Yeah, I think he's pretty awesome, too. :)

In future, I trust you will try to be nicer to Fil.

Nicer to Fil!? Heh. Fil is awesome; he can handle the truth. :)

I still like the muppets' version better

That one is awesome too. :)

Naw, dark haired cat was clearly providing the bottom (the Bass, er, voice) and did fine.

My point was that it was a spoof of Queen's iconic BoRap video and the dark-haired cat should have been the lead singer who occupied the bottom slot... just switch those two cats around and it would have been dead-on accurate. Otherwise, it was perfect. I loved it.

Full disclosure: Elizabeth Miller was the first to show me this, but since she did, I've also had a load of others also send it, knowing all to well that I would love it, and I watch it every single time and laugh my ass off. But I can't stop wanting to "transpose" those two cats!

I really dug the harmonies myself, but Simon and Garfunkel have always been my Number One, so it figures.

I've got something for you, dearest:

https://twitter.com/Jess_deladono/status/1378503025506009091/photo/1

Not sure how that posted before I finished the response so I'm cleaning it up below.
__________________________

But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.

As if you actually could post anything to prove that Madison and those who wrote the 2nd Amendment could envision "today's weapons" circa 2022! "Today's weapons" covers a lot of territory, you know. Talk about a bullshit claim! As if that stupid Pucle gun patent from 1718 could somehow prove what Madison et alia knew. It's laughable on its face.

Also, Chris did NOT make that claim anywhere above (or below or inside) the comments section. Also, he prefaced his opinions regarding gun safety/gun control under the heading: "How Democrats should talk about gun safety laws which is (obviously) under the "Friday Talking Points" heading.

I will assume you understand what "Friday" means, and I will make myself available to explain other simple concepts like "Talking Points" to people of your ilk who are obviously confused about simple English words.

The craziest part that defies the existence of common sense being in any way involved in your "thinking" is your repeated ridiculous assertions that the patent you posted for the failed Puckle gun (which you posted a link at [86] for Russ) is proof that automatic weapons existed! It isn't automatic and isn't a rifle. It's a dang rotating flintlock that had to be operated manually!

The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..

That freaking rotating flintlock failed disaster is no more proof of "today's weapons" than Da Vinci's drawings of a flying machine are proof of today's B-2 Spirit.

Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..

The idea that words that are literally written into the Second Amendment had anything to do with regulations at the time of the Second Amendment is ludicrous!? Are you seriously this damn clueless?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

~ Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

*
Your ignorance is on full display and archived.

You making the asinine claim that the words that are literally included in the Second Amendment had nothing to do with laws at the time of the Second Amendment is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on this forum! You need your nose rubbed in this!

But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D

And you don't know what a staw man argument is! It's like you're quite content to keep displaying your ignorance with every response.

So, to recap:

(1) A talking point is a "talking point."

(2) It's effing moronic to claim that "well regulated" had nothing to do with laws at the time of the Second Amendment when the damn words are literally included in the Second Amendment!

What an awesome response!!! Thank you SOOOO much for sharing it..

You're wasting your time and mine with this prattling repetitive obsequious drivel.

That was a helluva rebuttal to an argument that NO ONE is making.. But you gave it your all.. So awesome!! :D

If you're under the mistaken impression that that response was my "all," then you really haven't got a clue about either the history of firearms and damn sure have proven you'll just make up bullshit about others. In fact, you seem totally bereft of any gray matter if you can't recognize a rebuttal to your asinine claim, and I quote: "And you could own a CANNON at the time as well.." That's a statement that is directly refuted by Justice Scalia in Heller. If the relevance to your ridiculous claim managed to sail right over your head, I would wager it surprises no one on this forum.

"So knarly"
-Seaplane McDonough, JUMANJI WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

Gnarly isn't exactly spelled with a "k," but you gave it your all and sucked at simple English words. Heh. :D

But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.

As if you actually could post anything to prove that Madison and those who wrote the 2nd Amendment could envision "today's weapons" circa 2022! Talk about a bullshit claimAs if that stupid Pucle gun patent from 1718 could somehow prove that!could somehow provewas some kind of et alia what weapons Madison et alia had a clue about circa the 1790s!

Chris did NOT make that claim anywhere above (or below or inside) the comments section. Also, he prefaced his opinions regarding gun safety/gun control under the heading: "How Democrats should talk about gun safety laws which is (obviously) under the "Friday Talking Points" heading.

I will assume you understand what "Friday" means, and I will make myself available to explain other simple concepts like "Talking Points" to people of your ilk who are obviously confused about simple English words.

The craziest part that defies the existence of common sense being in any way involved in your "thinking" is your repeated ridiculous assertions that the patent you posted for the Puckle gun (which you posted a link at [86] for Russ as if it constitutes proof that automatic weapons existed the Framers of the Constitution from 230 years ago were were and keep insisting is some kind of proof that the authors of the Second Amendment were somdid have a clue about today's weapons? You've lost your mind if you believe that the patent of the NOT automatic NOT a rifle is proof nd you're basing it on that glorified They had no clue whatsoever about today's weapons, but you're certifiably stone cold crazy if you're

The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..

Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..

But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D

Thanx for your response..

And again.. Welcome back!! :D

In future, I trust you will try to be nicer to Fil.

:-)

Somebody has to inform the seriously misinformed, wouldn't you say? I cannot fathom why anyone would post a link to a patent for the Puckle gun (with the date 1718 clearly written on its face) and then make the laughable claim that it was, and I quote: "An automatic rifle at the time of the US Constitution."

In point of fact:

(1) It wasn't automatic.

(2) It wasn't a rifle.

(3) The patent obviously predated the ratification of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the Second Amendment to the Constitution by near three quarters of a century and the not automatic not rifle primarily existed only on paper and a few prototypes.

It's not as if it didn't have a shit-ton of decades to get distributed. It isn't remotely as it's been described repeatedly by Michale... no surprise there.

I didn't forget about your question regarding the Cuellar and Cisneros race. Unfortunately, I phoned my (Republican) friend to pick his brain, and he said he didn't have a clue which way that would go but was (obviously) hoping for a Cisneros victory because (he thought) she'd be easier for Republicans to defeat.

The latest count I saw was only 177 votes difference with Cuellar leading and counting (hopefully) to resume after the holiday. A real nail-biter in TX-28. :)

Naw, dark haired cat was clearly providing the bottom (the Bass, er, voice) and did fine.

I really dug the harmonies myself, but Simon and Garfunkel have always been my Number One, so it figures.

Yessiree, we have a KEEPER!

Reminds me of my rollercoaster of emotions when I got my very first dog, after years of being abused by cats. Never never never going back!

Well, Freddie "could play guitar". Not a focus of Fil's analysis, at all. So ... nit-picky analysis on your part.

You must have missed (or forgot) the part where Fil stops the recording to focus on the fact that Freddie's guitar was (according to Fil) at a lower limit and Fil assumes it's a volume issue and then further assumes/guesses that Freddie turns around in order to cue Roger and the other band members he's playing the guitar. I just disagree with Fil here since Queen had been playing that song live in concert for about 5-going-on-6 years by the time of Live Aid in 1985 and could do that thing in their sleep. I will say that if Fil is correct and Freddie turning around had anything whatsoever to do with a cue, it was likely Freddie needing a tempo cue from Roger and not other members needing a cue from Freddie. Freddie's part is a few chords and all the usual frenetic downstroking. But it works great for that song.

Yeah? Well, Fil's focus is on Queen, not the background, which is where the piano player was. More nit-picking!

You must have missed the part where Fil specifically mentions there was a piano player offstage and how great that it was for Queen to have "somebody" playing offstage. Fil was just wholly incorrect that Spike Edney was offstage. You can see Spike at 32:22 of the link you actually posted. If Fil is going to purport to give expert commentary regarding Queen and what make them so great, it would behoove him to learn who Spike Edney is because Spike is freaking awesome:

Freddie and Spike Edney

Freddie would stop playing guitar altogether on stage and go over to Spike and blindfold him and just let the guitar hang around his neck doing absolutely nothing. However did those guys play without Freddie's guitar cues? Easily and often.

Actually, Fil spent a lot of time on this. Because, it was kinda the whole point of this particular video analysis. Are you sure you watched it? ;)

Heh. Yes, Spunky, I'm quite sure I watched it. Say that I did want to prove to you that I took it seriously and did watch it, how exactly would I go about proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt? I could definitely blow smoke up your ass and tell you how great Fil did and not even watch the dang video at all... or I could give you my honest assessment and stick it to Fil when he deserved it. Mind you, I went easy on Fil too, you know. ;)

So, yes, I'm absolutely sure he missed Roger's drum cue because he said not even a single syllable word about it. An right honorable and thoroughly enjoyable video on the whole of it, though, I would definitely say.

Now, as for Bohemian Catsody, I have laughed my ass off about that thing for quite a while now. I still can't watch it without laughing... the wet kind of laughter where multiple senses are involved. I loved it; thank you for posting it. Cat videos get me every time.

Although, I will say, I can't for the life of me figure out why two of the cats seemed placed incorrectly. I just kept wanting to have the dark-haired cat at the top of the screen to trade places with the brown-haired cat... The other two cats were obviously cast perfectly., though.

You think I'm kidding? See if you don't just want to grab the dark-haired cat and the cat who's singing and switch them round:

Bohemian Catsody

See there; I told you! ;)

Yes I have.. On many occasions..

Point conceded by Mike. Good form.

I never thought I would have to explain this to someone of your intelligence, but I guess you are having a lapse..

