Rosevelt Shooting (Read 53910 times)

aieahound

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2014, 04:11:58 PM »
Rough Riders = Screamers  :love:
Rough riders = Eastern Europeans.

Guess they still got that USSR approach
You guys give a whole new meaning to Rough Rider shooting !  :shake:

ren

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2014, 04:12:14 PM »

Age progression image of teen suspect?
Deeds Not Words

kekoa

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2014, 04:28:49 PM »

jimsaloha

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2014, 04:31:02 PM »

Age progression image of teen suspect?

Very,very scary!

Darmok and Jalad @Tanagra

Re: Roosevelt Shooting
« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2014, 05:11:08 PM »
Media agenda on display after school shooting that wasn’t a school shooting

Quote
On Tuesday, January 28, the national media went into an uproar while reporting on what they perceived to be the latest school shooting.
Regular programming was interrupted with BREAKING NEWS and ALERTs and newsreaders in a frenzy about a high school in Hawaii being
in lockdown after reports of shots fired. Shouts and cries of “OMG!”, “evil guns!”, “school in lockdown!”, “THE CHILDREN!” were the order of the
day. All of the national media outlets got in on the act, from the 24/7 cable news channels to the major newspapers and numerous Internet sites.

But it wasn’t even really a school shooting, at least not the type they would lead you to believe. The person with a gun that fired the shots was a
police officer, supposedly the only type of person responsible enough to own or carry a gun, according to the anti-gun crowd in the media.

Quote
There is no doubt that the vast majority of the national media leans to the left, and their anti-gun agenda was on full display that day. Rather
than take the time to investigate the full story before rushing on air, they instead chose to promote their anti-gun agenda through biased fear mongering,
playing on the emotions of parents fearful for the safety of their children and schools. Once the actual facts of the story began coming to light,
the media quickly stopped talking about it, as it no longer fit in with their narrative. Unfortunately, this has become all too typical these days.

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting
"... the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."
--Justice Louis D. Brandeis

kekoa

Re: Roosevelt Shooting
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2014, 05:37:36 PM »
Media agenda on display after school shooting that wasn’t a school shooting

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-agenda-on-display-after-school-shooting-that-wasn-t-a-school-shooting

Sad but true. Liberal tactics mostly attempt to incite an emotional response. Dirty tactics maybe?

Aiea78

  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1683
  • Total likes: 99
  • Grab em by the handles
  • Referrals: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #86 on: February 01, 2014, 04:29:39 AM »
Very,very scary!

Silence of the
the
the
ah NVM
;)
Assault Rifle? What I have here is an Anti-Assault Rifle.
Proud Member 2016 2a Day Dozen open holster carry crew yo

HiCarry

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #87 on: February 07, 2014, 06:55:41 PM »
This what I stated that started this whole ridiculous twisted bending by HiCarry. Really come on read it again and again and again and tell me it is related in anyway to what he purports it to mean.

Either you people are so radicalized, militant and. anti LE or just plain looking for a fight I just do not know. Never did I ever make a claim of us giving up our rights to anyone or anything or any whatever. Video of LE…WTF! How did anything I said connect to such a far off topic. Jeeeeez. Is this a radicalized anti government anti LE forum? I may have had a different understanding when I first started hanging out around here. Try as you will to find an enemy, I know my positions and politics and I will stand by them, even when some will try and fabricate a controversy out of nothing at all.

Let me try again, and preference it with two statements. First, I am neither anti LE or a radical, or radicalized, as you put it. Considering I just spent a good deal of time actually working with LE last weekend and as a regular component of my employment, you trying to make such a claim to defend your keyboard tirades are laughable. Second, I truly didn't mean to offend you and weighed in so I could better understand your position. Which I, and at least a few other people on this board interpreted as suggesting law-abiding citizens should give up individual rights in order to "comply" with LE regardless of the situation or circumstances. If you choose to, instead of clarifying your remarks, attack me and suggest that because I question your sentiments I am anti-LE, then that shows more about you and your intolerance to alternate view points than my opinion of LE. And while I am not "...just plain looking for a fight" I won't let what I believe to be bad advice go unchallenged. If you know your positions and politics, clarify them rather than attack anyone you think disagrees with you. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't take kindly to bullying ad hominem attacks by anyone.

