We all need to sit down and have a discussion of the role of the press in our society. Does it keep us safer? Or does it encourage more attacks putting more children in danger?
It is time to forget the politics of a free-press and instead think of the larger questions like the safety of our children.
We’re not talking about taking away the BullStreamMedia First Amendment rights; we’re only talking about cutting the carnage brought about by Assault Journalism.
Does the BSM really need high-capacity magazines?
Does the BSM really need 5 minute clips?
The 1st amendment guarantees the freedom of the press but that isn’t an unlimited right by any means. The 1st amendment was written back in a time of printed media that traveled at the speed of a horse.
There is no way the founding fathers could have known how media technology would evolve.
These days the BSM can operate at the speed of light, with video cameras shooting at least 30 frames a second. They could not have envisioned high-capacity magazines that can shoot out reams of lies before they need to be reloaded with the next issue.
They could not have envisioned the private sale of Media outside the control of the government, private Media that could easily set off the next lunatic on a spree of carnage.
Can't the gunman just shoot the armed policeman while he's eating donuts
He's gunna shoot everyone anyway, just shoot the policeman first, and then move on to the kids
I find it strange that neither side the the "gun issue" is willing to look into direct causation of psychotropic meds in these cases.
That's because there is no cause and effect. You've got your cause & effect mixed up. It's the underlying mental illness that is the cause, not the drugs used to treat people who are mentally ill.
Completely ridiculous for the NRA, a far-right organization, to be calling for more funding for schools and health, when the repub party's central, motivating goal is to cut funding for schools and health - delusional, dissociative drivel.
LaPierre said we need to have full-time, armed guards at schools like we do at banks - except, of course, most banks don't have full-time armed guards - mine certainly doesn't
All this so people can continue to own assault weapons - insanity
LaPierre this morning: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
This is about the level of logic and critical reasoning of a child throwing a tantrum, and reflects a child's understanding of, and willingness to accept, reality
Not surprising, since that's the level of intellect and maturity the NRA panders to
We all need to sit down and have a discussion of the role of the press in our society. Does it keep us safer?
Definitely. And yes they are keeping us safer. If the press were not there we would probably be quicker to sweep this all under the rug and to do nothing. I know this gives a problem to those who believe a closet full of bushmasters will allow them to overthrow the government or beat back a party of Seals attacking their home. But let's face it. When you balance doing nothing to prevent the slaughter of six year olds in their school, versus the pleasure of having a deluded belief
the choice is pretty simple.
And yes we hope very fervently this will not stop with outlawing civil purchase of additional combat weapons and outlawing civil ownership of large magazines.
The weapons are not even the major question that will come up. Not even. We will have to consider the tradeoffs involved in the Federal government monitoring internet searches, all internet searches, to try and discover who might be getting the information they need to prepare for a slaughter.
That will be a real question. I wish I could say I thought a complete ban on any possession of combat weapons would relieve us of the need for such monitoring. But I doubt it.
If anyone wants to become an insurgent Iraq has shown them how to do it. Suicide bombs and IED's. Combat weapons are not even the way.
What stops a bad guy from having a gun is the correct question at this point.
A totalitarian state run by the all- knowing, all- seeing , and ever -compassionate liberal intellectual elite empowered by the government -dependent masses.
They will fix everything.
The weapons are not even the major question that will come up. Not even. We will have to consider the tradeoffs involved in the Federal government monitoring internet searches, all internet searches, to try and discover who might be getting the information they need to prepare for a slaughter.
We have to start the dialog on limiting 1st Amendment rights. The media has for too long been allowed to fill the minds of potential mass killers with unrestrained images of violence and mayhem. They are also allowed to make instant celebrities of of these killers for naked profit.
Low information voter....let's see, that might be someone who believes in creationism and doesn't think that human caused global warming is factual. Now what party do you think such a person would vote for?
"A totalitarian state run by the all- knowing, all- seeing , and ever -compassionate liberal intellectual elite empowered by the government -dependent masses."
Hahahahahaha... Its posts like this that are the strongest argument for controlling assault weapons.
While the NRA does not weigh in on non-gun issues it seems like many of its members are also staunch Tea-party supporters. I wonder who the NRA thinks is going to end up paying for all those armed, and hopefully trained, school guards.
Maybe the NRA could pick up the tab.
Just a thought.
A totalitarian state run by the all- knowing, all- seeing , and ever -compassionate liberal intellectual elite empowered by the government -dependent masses.
They will fix everything.
The correct question here is how is someone as stupid as you to be prevented from owning a gun or even appearing in public. Time for you to crawl back into your survivalist cave.
Hahahahahaha... Its posts like this that are the strongest argument for controlling assault weapons.
Controlling assault weapons won't stop those events from happening, it will only allow a further entree for organized crime to run yet another illegal product on the black market.Anyone that wants one of those weapons will get one.