Based on your prior posts regarding scumbags and terrorists, I will assume you are gazing into a mirror here... also because "a lapse" isn't something I generally have... whereas there are several such instances archived herein on your part. Heh.

A person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill..

Or a paid mercenary, officer/enlisted soldier, religious bigot, scumbag terrorist, or any number of other things not indicative whatsoever of being necessarily mentally ill.

But not all people who kill multiple people are mentally ill..

You should really pick a lane unless you enjoy the state of appearing to speak out of both sides of your ass. :D

Simply because a person kills does not make them mentally ill.. I stand as an example of this..

Heh. I reiterate my "both-sides-of-ass comment" above.

But that fact doesn't negate the fact that those who commit mass murder in the context of Crowd Base Mass Shootings ARE mentally ill, by definition..

Whose definition? Your definition!? Both sides... ass!

As I said, I am somewhat surprised I have to explain the distinction to you..

You haven't made a distinction between "people" and "people" yet... but rather keep claiming people who kill multiple other people are by definition mentally ill.

Some of them are just extremists, terrorists, or all manner of things that aren't indicative of mental illness at all.

But, given you have never worn the uniform of the United States Armed Forces, your ignorance is somewhat understandable..

I deduce that I'm dealing (again) with yet another unintelligent dipshit halfwit so-called soldier who claims to have worn "the uniform of the United States Armed Forces." I got some really bad news to inform your ignorance, that no such "uniform of the United States Armed Forces" exists. While I concede that there are indeed multiple unforms of various different military branches of the United States, there definitely is NOT a "uniform of the United States Armed Forces."

Also, I am not at all constrained to point out that any dipshit halfwit can buy one of the various assorted uniforms of one of the multiple different branches of the United States Armed Forces and wear that shit every day and 24/7/365 and that doesn't mean anything other than he/she has shitty taste in wearing apparel!

Most of that shit sucks, but I loved my IPFUs and still do. :)

Please continue to spew absolute bullshit and falsehoods about something and someone you know nothing about; it's actually the reason you're seen as a fabricator who prattles on and on out of both sides of his ass and the primary reason no one here is likely to ever take your drivel and spew seriously. :)

But once again.. Thanx so much for allowing me to educate you... It's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you... :D

Anytime I need an education in fabrication and prattling on and on about absolute certifiable right-wing propaganda, talking points, bullshit, drivel and invented spew, I definitely know which comments to read: Michale. :D

Love you, sweet friend! Thank you.

- Russ

As someone who has said that they support abortion with restrictions, should we expect that you will take your own advice and shut the fuk up!?!? Of course not!

An automatic rifle at the time of the US Constitution.

By that thinking, we’ve had helicopters since the 1500’s. Concepts and prototypes do not mean the item is available to the masses. There is nothing that indicates Madison knew of the “weapon” when penning the 2nd.

And just because Heller says the militia lines at the beginning of the 2nd are “explanatory” (which is strange for you to say militias cannot be required since that is exactly the example that is given) that doesn’t mean that there cannot be armories in communities where guns must be stored.

Also, a national gun registry does not mean the government is going to come for your guns…unless you have reason why you should not be armed. The only way we can hope to stop those with mental illnesses from committing these mass shootings is if we know that they have the guns. If you are so worried, maybe that is a sign of your mental illness making you paranoid?

Jes lemme know..

hehehehe

So, how did ya like it??

Better, eh?? :D

sorry liz.

...he mentioned that Freddie "could play guitar"... but seriously, Freddie wasn't so much a guitar player but a piano player frenetically playing a limited number of chords using only downstrokes ... so not an accomplished guitar player by any stretch of the musical imagination.

Well, Freddie "could play guitar". Not a focus of Fil's analysis, at all. So ... nit-picky analysis on your part.

Fil also mentions while Freddie plays guitar a piano can be heard and "somebody playing just offstage"... but that somebody was the fabulous Spike Edney -- who wasn't offstage but definitely onstage yet behind the piano -- and who still plays piano for Queen to this very day.

Yeah? Well, Fil's focus is on Queen, not the background, which is where the piano player was. More nit-picking!

Of course, there's more that Fil could have mentioned -- like Roger Taylor's drums that cue Freddie for "Hammer to Fall" after the back-and-forth with the crowd to stay within their time allotted

Actually, Fil spent a lot of time on this. Because, it was kinda the whole point of this particular video analysis. Are you sure you watched it? ;)

I will give Fil an "E" for effort. Heh. ;)

Right. I will admit that I am partial to Fil's analyses, generally speaking, and so your nit-picking and otherwise baseless critique hit a nerve. I'm sensitive, that way.

So, to Recap ... this analysis video which focused on why and how Queen's performance at Live Aid 1985 was so good was meant to be enjoyed and soaked in, not critiqued with pedantic fault-finding. Ahem.

I guess I scared Kick away..

Bummer dood..

I understand, though.. It's hard to get such a beat down on the facts..