Other elements of your statements also caused some confusion and concern, such as (and I paraphrase) "if you ain't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." Don't you understand that in a broader context such statements, along with "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind us searching" are the prelude to government agents depriving you of rights? And that seemingly minor encroachments of our rights, be it detainment, search and seizure, or firearms, is the beginning of the slippery slope? If indeed you meant to say comply only in the context of presenting a deadly threat to an officer, then I have no problem with your somewhat inarticulate and unclear statements. I stand behind the officer's decision to shoot that kid without reservation. I believe that if you raise a knife or gun up to someone, anyone, you deserve to get shot. Period. End of story. If however you want to suggest that someone engaged in any legal activity simply comply with illegal or improper LE commands, just to expedite the conclusion of the encounter, then we disagree. Rights not exercised are lost.

kekoa

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #88 on: February 08, 2014, 06:45:50 PM »
Let me try again, and preference it with two statements. First, I am neither anti LE or a radical, or radicalized, as you put it. Considering I just spent a good deal of time actually working with LE last weekend and as a regular component of my employment, you trying to make such a claim to defend your keyboard tirades are laughable. Second, I truly didn't mean to offend you and weighed in so I could better understand your position. Which I, and at least a few other people on this board interpreted as suggesting law-abiding citizens should give up individual rights in order to "comply" with LE regardless of the situation or circumstances. If you choose to, instead of clarifying your remarks, attack me and suggest that because I question your sentiments I am anti-LE, then that shows more about you and your intolerance to alternate view points than my opinion of LE. And while I am not "...just plain looking for a fight" I won't let what I believe to be bad advice go unchallenged. If you know your positions and politics, clarify them rather than attack anyone you think disagrees with you. I am happy to agree to disagree but don't take kindly to bullying ad hominem attacks by anyone.

Other elements of your statements also caused some confusion and concern, such as (and I paraphrase) "if you ain't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about." Don't you understand that in a broader context such statements, along with "if you don't have anything to hide you won't mind us searching" are the prelude to government agents depriving you of rights? And that seemingly minor encroachments of our rights, be it detainment, search and seizure, or firearms, is the beginning of the slippery slope? If indeed you meant to say comply only in the context of presenting a deadly threat to an officer, then I have no problem with your somewhat inarticulate and unclear statements. I stand behind the officer's decision to shoot that kid without reservation. I believe that if you raise a knife or gun up to someone, anyone, you deserve to get shot. Period. End of story. If however you want to suggest that someone engaged in any legal activity simply comply with illegal or improper LE commands, just to expedite the conclusion of the encounter, then we disagree. Rights not exercised are lost.

I am not gonna even read your crap. Get over it my friend move on in life if u got one :shaka:

bubba808

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #89 on: February 08, 2014, 07:57:03 PM »
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.  If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree.  Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on.  Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry.  And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs

HiCarry

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #90 on: February 08, 2014, 10:28:30 PM »
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.  If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree.  Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on.  Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry.  And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
And if he was of the opinion that no one should own guns should THAT opinion not be challenged, either?
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 10:44:30 PM by HiCarry »

bubba808

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #91 on: February 09, 2014, 01:37:29 AM »
Nope, its called respect.

ImKu

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #92 on: February 09, 2014, 05:48:48 AM »
Nope, its called respect.

Umm, wouldn't that just be a passive person?
Isn't disagreeing on different point of views, stating facts or your own pov and learning from others the point of this forum?   From what I gathered from your post you would rather let some lame or incorrect post go unchallenged due to respect?  Fuck no.  Don't project that "passive" mentality on me and call that "respect".
The mind acts like an enemy for those who do not control it.
- Bhagavad Gita

kekoa

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #93 on: February 09, 2014, 06:49:32 AM »
And if he was of the opinion that no one should own guns should THAT opinion not be challenged, either?

yup as i thought no life poor pitiful sap

Heavies

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #94 on: February 09, 2014, 08:19:55 AM »
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.  If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree.  Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on.  Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry.  And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs

Nope, its called respect.