Lets make drugs illegal in the same way, while we are at it. Lets see if that works.
The correct question here is how is someone as stupid as you to be prevented from owning a gun or even appearing in public. Time for you to crawl back into your survivalist cave.
Now, now no reason for bigoted generalizations and transparent ad hominems.
If there wasn't freedom of speech, how would the NRA be able to repeatedly be able to publicly demonstrate that it is made up of cynical, opportunistic extremists?
Or for Liberals to demonize and character -assassinate their opponents.
Don't know about the NRA but I am positive the NBA has an unlimited supply.
Excellent, although I think the NRA's proposal is right up there, too.
Jstan, I wish I could be more sanguine on the role of the media in all this. Unfortunately, the role of the media has not changed since the inception of our Republic -- it is to sell its product. Whether it's Hearst ginning up hysteria over the Maine or the modern press making you think the murder rate is spiraling upward (rather than the truth, viz. downward), they're just trying to create enough of a sensation to get us to buy their wares.
Sad to say, the vast majority of the American public has no taste for facts, so no one reports mere facts except for a very few outlets. There's clearly a market for objective news; otherwise the Wall Street Journal would be out of business, given its rather high price with no free access. Unfortunately, that market is apparently pretty small. The New York Times might still be doing OK, but most other news organizations that report with any depth are in deep financial trouble.
If we could change that, we'd be on to something. Since I don't see that changing, we need to work with what we have. The media's going orgasmic over the possibility of using this latest tragedy to make illegal use of firearms more illegal was not one of the media's finer hours.
A totalitarian state run by the all- knowing, all- seeing , and ever -compassionate liberal intellectual elite empowered by the government -dependent masses.
BTW, which defense contractor you work for?
Just wondering how the money confiscated from my paycheck gets to you.
"Controlling assault weapons won't stop those events from happening"
I agree, but it makes sense to try to keep guns out of delusional idiots hands. And so I support any regulation that make it more difficult/impossible to obtain those weapons.
Just wondering how the money confiscated from my paycheck gets to you
Well in order to defend this nation from hostile forces , and follow the dictates of the Constitution 'provide for the common defense', you can have our weapons made in Cuba, Venzuela, or even China, for mighty cheap.
F*#k 'em.
Everyone knows you are a man by now. No need to cuss,for the 100th time.
I agree, but it makes sense to try to keep guns out of delusional idiots hands. And so I support any regulation that make it more difficult/impossible to obtain those weapons.
That is not what is being proposed by the gun-hating Left. They are proposing that these
bans affect everyone . They won't stop until all weapons owned by ordinary citizens are prohibited.
They are exploiting this tragedy to bring that outcome about.
"That is not what is being proposed by the gun-hating Left. They are proposing that these
bans affect everyone . They won't stop until all weapons owned by ordinary citizens are prohibited.
They are exploiting this tragedy to bring that outcome about."
Thats just not true. Assault weapon bans should affect everyone, but noone is advocating taking your hunting rifles and shotguns, or handguns.
Perhaps we should consider arming the School custodial staff, lunch room employees, and crossing guards as well. That will solve the problem.
No. Just one well-trained individual so that any potential mass killers will know that someone there at any given school is armed and trained to do whatever it takes to stop them.
Thats just not true. Assault weapon bans should affect everyone, but noone is advocating taking your hunting rifles and shotguns, or handguns.
My friend , you don't know the current crop of radical Leftists that now control the Federal government like I do.
These people are experts at Alinsky-style incrementalism.
They will ban assault weapons, but that ultimately won't work because another mass killing will occur, then they will lay the groundwork for either banning the next category of weapons, or an outright ban on all weapons owned by the common citizenry, which is where these people are ultimately headed. Make no mistake about it.
Well in order to defend this nation from hostile forces , and follow the dictates of the Constitution 'provide for the common defense', you can have our weapons made in Cuba, Venzuela, or even China, for mighty cheap.
Or we can have them made by a millions of middle-class welfare recipients working at quarter-speed.
Oh, wait! It's December...change that to one-tenth speed.
Like force them to commit suicide? That seems to be the common result of these brutal massacres. Why would death dissuade someone who wants to die?
They want to kill people first. That would be why you would station someone there to prevent that. Who gives a rats rear end if the killers want to kill themselves.
If a mass killers knows that someone has the lethal means to stop them they are much more likely to think twice about trying to get what their sick minds want.
Yeah, they're like border collies or something, always trying to herd us. I bet you didn't know that border collies are secret marxists, did you?
My border collie will do anything to prevent being taken to a government -run 'shelter'
Or they'll just go to the mall.
There are armed guards at most malls. That is probably why this Lanza went to the school.
The killer at the Portland mall recently was only able to kill two people. Not 20 kids and 6 adults.