I'll try and go easy on you.. :D

I miss my lil' buddy...

So, Biden's Handlers don't trust Zelensky..

Hmmm Interesting..

MC, yer POTUS pick seems to be falling down on the job here...

And black shooters have tried to kill as many COPS as they could...

So, really.. What is your point, Kick??

Oh I am sure you actually believe that.. :D

Facts say otherwise.. :D

Yes, I tease, but the claim that mass shooters are always mentally ill is ridiculous on its face.

And that pedantic-ness shines thru again!! :D

I love it..

Mass MURDERERS are always mentally ill..

I understand that you have never served in uniform in the US Armed Forces, so I should have realized I needed to make that distinction for you..

Last week, America experienced a racist extremist shooting up a grocery store, in an effort to kill as many Black people as he could.

And black shooters have tried to kill as many WHITE people as they could..

So, what EXACTLY is your point, Kick??

But thanx for your response.. It is VERY much appreciated..

And welcome back!! :D

It's always good to see you.. :D

Yer back!!! :D

I'm back to responding; I never left from reading because I am never not here. I laugh a lot about some of the ridiculous drivel I see posted on here coming almost entirely from the right-wing misinformation propaganda wing of Weigantia and Don Harris's sad attempts to change the subject to... Don Harris's sad attempts. Heh.

I am never not here. :)

Love you, Russ!

Thanx for your input!! It's so much appreciated..

And a Merry Xmas to you too.

WOW.. Way to get pedantic..

The devil's in the details, you know, and it wasn't me who made the ridiculous statement; I just quoted it and proved how totally nonfactual it was and still is.

Of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an accidental shooting and an intentional murder of 21, right?? :D

So you concede the point; good for you! Because otherwise you'd be claiming that American soldiers were mentally ill for their intentional multiple murders and that you were mentally ill yourself.

I love your pedantic-ness.. It's so... so.. YOU.. :D Don't ever change, my friend.. :D

You needn't ask.

Thanx.. I really appreciate your concession on this point..

My actual point was that the Mike Metric you presented (that I quoted) defined yourself as mentally ill multiple times in the same comment. I am not at all constrained to point out that you thanking me for pointing out that you defined yourself as mentally ill multiple times has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to disprove my point... on the contrary, you seem eager to add more proof of my point to the evidence pile you've built for yourself.

It really makes my heart sing to know you acknowledge the factual nature of my comments. :D

If you believe I made your "heart sing," I'd say we're at the "case closed" stage regarding the substance of my actual point. Heh.

Weigantians, you can take a lesson from the lovely Kick... :D

You hear that, Weigantians? I am definitely lovely, and Mike is finally correct... even if it did fly right over his head as to why he is this time... bless his singing little heart! :D

Yes, I tease, but the claim that mass shooters are always mentally ill is ridiculous on its face. Some of them are definitely hateful scumbags who know exactly why they are committing/attempting to commit mass shootings.

If Michale had a memory like mine and others on this blog, he would naturally possess the 20/20 hindsight to not come along in 2022 and refute his own arguments from the past and thereby and therefore and thusly refute himself from 2016. It was in 2016 that Mike insisted it was Islamic terrorism that caused the mass killings back then, and if I recall correctly (and I usually do), Mike blamed Barack Obama for not calling the guy who killed 49 people a terrorist for causing their deaths. No mention of mental illness of the terrorist, though, at least not by Mike, just a lot of blaming Obama for not calling a terrorist a terrorist.

So, to recap: We here in Weigantia already know -- even if Mike can't remember it -- that he emphatically believes that mass shooters can definitely be scumbag terrorists so it's rather pointless and a waste of Mike's time to now rely heavily on the mental illness factor and insist that "a person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill." It's not only pointless, it's laughable on its face since this blog is archived.

Last week, America experienced a racist extremist shooting up a grocery store, in an effort to kill as many Black people as he could.

~ Chris Weigant

*
That about sums it up perfectly, Chris. Pay attention, Mike, Chris is making your terrorist argument from 2016. :)

Meanwhile, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. had said that any move by America to send long-range rocket systems to Ukraine would be "unacceptable" and demanded that "Washington does not take such a provocative step."

And Biden's Handlers fell all over themselves to comply with the Russia Ambassador's demand..

:eyeroll:

There had been concerns that sending system to Ukraine could be seen as escalatory by Russia
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-us-ukraine-rocket-systems-reach-russia

Once again, Biden's handlers give the finger to Ukraine whilst dropping to their knees and fellating Putin...

How do you like your Biden now, MC???

The trollish attempt to mislead is typical and akin to showing Da Vinci's early drawings of tanks and helicopters when it took 400 years for them to actually be created.

What the Weigantian Administration was arguing was that the authors of the 2nd had NO IDEA about automatic weapons..

This is factually FALSE, as I have proven beyond any doubt..