Whoa whoa whoa.....    Nope that is not respect,  You got that all wrong there bud.

 "people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks."  What is wrong with this here?  If you cannot back your opinions with reason then you might as well be a liberal gun grabber that uses pure illogical emotion to twist and spin the truth to bend people's ideas on the evilness of guns.  People who challenge either do not understand "others OPINIONS" and wish to understand better,  Which is NOT " irratting fks",  Or Disagree with "others OPINIONS",  in which case alternate ideas are exchanged and discussed, there by, a mutual understanding can either be reached or a mutual agreement to agree to disagree can be met.   Which is ALSO NOT " irratting fks".

yup as i thought no life poor pitiful sap

The point of a discussion is to state opinions and ideas, provide guidance and advice, and/or debate said ideas or advice.  Name calling and other trolling that does not add any useful input into the discussion does not grow any part of the point of the discussion.  Name calling is no way to win a debate, only retort with facts can achieve that.  Other wise, agree to disagree and leave it at that. 

ren

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #95 on: February 09, 2014, 08:37:54 AM »
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.  If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree.  Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on.  Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry.  And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs
Embarassing, representing the Govs with language like that.
I can understand the use of that language if you are a freshman at Farrington.
Yes, I went to Farrington and they taught me how to write better than that.
Deeds Not Words

bubba808

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #96 on: February 09, 2014, 08:52:22 AM »
Grammer police and people who challenge others OPINIONS are irratting fks.  If dis braddahs opinion is that only criminals disobey LE, then leave it alone. You tried to share your fkn opinion and he didnt agree.  Nuff stfu and let it go, no need to keep going on and on. Just to be clear, im talking to you hicarry.  And if you were wondering... I am a Farrington grad. LoL. Go Govs

Umm, wouldn't that just be a passive person?
Isn't disagreeing on different point of views, stating facts or your own pov and learning from others the point of this forum?   From what I gathered from your post you would rather let some lame or incorrect post go unchallenged due to respect?  Fuck no.  Don't project that "passive" mentality on me and call that "respect".
Read the words in bold that I wrote.  Go gather your thoughts again.  If youre still confused, stfu, dont keep trying, cuz at this point, I really dont give a fuck what you think. And I can project whatever da fuck I want and call it what I like.. if you dont like that, Tough shit. Its MY opinion and i hope you can respect it, if you cant, then I will not value or respect your opinions either.

bubba808

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #97 on: February 09, 2014, 08:55:08 AM »
Embarassing, representing the Govs with language like that.
I can understand the use of that language if you are a freshman at Farrington.
Yes, I went to Farrington and they taught me how to write better than that.
LoL sorry to make you shame bro.  I dont claim to be the smartest fellow but looks like dis guy picking on the bruddah for having an opinion.  GoGovs!

ImKu

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #98 on: February 09, 2014, 09:06:37 AM »
 I'm at  bench 80...  I would love to meet you
The mind acts like an enemy for those who do not control it.
- Bhagavad Gita

ren

Re: Rosevelt Shooting
« Reply #99 on: February 09, 2014, 09:19:17 AM »
Read the words in bold that I wrote.  Go gather your thoughts again.  If youre still confused, stfu, dont keep trying, cuz at this point, I really dont give a fuck what you think. And I can project whatever da fuck I want and call it what I like.. if you dont like that, Tough shit. Its MY opinion and i hope you can respect it, if you cant, then I will not value or respect your opinions either.
Here is one person's opinion:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Adolf Hitler

People can agree or disagree with your opinion. Accept it with serenity. Take the feedback as a source of validity to your argument and be honest with yourself.
Deeds Not Words