If a mass killers knows that someone has the lethal means to stop them they are much more likely to think twice about trying to get what their sick minds want.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
so says the NRA chief spokesman today
Well, bullsh#t.
Jared Loughner's rampage in Tucson was stopped when he had to pause to reload. Brave UNARMED citizens used that window of opportunity to pounce on him.
gee I just can't figure that on out either, Donald
maybe those third graders couldn't stop screaming long enough to jump on Lanza
There were adults there. You made the case for unarmed people stopping the Arizona shooter, in a lame attempt at proving something.
Why couldn't the unarmed adults have stopped Lanza in the same way?
There was a child killed at that time and plenty of people screaming.
When only outlaws have guns, at least we'll have a damn good idea who the outlaws are. So we can shoot 'em!
It's so hard to tell who is bad now, what with all these "law abiding" citizens threatening revolt and giving back their bullets one well-aimed round at a time. Let's make it as simple as Republican rhetoric. Outlaw/Law abiding citizen. Abortion/Pregnancy. God/Allah. White/Illegal immigrant. Dualism is awesome!
"Why couldn't the unarmed adults have stopped Lanza in the same way?"
And what chance does a teacher with a handgun have against a psycho with an assault rifle, especially when the psycho has assault rifle training and practice?
There were armed adults at the Gifford shooting - didn't matter.
Public schools are already prisons. The kids are required by law to be there and have very limited ability to get out other than at organized yard time. Most schools are fenced in. Most have police of their own, at least part time.
Schools are already safer than most other places. This need to protect kids 100% in school then let them near a car or highway on the way home is absurd.
As to the issue of an assault rifle competing against a pistol, the gun was not fully automatic. Is that type of semi-automatic rifle that mush easier to aim at the length of a classroom than a pistol?
Let's see, Glock handgun with 17 rounds in the clip against Bushmaster with ? rounds? The first three or four are the only rounds that will count so clip size is not really an issue.
Plus, if a teacher starts to shoot and misses, the attacker will still run for cover or be distracted from doing lots of evil.
I NOT NOT ADVOCATE teachers having guns in school, since there are no real gun dangers there anyhow, but arguments against it because of gun variations and coming from non-gun owners, are a little annoying.
"Controlling assault weapons won't stop those events from happening, it will only allow a further entree for organized crime to run yet another illegal product on the black market."
Idiotically, factually and provably WRONG
35 gun-related deaths in the UK last year
12000 in the US
Guns are basically illegal in the UK
No black market, no guns...just Repub Fantasy World gibberish
"I NOT NOT ADVOCATE teachers having guns in school, since there are no real gun dangers there anyhow, but arguments against it because of gun variations and coming from non-gun owners, are a little annoying."
What? You don't want them there, but you're annoyed if people object to guns being there on "gun variation" grounds?
Hahahaha, of a piece with the rest of the gun nut "logic".
As jghedge says above thetre were armed adults at the scene of the Giffords shooting--at least one was interviewed by the press. He chose not to shoot because in the--predictible--chaos it wasn't clear whom to shoot at,was afraid that he might hit innocent civilians, and was also afraid that the arriving cops would see him with a gun and shoot him. This is the reality of such situations--panic, chaos and uncertainty--that the NRA-types refuse to acknowledge in their assumption that more guns make things safer.
Don't worry, Alan, now you will get the stats on guns stopping killings and criminals thwarted. To which somebody will respond with more unchecked sprees figures, accidental deaths, suicides.... And so on.... Repeat until nauseated.
"Ya lets grow the government even more & put guards at every school. & how much more will that add to the U. S. debt. "
That is hilarious coming from repubs - that and suddenly they want increased mental health care, and screening gun sales based on some Orwellian national mental health database
Like they haven't been cutting funding for schools and health care for 30 years - now they want to spend hundreds of billions on school security and a national mental health database
And what chance does a teacher with a handgun have against a psycho with an assault rifle, especially when the psycho has assault rifle training and practice?
No one is suggesting such a thing . Go back and read the context of my argument with the one who calls himself Norton.
35 gun-related deaths in the UK last year
12000 in the US
Guns are basically illegal in the UK
No black market, no guns...just Repub Fantasy World gibberish
Ignoring the vast differences in the two countries, historically, socially , politically.
When those factors are considered your facile comparisons of the two countries are meaningless.
You have not cited any substantial reason why you think a black market would not flourish.
Remember even the President was running black market guns in Mexico ( resulting in the death of innocent people).
Like they haven't been cutting funding for schools and health care for 30 years - now they want to spend hundreds of billions on school security and a national mental health database
Cutting funding, Thats a laugh.
It probably would cost billions after the Libs in Congress got their hands on it.
Banning guns will not stop these events. Anyone who suggests so is holding out a false hope that they will not be able to deliver on.
They are exploiting these tragedies for selfish political motives.