Your trollish attempts to actually make an argument are moot..

The 2nd HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms..

The SCOTUS has established this..

So your weak and feeble arguments are completely irrelevant..

You lose.. AGAIN.. :D

But hay.. Like Kick, you gave it a valiant, albeit futile try.. :D

Don't be too discouraged that you always concede my facts with your silence.. :D

What an awesome response!!! Thank you SOOOO much for sharing it..

There are no unlimited rights.

That was a helluva rebuttal to an argument that NO ONE is making.. But you gave it your all.. So awesome!! :D

"So knarly"
-Seaplane McDonough, JUMANJI WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

But the fact is, I was simply refuting the Weigantian Administration totally NON FACTUAL (IE Bullshit) claim that the authors of the 2nd Amendment had no clue about todays weapons.

The FACTS clearly show that the idea of automatic weapons was clearly available..

Further, the idea that "well regulated" had ANYTHING to do with laws or rules or regulations at the time of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous..

But, hay.. You gave it a good try... Keep building up those strawman arguments to knock them down!! :D

Thanx for your response..

And again.. Welcome back!! :D

It takes me a while to get it, sometmes ... but, I catch on, eventually. The memory ain't what it used to be and so I forget, when people aren't here all the time to remind me, how mean-spirited they can tend to be... :(

If you believe you've caught on to me being mean-spirited, then you haven't caught on even the tiniest bit. I said nothing meant to be mean spirited toward you or anyone else. Thought provoking? Yes. Mean spirited? Nope! :)

Kick,

Sorry I asked.

I guess me proving that I actually watched it, understood it, and appreciated it got lost in there, eh Canada?

I thought you like Freddy.

Who is Freddy? Freddie Mercury was a genius; I adore him... warts and all... but Fil referring to Freddie as a pianist who "played guitar" -- I'm just saying -- is quite a stretch.

So, to recap:

(1) Freddie was no Eddie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkhteMQwjpQ

(2) You still can't tell when I'm teasing around!?

;)

^^ Okay, maybe you can.

Thanks for your rebuttal of the ridiculous attempt to describe the Puckle gun as a Colonial-era automatic weapon. It was not only a flintlock it fired at a rate of around 8-9 rounds a minute. It was never manufactured and only a couple of prototypes were ever made.

Your other observation about the need for a self-contained cartridge is also correct though early Gatling guns used paper casings. The Gatling was introduced during the Civil War but was not technically automatic because it used a hand crank. The Maxim gun was the first true automatic weapon to appear on the battlefield and was patented in 1883.

The trollish attempt to mislead is typical and akin to showing Da Vinci's early drawings of tanks and helicopters when it took 400 years for them to actually be created.

Keep up the good work.

Again, NOT factually accurate...

At the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, automatic firearms existed..

There are a plethora of seriously misinformed right-wing gun nuts trying to pass off a manually operated flintlock revolver as some kind of "automatic firearm." It isn't and wasn't. Anyone wanting to learn about that actual patent and flintlock and how it shot round bullets for Christians and square bullets for Muslims, be my guest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPC7KiYDshw

Furthermore, anyone who claims that automatic firearms existed before the invention of centerfire cartridges with solid-drawn metallic cases containing their own means of ignition is someone who belongs in the category of seriously misinformed... somebody comparing a safety match to a blowtorch.

And you could own a CANNON at the time as well..

At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, 1791, there was absolutely nothing that prevented the United States government or any state from regulating arms. Sir William Blackstone (born 1723, died 1780) expressly stated this very principle in his Commentaries, and none other than Justice Antonin Scalia noted Blackstone in his opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

~ Justice Antonin Scalia in the landmark Heller decision

*

So, let's dispense with the non-factual hysterical BS, eh?

It really is "hysterical BS" to hear the right-wingnut gun nuts that keep inferring that because there was no law against a particular firearm (including a cannon) in the past that it therefore established a right to own a particular firearm (including a cannon) circa the 1790s. It most certainly did not, and that's actually laughable on its face. If everybody started dragging around cannons circa that time period, who here actually believes a law couldn't have been written by the state or federal government that outlawed all that cannon dragging? Duh. A law wasn't written outlawing it at that time because people weren't dragging around cannons. Some of this is common sense and a simple matter of connecting dots and reading the Heller decision that the gun nuts claim gives them rights that aren't actually bestowed... and quite the contrary, in fact.

There are no unlimited rights. Full stop. It's asinine and laughable on its face to claim that a right magically existed in 1791 merely because there was no law against it. Had a law been necessary, you can bet your cannon balls there'd have been one. :)

Look at the betting markets..

Trump at ‘all-time high’ in 2024 betting, swamps Biden
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/trump-at-all-time-high-in-2024-betting-swamps-biden

Biden's toast...

And no amount of cheating or fraud will save him..

I have an opportunity to get another Oculus Quest 2..

