think you could learn how to drop a topic sooner. Refusing to continue a conversation isn't a dodge and I'm not sure how many times I need links to whatever it was Plansix was apparently wrong about. That I would admit to in general, I would however disagree about that particular instance as it's about a much larger issue and the same kinda thing/larger issue looks to be happening on this very page. You use this more as a venting board than actually engaging in discussions about what it is you post though, so I wouldn't expect you to relate. Besides yesterday do you have an example in mind? I know for instance when the immigration and shutdown debate was going on I was going back and forth quite a bit.
I didn't mean it absolutely, just that it's a tendency. I don't really care enough now, nor was it my intention to indict you in attempting my own defense (initially)so you can have this one. If I want to dispute it, I'll bring the links, but not too many 
|
On February 23 2018 13:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:54 Introvert wrote:On February 23 2018 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:48 Introvert wrote:On February 23 2018 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the conservatives here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. I don't feel like I deserved a name drop in there. Considering the last few dozen pages, I can think of a few people who better exemplify that pattern. I only remember doing that one or two times (though I don't remember the topics) and I'd cop to em if anyone else remembered. To the contrary I think you could learn how to drop a topic sooner. Refusing to continue a conversation isn't a dodge and I'm not sure how many times I need links to whatever it was Plansix was apparently wrong about. That I would admit to in general, I would however disagree about that particular instance as it's about a much larger issue and the same kinda thing/larger issue looks to be happening on this very page. You use this more as a venting board than actually engaging in discussions about what it is you post though, so I wouldn't expect you to relate. Besides yesterday do you have an example in mind? I know for instance when the immigration and shutdown debate was going on I was going back and forth quite a bit. I didn't mean it absolutely, just that it's a tendency. I don't really care enough now, nor was it my intention to indict you in attempting my own defense (initially)so you can have this one. If I want to dispute it, I'll bring the links, but not too many
It's fine, I'm just curious cause people normally bitch about Danglars and xDaunt while leaving me out of it for whatever reason. Maybe it's just cause I interacted with Stratos a week or two ago. It's not important but I'd rather not be a bad poster, if there is actually an issue.
edit: for the record I do dispute that but that's fine.
|
Maybe you just don’t post often enough to make the list of bad people?
|
The thread is basically the resting place for the worst of our shot posting. And maybe some good discussions once and a while, between the dumpster fires.
|
On February 23 2018 13:07 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe you just don’t post often enough to make the list of bad people?
Maybe but I just made the list so I'm curious that maybe something has gone downhill. You are of course the other person who gets truckloads of hate but you post everywhere :p
|
On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the people here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you.
Let's consider this from my perspective for a moment. Why shouldn't I act with some arrogance or disdain when posters like you repeatedly launch completely ill-grounded attacks on my posts that betray astounding levels of ignorance? I will never fault people for not knowing certain things when engaging me in good faith. I'll even help educate those people (just look at my interchange with lymoon from earlier). What I will never have patience for are posts like yours where people think that they need to settle my hash without having slightest clue regarding what they're stepping into. The level of misplaced presumption from people like you never ceases to amaze me.
You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style.
For the sake of my sanity and for the good of the thread, I'm not interested in responding to uncivil shitposters. Unfortunately, farvacola's posting has degenerated to this level over the past year or two (at least as it pertains to his responses to me), which truly bothers me given that he is one of the thread's stalwarts and I considered us to be on friendly terms. But whatever. If he mellows out, then I'll be happy to engage him again. Other posters have gone on and off my shitlist before.
|
Dunno if somebody already posted this, but apparently there was an armed deputy sheriff, who was there as a resource officer, assigned to the high school who was on site. He showed up seconds after the firing started and sat outside while it happened (they have it on video, tho say they don't want to release it for obvious reasons). Guy had already quit before he could be suspended and fired.
No doubt it was a terrifying situation, but that's your fucking job. I'm not sure how he lives with himself going forward... it's only a matter of time before his face is plastered online. If I were him I'd fear for my safety, frankly. Some pissed off parents right now. Right or wrong, this guy is going to get blasted by all sides.
|
He quit and isn’t trying to justify his actions. I’m sure guilt will dominate the rest of his life. I hope he just stays anonymous.