Two vast differences:
1. The Brits do not have a second amendment.
2. They were never a frontier, in which it would have lunacy to venture into without a weapon.
They have no tradition of self-reliance . They have a history of being powerless vassals and serfs who traded their freedom for security offered by an overlord.
America trades - gulp - arms?
Yes , black market arms- run by the President and his attorney general.
These illegal weapons have been responsible for countless deaths in Mexico and the US.
based on his doings along the mexican border. One of the roots to this nonsense.
You mean the tracing of fast and furious guns run by Obama and Holder to the death of a border patrol agent ?
Harlon Carter changed the NRA form a hunting oriented association to a gun rights group . Convicted of murder in 1931 and sounds like an all-around A##hole based on his doings along the mexican border. One of the roots to this nonsense.
I can't believe what a disgusting selfish human being that LaPierre as#@&%e is.
Yeah let's insult the memory of those 20 children that died ONE WEEK ago by proposing more guns will solve the problem (and pad the pockets of his buddies) and blame everyone else but themselves.
Yeah armed guards are THE solution. Like a guy with an assault rifle wouldn't just take the guard out first.
I'm not even opposed to armed guards, especially at bad schools with a history of gun problems, but to ignore easy access to assault rifles and large capacity clips contributed to this tragedy is spineless and evil.
I was on the fence about assault rifles (I see the appeal of shooting them) but now I say f*#k it ban them with no grandfather clause this time.
Ban high capacity clips.
Ban armor piercing bullets.
Ban sniper rifles.
Pass laws requiring guns be locked up or serious consequences.
Pass laws limiting violent video games and movies to 18 plus with serious consequences for allowing a child to watch them.
Do a much better job with mental health treatment and teaching doctors and parents what to watch out for.
"2. They were never a frontier, in which it would have lunacy to venture into without a weapon.
They have no tradition of self-reliance . They have a history of being powerless vassals and serfs who traded their freedom for security by an overlord."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YOU IGNORANT FOOL
They were either invading others or defending themselves, or enforcing their empire, for basically their entire history, including attacking us - you're INCREDIBLY wrong about that.
And the Scots? They were at war with England on and off for hundreds of years
Please continue posting your mindless, fact-free gibberish, Duhnold
Ever seen "Braveheart"? You do know there actually was a William Wallace, correct? Or not?
Yes , black market arms- run by the President and his attorney general.
These illegal weapons have been responsible for countless deaths in Mexico and the US.
I would shudder if there were CIA involvement. I wouldn't want them to soil their hands in this.
Seriously?
The only way you're going to faze me is if you told me the Prez is personally loading trucks. And I'd only be taken aback by the fact he found time in his schedule.
I'm sure no other American orchestrated arms smuggling has resulted in American deaths. I'm sure we haven't smuggled drugs, money, participated in human trafficking. Administration after administration.
Extremely weak points , but sounding strong because of the insults.
Let some of people who don't know any better exactly what you and your ilk propose to do.
You want to ban all guns and abrogate the second amendment.
Am I correct?
And as far as British history is concerned the misdirection in your comments are juvenile.
The Brits ,as with other Europeans, have had a long history of domination by overlords who protected them in exchange for their fealty. That was the medieval bargain. Entire communities were structured around the feudal modus operandi.
The brave hearts you captioned at one time or another did not like that bargain.
They were eventually defeated and disarmed.
The first thing the Brits did was disarm the Scots after their defeat.
To convert them back into good little slaves and serfs and vassals.
The founders were aware of this historical background and sought to insure ordinary citizens would not again be disarmed against a tyrannical government. Hence the second amendment.
Yeah, Cragman, I've seen your thoughts. The summary is if you don't carry a weapon you deserve to have your family raped by a black bear. Good on you for liking Samuel L. Jackson though. Reformed crack head, great actor to be applauded.
Let some of people who don't know any better exactly what you and your ilk propose to do.
You want to ban all guns and abrogate the second amendment.
Am I correct?
Who are you talking to?
I'm honestly confused on the best tactic, but I have not advocated denial of the second amendment as it is currently understood. Other than in jest for mocking puerile arguments from the likes of you, anyway.
Me and my ilk, indeed. Dualism at it's best. No solution, no compromise, same old dogmatic, ultimately nihilistic BS from you and your ilk.
Hey Donald, while we are cracking don on the rights of organizations that fill our citizens heads with nonsense, do not forget about the churches, the biggest purveyors of BS.
Me and my ilk, indeed. Dualism at it's best. No solution, no compromise, same old dogmatic, ultimately nihilistic BS from you and your ilk.
The banning of guns is not the solution . It will only set the stage for larger problems.
Once you let a horde of deranged, leftist know-it-alls monkey with the Constitution, anything then becomes possible.
Btw I did not use a 'dualism'. You sounded smart though.