Would I be able to share a VR setting/game with another person??

Like maybe a tennis game or something like that with another player??

Journalists are similarly deceptive when they call Uvalde the 27th “school shooting” of this year, or classify the spree in Buffalo as one of the hundreds of “mass shootings” in America annually. But these “mass shootings” typically don’t result in more than one death, if that, and the ones with multiple fatalities typically involve family disputes at home, gang conflict, or other criminal activity like drug dealing or robbery. They’re not random attacks like that in Buffalo, which meets Fox’s criteria for a “mass public shooting”: one in a public place with at least four fatalities and not related to domestic violence, gang conflict, or other crimes. On average, a half dozen of these occur annually. Mass public shootings at schools are much rarer: a total of 12 in the past 34 years.

We can all agree that even one of these massacres is too many. But wallowing in the gruesome details will not prevent another, and neither will blaming the senseless murders on political enemies. We should be looking for ways to protect children and adults from all the dangers they face—including the recent homicide surge claiming nearly 100 additional lives every week. That carnage continues, and a presidential visit to Texas will do nothing to stop it.

Democrats need to get off their useless and irrelevant hysterical anti gun kick and address the problem with FACTS and logic...

Sorrow and Precaution, Not Hysteria

School shootings are horrific and heartbreaking, but they remain statistically rare.

Another senseless mass shooting, another national wave of mourning and anger, another presidential visit to a grief-stricken community. But as President Biden faces the cameras in Uvalde, Texas, this weekend, as he and other leaders offer their prescriptions for easing the public’s fears, let me suggest a more practical and immediate way for Americans to cope with this tragedy: turn off the television.

Politicians and journalists cannot resist exploiting the deaths of schoolchildren, but the ghoulish wall-to-wall coverage serves no purpose except to terrify adults and kids. Contrary to what you’ve heard from Biden and the media, school massacres like the one in Uvalde are exceptionally rare events. They actually occurred more often in the 1990s than recently—but back then, there wasn’t an army of satellite trucks competing around the clock to chronicle the horror.

“There is not an epidemic of mass shootings,” says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has been tracking these events for decades and helps keep the AP/USA Today/Northeastern Mass Killing database. “What’s increasing and is out of control is the epidemic of fear.”
https://www.city-journal.org/school-shootings-horrific-but-statistically-rare

Facts and logic overcomes hysterical fear mongering every time..

What??

That Democrats are always in NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE mode with these shootings and don't really care about the kids being killed...

Yes, I agree.. It's shameful...

The SCOTUS has determined that the US Constitution explicitly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That the 'Militia' aspect mentioned in the 2nd is simply prefatory, which means in this context as providing an example of WHY the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Once Democrats can regain the majority in the SCOTUS, they will have an opportunity to change that..

Until then, suck it up...

Further, crowd based mass shootings and school shootings of this nature, the defining culprit is MENTAL ILLNESS.. Not guns..

The majority of CBMSs are done with handguns, not rifles.. "Assault Rifle" is a media/political creation that has nothing to do with actual firearm nomenclature. It's the media/Democrats' attempt to make rifles sound "scary" and thereby invoking more emotionalism into the issue...

Emotionalism is the enemy of clear and rational thought...

Finally, Democrats are simply using a CBSM or School Shooting to further their own hysterical anti-gun agenda. This is supported by the FACT that multiple people get shot in Chicago or New York City or LA in any given week and Democrats are silent on the issue..

Democrats are always in NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE mode with these shootings and don't really care about the kids being killed... I have 63 MILLION facts to prove that THAT is factually accurate...

That, of course, should read:

Awww, don't let Kick get ya DOWN..

My bust...

Yes, the on scene commander made a bad call..

But in all the hysterical finger pointing from Democrats, not one of them considered WHY the OSC made the call..

If he did it for legitimate reasons and just turned out to be wrong, that is one thing..

On the other hand, this IS a School District PD... It's not outside the realm of possibility that the department is rife with Democrat-Think.. Which would explain the shitty decision-making..

It all hinges on WHY the OSC made the decision he made..

President Biden considering demolishing Texas elementary school after deadly massacre
https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/uvalde-texas-school-shooting

I may be wrong here, but I don't think Biden's handlers have the authority to make that decision..

It's not their call to make..

Yes I have.. On many occasions..

I never thought I would have to explain this to someone of your intelligence, but I guess you are having a lapse..

A person who kills multiple people in a mass murder incident is mentally ill..

But not all people who kill multiple people are mentally ill.. Combat soldiers (of which I am one) is an example of a person who can kill multiple people and not be mentally ill..

Simply because a person kills does not make them mentally ill.. I stand as an example of this..

But that fact doesn't negate the fact that those who commit mass murder in the context of Crowd Base Mass Shootings ARE mentally ill, by definition..

As I said, I am somewhat surprised I have to explain the distinction to you..