But we have tapped into the other problem with the “good guy with a gun” argument for schools.
|
On February 23 2018 13:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 12:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 10:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 09:48 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 23 2018 08:47 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:34 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:23 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:16 Plansix wrote:On February 23 2018 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2018 08:08 Plansix wrote:
The best part about these arguments is that the lawyer never responds directly to the other lawyer. Which isn't that far from how trials go, TBH. I'm not really interested in responding to farvacola anymore. If the other liberal lawyer shows up (Igne), I'll be happy to talk with him. When debating in a public venue, the path of least resistance is the best way to convince tourneys audience of your argument’s merits, while avoiding the strongest counter arguments. A shrewd tactic. Don't be silly. I don't duck anyone on the basis of the strength of their arguments, and Igne is certainly a far more capable poster than farvacola. It's obvious that there are other considerations in play here. I’m not convinced. Inge is capable, but also indulges your habit of pontificating on the shortcomings of progressive legal theory. He is also more than willing to enter into the weeds of legal theory where even I am hard pressed to follow. Which is intellectually stimulating, but also assured that no one will notice when you are called out on a particularly churlish argument or dated legal theory. Favr is far less indulgent and has the duel goal of countering your legal assertions and knocking you off the marble pedestal you are fond of shouting at us from. The fact that you think that I'm pointing out a "shortcoming" of progressive legal theory is telling and shows that you don't even understand what I posted. All I did was state what it was categorically, which is about as judgmental as saying "the sky is blue." The fact that you are characterizing your statement as categorical and essentially implying that it is a mere unbiased observation speaks volumes. Your statement was dripping with conservative bias and it says a lot about your intellectual integrity that you would try to pass it off as anything other than a backhanded shot at progressive legal theory. I am not sure that it is wise to admit that I know more about the intellectual foundations of your political beliefs than you do. And if your reaction to my post is derived from some sense of shame, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate what you believe. I have no need to reevaluate that in this thread. There's a reason that I stopped sinking so much time into arguing with the people here. What I'm pointing out is your incredible arrogance and how it needs to be checked if you are to have any kind of intellectual discussion in good faith. You're not some kind of unbiased intellectual stalwart in this thread, despite the fact that you repeatedly try to place yourself on some kind of pedestal and look down upon the rest of us with your bloated vocabulary and haughty tone. You routinely duck and dodge out of conversations that aren't going your way, just like Danglars/LL/Introvert/GH/everyone else in the history of the internet. You're obviously intelligent and your career choice informs and strengthens your discussions in a number of ways, but it also inflates your ego to the point where it's often not even worth having a discussion with you. Let's consider this from my perspective for a moment. Why shouldn't I act with some arrogance or disdain when posters like you repeatedly launch completely ill-grounded attacks on my posts that betray astounding levels of ignorance? I will never fault people for not knowing certain things when engaging me in good faith. I'll even help educate those people (just look at my interchange with lymoon from earlier). What I will never have patience for are posts like yours where people think that they need to settle my hash without having slightest clue regarding what they're stepping into. The level of misplaced presumption from people like you never ceases to amaze me. Show nested quote +You writing off Farvacola's posts is a complete "shake-my-head" moment; it's a perfect embodiment of everything that is wrong with your posting style. For the sake of my sanity and for the good of the thread, I'm not interested in responding to uncivil shitposters. Unfortunately, farvacola's posting has degenerated to this level over the past year or two (at least as it pertains to his responses to me), which truly bothers me given that he is one of the thread's stalwarts and I considered us to be on friendly terms. But whatever. If he mellows out, then I'll be happy to engage him again. Other posters have gone on and off my shitlist before.
You shouldn't act with arrogance or disdain because you believe some absolutely wacky things that a minute or searching can prove to be factually false, but you still believe them. At that point it doesn't matter if you're the world champion of debate or the president of the US, you are simply unrespectable and not an intellectual.
|
On February 23 2018 13:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2018 13:07 LegalLord wrote:
Maybe you just don’t post often enough to make the list of bad people? Maybe but I just made the list so I'm curious that maybe something has gone downhill. You are of course the other person who gets truckloads of hate but you post everywhere :p
I mean I certainly didn’t notice. Maybe you said something overly nice about Trump or Putin or something and ruffled Stratos_Spear’s feathers. That’s generally the consensus for how you make those lists of bad posters.
|
Teenagers remain the most savage of age groups.
|
On February 23 2018 13:30 On_Slaught wrote:
Dunno if somebody already posted this, but apparently there was an armed deputy sheriff, who was there as a resource officer, assigned to the high school who was on site. He showed up seconds after the firing started and sat outside while it happened (they have it on video, tho say they don't want to release it for obvious reasons). Guy had already quit before he could be suspended and fired.