Better stick to just straight insults.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, as always
No you lost that 'debate' . But if you are overly concerned with your thread creds and your rep i can pretend to have lost the 'debate', so your feelings aren't hurt.
Moreover, the Brits not only disarmed the Scots, they attempted to destroy their culture by banning, of all things, bagpipes, which were used by the Scots in battle.
Once the Scots were disarmed they were subject to murder and deportation to other lands.
"The banning of guns is not the solution . It will only set the stage for larger problems."
Yes and every prediction you've made on this site has panned out sooo well, didn't they, Duhnold?
Hahahahaha
Your predictions always fail. Mine always prove right - and here's what will happen:
No more repub presidents means no more conservative SC justices - we've already got a Chief SC justice who sides with Obama more often than not.
One or 2 more liberal justices means a case will come up that enforces the "well-regulated militia" language, and that language will be taken literally by the court, as all true, strict constitutional constructionists agree it should.
And we already have "well-regulated militias" - police, Nat Guard, military etc
It's a social issue, Duhnold - and even you aren't dumb enough to deny that, on social issues...
Hahahaha, nice Donald. "monkey" with the constitution sounds really bad. Do you mean "amend"? The framers created a process where the constitution could be amended if needed. Its been amended (i.e., monkeyed with) over 27 times. Have you heard about those later amendments? Were those only the acts of deranged liberals? hahahahah... please continue.
"They have a history of being powerless vassals and serfs who traded their freedom for security by an overlord."
The words of a rugged individualist without any historical perspective whatsoever.
What about Magna Carta and English common law? That's the common tradition of individual liberty in all the English-speaking democracies including the UK and the USA. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are further extensions and modifications of the fundamental tenets of English common law.
We signed the North Atlantic Treaty and fought Hitler and the National Socialists together to defend those rights.
The history of Britain is military conflict, civil war and imperialism.
They have a much more violent, warlike history than we do, as anyone with a basic knowledge of western civilization learned in high school.
After the Dunblane massacre, they outlawed handguns, which according to you must have created a black market for guns which exposed the populace to unfettered criminal mayhem.
Nope. Didn't happen. You're wrong, as always.
Try reading, and learning - instead of spewing laughable, ignorant gibberish.
See what two election victories have resulted in for the radical Left. Now they are invincible. Supermen. Only the left knows what is good for people.
You will lose , It is part of life and can't be avoided. As I have stated elsewhere in this forum the Conservatives in America are the defenders of private enterprise, which is the demonstrable engine of prosperity. The Left can only hope that they don't destroy that engine, but they will.
When that happens Socialism will finally be over as an economic system. It will also eventually collapse in all the basket case economies in the world, as it is slowly doing in China..
Socialism is the prescription for poverty and an eventual loss of Constitutional freedoms.
They have a much more violent, warlike history than we do, as anyone with a basic knowledge of western civilization learned in high school.
Well how could that have happened when they have had all this arms control and we haven't.
Besides ,this country never had a feudal past. Britain has also been in existence for much longer than the US. A longer history equals a greater opportunity for war..
"We have so many thousands of service men and women coming out of service and need work.
Putting these well-trained patriots to work to protect our kids is a win-win."
You are an idiot if you think 20something year old veterans, some with PTSD, should be intentionally armed near our kids to protect them. Your an idiot anyways, but that statement was asinine. GFYS.
"See what two election victories have resulted in for the radical Left. Now they are invincible. Supermen. Only the left knows what is good for people. "
Hahahahaha, wrong, as always.
Name one social issue that the US has become more conservative and less liberal on over the last 100 years.
Bush CAMPAIGNED on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004 - gee duhnold, where'd that go? Dick Cheney himself is pro-SSM now.
It's not so much that we're smarter, and know what's better (which we do anyway)
We just accept reality.
Democracies always become more liberal, and less conservative, over time. Always.
That's why it's a stupid waste of time to be a conservative. You always eventually lose.
"Socialism will finally be over as an economic system. It will also eventually collapse in all the basket case economies in the world, as it is slowly doing in China.."
Please cite any economist who believes that.
Are you really that stupid that you don't think we know you have no idea what you're talking about?
The idea of armed guards at elementary schools is so idiotic I can't even believe it was proposed.
Concealed weapons in bars and on college campuses, large quantity magazines, lock down procedures for kindergartners, legislation to allow guns on the private property of others against their will, it's all just totally nuts.
Richmond, Virginia— The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under federal law, a background check is required on any individual who purchases a firearm(s) from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. This system allows authorities to deny the sale of firearms to persons who are prohibited under federal law from buying them (i.e., convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill by a court, individuals who are the subject of an active restraining order, etc.).
In an August 18 alert to its members, the NRA described the VFTP as “obsolete and unnecessary.”
It's not so much that we're smarter, and know what's better (which we do anyway)
No , the only thing you are better at is group think , political character assassination, and growing government .