But, given you have never worn the uniform of the United States Armed Forces, your ignorance is somewhat understandable..

But once again.. Thanx so much for allowing me to educate you... It's always a pleasure discussing these issues with you... :D

The memory ain't what it used to be and so I forget, when people aren't here all the time to remind me, how mean-spirited they can tend to be... :(

Awww, don't let Kick get ya done.. I am sure she meant nothing by it.. :D

You always have me.. :D

Yer back!!! :D

Thanx for your input!! It's so much appreciated..

WOW.. Way to get pedantic..

Of course, there is NO DIFFERENCE between an accidental shooting and an intentional murder of 21, right?? :D

I love your pedantic-ness.. It's so... so.. YOU.. :D Don't ever change, my friend.. :D

Okay, okay then... you've definitely successfully made your point multiple times now.

Thanx.. I really appreciate your concession on this point.. It really makes my heart sing to know you acknowledge the factual nature of my comments. :D

Weigantians, you can take a lesson from the lovely Kick... :D

Thanx again for your comments, Kick.. It's always nice to have you back.. :D

Sorry I asked.

I thought you like Freddy.

Oh, well, and to recap ... nevermind.

;)

Guns don't kill people.. People with mental health problems kill people..

So the Idaho toddler who killed his mother was mentally ill? Rhetorical question.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/30/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/index.html

Allow me to explain something (obvious). All the mentally ill people in the world could throw (really fast) thousands of bullets in a grocery store, a place of worship, or a school and not kill a single person (all day long). Technically speaking, it isn't the gun that kills you or the alleged "mentally ill" person firing it, it's the ammunition that pierces your flesh and bone that kills you. Of course, the ammunition can't exactly pierce your flesh and/or bone without the gun; no matter how fast you throw it.

If guns didn't kill and/or maim people, there wouldn't be a single person who definitely needed one in order to defend himself, his property, or his country... unless he wished to prove he was mentally ill, right? Heh.

Which reminds me that you personally have also admitted to killing people on multiple occasions in the comments section of this blog... so according to your newest own "Mike Metric," you're now confessing to mental illness? Honest question.

Until Democrats realize this one factual statement, they will **ALWAYS** be on the losing end of this issue..

Okay, okay then... you've definitely successfully made your point multiple times now. I wonder if there are any Democrats here in the comments section who agree with your "one factual statement" that defines even yourself as a person "with mental health problems"?

Speak up, people. :D

Did you see the tunes from last week - Queen at Live Aid 1985 with companion analyis video by Fil from Wings of Pegasus?

Yes. Fil did a pretty good job of breaking that down, but he mentioned that Freddie "could play guitar"... but seriously, Freddie wasn't so much a guitar player but a piano player frenetically playing a limited number of chords using only downstrokes; watch any of his performances on guitar, including Live Aid, it's hard to miss Freddie frantically pounding out only downstrokes... so not an accomplished guitar player by any stretch of the musical imagination.

Fil also mentions while Freddie plays guitar a piano can be heard and "somebody playing just offstage"... but that somebody was the fabulous Spike Edney -- who wasn't offstage but definitely onstage yet behind the piano -- and who still plays piano for Queen to this very day.

Of course, there's more that Fil could have mentioned -- like Roger Taylor's drums that cue Freddie for "Hammer to Fall" after the back-and-forth with the crowd to stay within their time allotted. Freddie would usually say "eff you" to the crowd when they managed to (mostly) match his chants sound-for-sound, but he was told to keep it clean for television so ended the chanting at Live Aid with, "Alright!" instead of "eff you."

So, to recap: Fun to watch, thanks EM, and I will give Fil an "E" for effort. Heh. ;)

Alito asks questions Roe’s defenders can’t answer

What makes Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization so powerful and, for that matter, so powerfully infuriating to the defenders of Roe v. Wade? Simple: Alito masterfully points out the faulty history and legal reasoning on which Roe was based. He correctly points out that the entire enterprise of “constitutional abortion” was flawed from the start, asking questions that abortion’s defenders don’t want answered.

The answer is that Roe had nothing to do with the Constitution, the only thing that matters when asserting a new constitutional “right.” In Alito’s words, Roe’s opinion “spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact-finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee.” What’s more, in the end, “the scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body.” Nowhere did the all-important Constitution come into play.

Lastly, and most importantly, Alito questions Roe’s progeny, the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He points out that Casey “pointedly refrained from endorsing most of Roe’s reasoning” and “silently abandoned Roe’s erroneous historical narrative.” Yet Casey refused to overrule the so-called constitutional right derived from that incorrect legal reasoning and historical narrative.

Alito then asks the obvious: How can Casey be treated as legitimate when its central holding contradicted its own conclusions about critical laws and facts? He shows that Casey upheld a decision that it simultaneously admitted was likely wrong, a logical and constitutional absurdity.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/alito-asks-questions-roes-defenders-cant-answer/ar-AAXQhEb

Once again.. Democrats are defeated by FACTS...