No doubt it was a terrifying situation, but that's your fucking job. I'm not sure how he lives with himself going forward... it's only a matter of time before his face is plastered online. If I were him I'd fear for my safety, frankly. Some pissed off parents right now. Right or wrong, this guy is going to get blasted by all sides.
I honestly do not blame him. Everyone has the fantasy of being a hero, but when the situation arises not many of us will be.
And yes, as a deputy sheriff it's his "job" to handle dangerous and violent people at times, but it's a bit extreme to stretch that to facing off against a better armed killer. Firefighters have to make the same call, when a situation is too dangerous even when lives are at stake.
The fact that he could have saved children's lives is going to haunt him, but from an outside perspective it was always "could" no matter what he did.
|
Sure, but he wasnt some off duty officer passing by; he was literally assigned to that location to protect it. To call this a derelection of duty would be the understatement of the decade.
Also, his name has already been released. Just a matter of time until his face/location are found out.
|
On February 23 2018 14:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, but he wasnt some off duty officer passing by; he was literally assigned to that location to protect it. To call this a derelection of duty would be the understatement of the decade.
Also, his name has already been released. Just a matter of time until his face/location are found out.
Probably more likely to take his own life than be killed really though.
|
On February 23 2018 14:12 On_Slaught wrote:
Sure, but he wasnt some off duty officer passing by; he was literally assigned to that location to protect it. To call this a derelection of duty would be the understatement of the decade.
Also, his name has already been released. Just a matter of time until his face/location are found out.
I think everyone would agree that there are limits to what degree of "protection" it would be one officer's duty to provide. I doubt many would blame him if it was an armoured tank that was rolled through the school. People are going to draw the line in different places, but I'd personally say that taking on a better armed individual alone would be going above and beyond duty.
I'm willing to celebrate heroes, I just won't blame people who can't be.
|
The guy was a 30 year veteran so he wasn't lacking experience, but the kind of training you would need to properly respond to a situation like that is not something you would find in regular law enforcement. Even SWAT always works in teams, they don't expect you to solo infiltrate buildings for a 1 on 1 gunfight to the death. I don't condone his actions in the slightest, but I also am not particularly surprised that he froze when confronted with such a terrifying situation that he was in all likelihood poorly prepared for.
|
His actions, or lack thereof, are certainly understandable. This is one of those situations where it's impossible to know how you would react, and odds are you'd have been just as useless. And you can be sure he feels like shit about it. A little empathy goes a long way. It's not his job to fix the systemic gun violence we're facing right now.
The problem comes when we're facing these massive school shootings one after another, and these NRA-type gun activists think it's the brightest idea in the world to hand a gun to every teacher, ignoring all the pitfalls of doing something like that, ignoring the fact that the money for it has to come from somewhere, and doubly ignoring that none of the teachers you're giving a gun to are trained policemen with 30 years experience. Here you had someone who was, but when faced with a situation where someone had an AR-15 in the next room, even he couldn't bring himself to act.
This is it, this was the test of your insane hypothesis, pro-gun people, this was your good guy with a gun. And because the outcome didn't go as foretold in the prophecy of the 2nd Amendment, these fuckers are now calling this man a coward and a bad guy. Not a single one of them have an ounce of empathy or compassion, or experience dealing with real life-threatening scenarios, and the terror that goes in hand with it. But then I guess that comes with the territory when you care more about guns than the lives they take. This should put the argument to bed, but it won't. People are too set in their ways to let a fact throw a wrench in things.
|
That is one thing I chalk up to American Exceptionalism, the fact that a lot of civilians seem to think they will be useful in these types of situations when they are extreme situations that even professionals screw up on a fair amount of occasions. The NRA just capitalized on this and pushed the idea. Most gun owners I know really don't agree with the a lot of what the NRA says politically but just use them as the effective tool they are from not having their gun rights infringed upon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