The other stuff about 'social issues' is irrelevant hogwash, as is the extrapolation of your private definition of what constitutes liberal and conservative into a lame and nonexistent historical context.
It a sort of narrative without an effective narration.
Like Dr. Frykenweenie I am afraid you are intellectually tone deaf and historically ignorant.
Back on topic, and off the stupid
You mean back to cut and paste leftist propaganda.
Mr Hedge, do you do the HAHAHAHAHA with two fingers on separate hands or two fingers on the same hand?
Exactly. I've been to lots of third world countries that have armed guards everywhere. I'd like to think I'm not living in one.
Righto. Long have I suspected the agenda of conservatives is to bleed this country into the third world. Never have I seen such obvious proof of it though!
Hey, what's wrong with armed guards? What's wrong with getting your food from the back of a U.N. truck? Hey, it works in Africa!
I think what we must face is the fact that the world in which we live is growing more and more evil by the day.
After 9-1, we have had to grow accustomed to the TSA in our airports. Perhaps this evil of shooters killing our kids is yet one more thing we have to combat, just like those terrorists.
The world is failing, and we have to find a way to fight that.
"The other stuff about 'social issues' is irrelevant hogwash, as is the extrapolation of your private definition of what constitutes liberal and conservative into a lame and nonexistent historical context."
Hahahaha, your inability to refute it proves me correct - as does any history book.
All democracies become more liberal, and less conservative, over time. You lose.
The British have an even more violent, warlike history than we do. You lose again.
But if you could accept reality, you'd be a grown-up, right Duhnold?
Instead of the squealing little brat you turned out to be.
We have to start the dialog on limiting 1st Amendment rights. The media has for too long been allowed to fill the minds of potential mass killers with unrestrained images of violence and mayhem. They are also allowed to make instant celebrities of of these killers for naked profit.
soo, take away the pens and let 'em have their swords...
"After 9-1, we have had to grow accustomed to the TSA in our airports. Perhaps this evil of shooters killing our kids is yet one more thing we have to combat, just like those terrorists."
Agreed. We can take the guns out of their hands.
Here's the example of a country combatting school shootings, by outlawing guns, and winning.
Everyone here is looking at a picture, some say it's clearly white and others say its as black as deep space.
Unfortunately it's grey, all grey through and through and a hundred variations, too.
Armed guards are a good idea some places, some times. Some guns are awesome and we should have some of them in society. Some regulation is needed, and some people will gun down schools.
We keep trying to paint with a broader brush, when we are uniquely f*#ked.
As long as guns exist there will be people that will do this. Now we're back to playing that old game of trading freedoms for safety. I f*#king hate it. I don't own guns but lots of friends do... They wouldn't want me to lose climbing, and guns are their passion.
Around and around we go, circling our children's graves with our picket signs and dogma.
Hahahaha, your inability to refute it proves me correct - as does any history book
You are delusional , like all sadistic James Bond villains.
You are also overly concerned about losing face,with your buddies, the other jackaknapes that populate the low-information Left.
Now I will end my post with some jargonizing so common with other posters:
Didn't someone mention a few days ago that the gun manufacturers would be pushing into the education market?
It's all about sales.
One can't help but observe the selective use of various types of logic here:
"Take a away the guns and they will just use a knife, or find some means to manufacture a bomb. It doesn't matter the type of firearm, a revolver or high-capacity semi-automatic, the killers will find a way..."
These killers are so crafty and resourceful - they will find a way around every obstacle to achiece their goals.
But apparently none of them would ever figure out that they would just need to shoot the guard first.
ive suggested this before,, but there is this gubbment org known as "HOME land security"...If they REALLY wanted to secure our "home land" how about they raise the cap and pony up some guards instead of flying HELOS all over the place? Or setting up "sting ops" withe the USFWS over 2 dead turkey skins from Mexico..
I think what we must face is the fact that the world in which we live is growing more and more evil by the day.
That is only true if we ignore just about all of history.
Even if one read nothing but the Bible, they would find ample evidence that the world is a far more peaceful and harmonious place today than it ever has been.
Which dosn't jive much with your statement, except perhaps for the "International Terrorism" trends.
Which is interesting as the increase in "Domestic Terrorism" which these mass killings are, is somewhat parallel.
At any rate, what exactly were you talking about? The world has a bumpy road but it dosn't seem to be in any immediate death spiral, in fact statistically just the opposite it could be argued.
How about we designate one day a year as "National Shoot Somebody Day"?
Just have a 24 hour free-for-all where all of the gun nuts, crazies, mother rapers, daddy haters and doomsday preppers can blast away with unfettered glee.
A win-win on a lot of levels - population reduction, economic upsurge for Walmarts, release of pent up tensions, fodder for any number of reality shows on TLC.
I would set the tag limit at one person apiece just so we show we are still civilized.