What happened to all the Voter Suppression in Georgia ya'all claimed was going to happen??

Record voter turnout.. Record low vote rejection rates..

Where is all the voter suppression in Georgia??

As usual, the hysterical fear-mongering of the hysterical Democrat Party never occurred...

Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!??

Oh... Wait.. :D

Lincoln Fire & Rescue officials were on the scene clearing the fire and assisting victims after two cars slammed into a crowd near the Americruise event
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lincoln-nebraska-car-crashes-into-crowd

BAN CARS!!!! BAN ASSAULT CARS!!!!

:eyeroll:

It's well documented that if the Hunter Biden laptop story had been reported legitimately, President Trump would have been re-elected..

Denying the facts is non-serious..

Exactly the point..

Thank you for conceding that, Russ.. :D

And, it's still early evening on the Left Coast, so ... take it away Caddy and Chris! :)

Eagles - Hotel California

Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up

Did you see the tunes from last week - Queen at Live Aid 1985 with companion analyis video by Fil from Wings of Pegasus?

Billy Ocean - Caribbean Queen

This takes me back to Hawai'i, of all places - my all-time favourite summer dance tune!

No "Dancing"?

The Struts

You make a good point. No, you make a very good point!

What's your favourite summertime campfire song to play and sing?

Bonus points if you have video!!!

Cuts Like A Knife

And, more back story!

Bryan co-wrote this (and many others) with Jim Vallance (Sunshyne, PRiSM) and they will both be honoured on September 24th when they will be inducted into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame during a ceremony at Massey Hall in Toronto. Won't be getting tickets for it, unfortunately...

...however, BA is coming to town and will be performing this October at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium where the Kitchener Rangers hockey team plays (believe they are still the farm team for the New York Rangers??) and guess who is lucky enough to be going? Can't freakin' wait! :)

Oh, and here is the back story!

Jimi Hendrix - Hear My Train Comin' and Hound Dog

Seriously? I mean, are you kidding me!!!

What's your favourite summer fun tune?

The Dutchman is a beautiful song! Thanks for posting it - and, yes, a wonderful back story.

Then, speaking of 'shellshocked', I came across this

The songwriter doesn't get any mention here but I do hope he received his fair share of royalties ... I wonder if Liam Clancy ever tells the back story of how he came to know this song when a young songwriter came backstage at one of his concerts and asked if he could play a couple of songs he might want to record!

Define “lawful gun owner” if you are calling someone who commits gun crimes that? Every gun owner is law abiding until they aren’t!

Hey, if this doesn't scream summer fun, then I don't know what does. Aw-yeah, baby ...

https://youtu.be/lGfz7clIDNw

https://youtu.be/UMVjToYOjbM

https://youtu.be/P7Cof3vyx1Q

Sunshine makes everything better, no? :)

Welcome, one and all, to the CW Sunday Night Music Festival and Dance Party, where we leave all political chatter aside and bask in the glory of the music for a few wonderful hours. The tunes, of course, may be as political as anyone of us sees fit. Ahem. :-)

Anyways, I'll go first, this is my all-time favourite summer song. I love it when it starts to play on one of my favourite radio stations (I should really see about getting this album) while I'm sunbathing outside and lounging poolside in the back of my building! It makes me feel like everything is perfect with my world ...

Sunny Days - Lighthouse

Even if that were factually accurate, there is NO DOCUMENTED incident where that fraud swung an election..

The 2020 Election fraud by Democrats actually swung the election ..

Because they are not..

Handguns are the most prevalent weapon used in mass shootings..

Now, why do we only hear Democrats whine and cry about gun violence when there is a mass shooting??

Democrat run Chicago has WEEKLY incidents of shootings and Democrats are SILENT on the issue..

So DEAL with me.. Give me FACTS to refute my facts. :D

Well, that right there kinda proves that you don't really know what facts are. ;)

You are correct! There has been plenty of well documented election fraud being carried out by Republican operatives. Classic idiot criminal behavior — as a distraction, scream about someone committing the crime that you are attempting to commit

I don’t know how those factors could be measured comparatively. Children are much more likely to be killed by a gun if there is a gun in the home. I do not think that children that live in homes without a gun present are more likely to be killed by knives as a result. Yes, data and statistics can be twisted into whatever someone wants it be to support their argument…but states with higher rates of gun ownership having higher rates of gun deaths is pretty straightforward.

We're talking about mass shootings...

Mass shootings are just 3 or more gun deaths in a single event. If assault rifles are not the issue, why do they always seem to be the weapons used in mass shootings with more than 9 victims?

You might find this hard to believe, but I agree..

President Trump should focus on winning 2024 and quit re-fighting 2020..

He's as bad as Hillary with her 2016 Russia Collusion Delusion..