In case it hasn't been mentioned, Columbine had a security officer.
Got anymore half-assed, dodging the issue completely suggestions?
I also can't recall seeing an armed guard since I lived in Chicago and banked at the main Harris Bank branch in the south Loop which did indeed have an armed guard on the premisses. That was 12 years and probably a hundred banks ago.
1st Amemdment rights? Don't you mean the 2nd Amendment? Use your power as a citizen and vote for congressman and senators that support restrictions on assault rifles and semiautomatic handguns. It's not the NRA that requlates gun sales and legislation regarding guns...it's congress. Vote for legislators that AREN'T pro gun. CONGRESS HAS A STUPID PILL PROBLEM!!!!! THEY'RE ADDICTED.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under federal law, a background check is required on any individual who purchases a firearm(s) from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. This system allows authorities to deny the sale of firearms to persons who are prohibited under federal law from buying them (i.e., convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill by a court, individuals who are the subject of an active restraining order, etc.).
In an August 18 alert to its members, the NRA described the VFTP as “obsolete and unnecessary.”
Wayne LaPierre, the spokesman for the National Rifle Association, would have been better advised to remain wherever he had been hiding after the Newtown massacre, rather than appear at the news conference on Friday. No one seriously believed the N.R.A. when it said it would contribute something “meaningful” to the discussion about gun violence. The organization’s very existence is predicated on the nation being torn in half over guns. Still, we were stunned by Mr. LaPierre’s mendacious, delusional, almost deranged rant.
Mr. LaPierre looked wild-eyed at times as he said the killing was the fault of the media, songwriters and singers and the people who listen to them, movie and TV scriptwriters and the people who watch their work, advocates of gun control, video game makers and video game players.
The N.R.A., which devotes itself to destroying any hope of compromise on guns, however, is blameless. So are the unscrupulous and unlicensed dealers who sell guns to criminals, and the gun makers who bankroll Mr. LaPierre so he can help them keep peddling their ever-more-lethal, ever-more-efficient products, and politicians who kill laws that would exert even modest controls over guns.
He offered nothing more than the most ridiculous anti-gun-control rhetoric we’ve heard since the Newtown murders. His solution to the proliferation of guns, including semiautomatic rifles that have little purpose beyond killing people as quickly as possible, is to put more guns in more places. Mr. LaPierre would put a police officer in every school and compel teachers and principals to become armed guards, because his group won’t do anything about the ease with which anyone can get a gun.
He wants volunteer and professional firefighters, who already risk their lives every day, to be charged with thwarting an assault by a deranged murderer. The same applies to paramedics, security guards, veterans, retired police officers. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Mr. LaPierre said. (It is interesting that such a literal reader of the Second Amendment would have missed the fact that Congress has no power over local police forces and schools. Talk about Big Brother government.)
We cannot imagine trying to turn the principals and teachers who care for our children every day into an armed mob. And let’s be clear, civilians bristling with guns to prevent the “next Newtown” are an armed mob even with training offered up by Mr. LaPierre. Any town officials or school principal who takes up the N.R.A. on that offer should be fired.
Mr. LaPierre said the Newtown killing spree “might” have been averted if the killer had been confronted by an armed security guard. It’s far more likely that there would have been a dead armed security guard — just as there would have been even more carnage if civilians had started firing weapons in the Aurora movie theater.
In the 62 mass-murder cases over 30 years examined recently by the magazine Mother Jones, not one was stopped by an armed civilian. There are two cases in which armed civilians confronted a shooter. Both were immediately shot. One died.
We have known for many, many years that a sheriff’s deputy was at Columbine High School in 1999 and traded shots with Eric Harris while 11 of the 13 people he and Dylan Klebold killed were still alive. He missed four times.
People like Mr. LaPierre want us to believe that civilians can be trained to use lethal force with cold precision in moments of fear and crisis. That requires a willful ignorance about the facts. Police officers know that firing a weapon is a huge risk; that’s why they avoid doing it. In August, New York City police officers opened fire on a gunman outside the Empire State Building. They killed him and wounded nine bystanders.
Mr. LaPierre said the news media give mass killers the attention they seek. He said the news media call the semiautomatic weapon used in Newtown a machine gun, claim that it’s a military weapon and that it fires the most powerful ammunition available. That’s not true. What is true is that there is a growing call in America for stricter gun control.
NYT editorial was harsh but nailed it. I find it extra hilarious that the "a gun doesn't make someone homicidal" lobby have decided that killing people in computer games DOES make people homicidal. If that was true then I'd have killed a few school's worth of kids by now.
To be honest, I am all for the right to bear arms and all that stuff that the NRA supposedly supports. But the actions of that group and the few vocal gun nuts is quite disturbing. I suppose that they reject gun registration databases, and all that, because when the sh#t hits the fan and they become the rebels trying to stop some sort of out of oppresive government, they want it to be hard for that government to find and exterminate them.
That type of thinking is just not rational. Zombies and political unrest both happen very slowly and there will be plenty of time to run and hide from either.
The NRA are a lot like the politicians at the moment. They are unwilling to compromise for their own good. They are so wrapped up in their own principals that they can't see how it is working against them. And they need to hire better public speakers or get some decent speech writers.
"The NRA are a lot like the politicians at the moment. They are unwilling to compromise for their own good."
The Right (repubs and NRA) is unwilling to compromise because they'll lose their extremist, wingnut base - in other words, their base. So it'd be for the good of the country for them to compromise, yes.
But it would send the repub party down the drain practically overnight.
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the board meeting when the NRA was discussing the language of today's press conference. "God damn liberal media!"
Yeah, lets rethink freedom of the press in this day and age of instant news reporting. We can limit the media so that we do not have to regulate gun ownership. Forget about the fact that without the main stream media we would be relying on citizen bloggers, that would be great!
The First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Funny first the rights or freedom of speech then after they agreed on that they gave us the rights to own, make and buy guns. The first two things.
There is talk of Security guards protecting all schools by the Stupid NRA: Police $$$$$$$$$$$,stupid idea since they should be looking for crime not guarding or waiting for something to happen. National Guard $$$$$$$$$$, another stupid idea. How about giving teachers to arm themselves: let’s see one goes ballistic because one of her students can’t shut up or does not hand in his/her homework in time or maybe she shoots and her round misses and goes through the plaster board and kills a kid in the class next to hers.
Yes! The answer will be to hire private guards. The contractor with the lowest bid will win and hire Ex-Walmart employees, retired people in their 70’s also will hire “Back to Work off Welfare People” ; $9 an hour; they will eventually get bored because nothing happens and they caught for smoking pot. Big scandal, billions of wasted dollars, so try another idea.
Cameras never work; fuzzy and lack of time to respond, plus too way expensive to buy A11M technology. I see there is someone selling Bullet-proof backpacks; first no such thing it is Bullet Resistant/Resistive terminology plus it stops handguns not high power rounds shot from a high power semi-automatic rifle like the one used in the school so waste of funds and law suits concur from that manufacture by cutting cost and disregarding regulated and code because he was awarded the lowest bid which is the requirement by the FEDS. He files for Bankruptcy and runs out of town. Plus the kid was shot in the head so no protection.
So all stupid ideas and give it to the stupid NRA to come up with stupid solutions.
OK
Just went to my local probation department this morning not for me but to hand in some papers dealing with a juvenile stealing some of my personal stuff 15 months ago; we went to trail, he gets a year’s probation and 250.00 fine which is my deductible. Had one week to replaced everything because I went overseas, came back insurance company pays me 6/7 months later when I get back.
So I walk in, it is fortified, had to laugh since I do risk assessments. The woman behind the window asks “Can I help you”, I say need to drop these off to one of your staff regarding going back to court to get the deductible: reason for his fine. We will go to court late Jan. of 2013.
Before she comes out I am assessing the room and see four mistakes, windows, access, lighting…… 2 minutes or less she shows up opens the door and I notice her left shoe toe is against her side of the door and held the door with her right hand to stop entry which was good, she relaxed, gave her the papers she requested and then I knock on the glass window just above programmable lock. I hit and notice it is not glass but plastic [mistake assessment #5] and was so thin could of broken it easily. But I asked her what’s wrong with this, she says ???? “Knocking on the window instead of the door” I said “no” this door is the same setup how the kid got in the classrooms by shooting and opening it in from the inside. She is startled and says “Wow, you are correct”, thanked me and told she will make a note of it and will tell the appropriate people. Then told her where it should be placed.
So what will happen and is already in action for protection for children so they are safe: smaller windows to the outside of the new schools. Older schools will be updated with precast panels with a spray on fragmented resistive membrane on the back to shield at the appropriate height. The children will be placed further away from the windows not near them, Latches to doors will be wired for wireless automatic shutdown by a single or multiple button either by a person or by the sound of a rifle round going off.
Canada has a Sin-Tax: cigarettes and booze. Have the NRA keep their stupid ideas and create a Violence Tax not an anti-violence because Americans well some actually a lot of them like Violence; as for me, I am not one of them on all rifles that are military styled.
Booze and guns have you ever notice the prices have really never changed in the last 50 years; so double the amount 50% on assault rifles and ammo. Half or that 50% tax is used for upgrading schools. Make sure they do not look like forts but blend in and use green products.
And that is just for schools what about violence against women and rape, pedophiles against children.
But then again really nothing just like the battery commercial; it keeps going and keeps going.
"The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
As part of a well regulated militia.
"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."
We already have well-regulated militias - the cops, Nat Guard, military etc
Private, civilian gun owners are neither well-regulated, or part of a militia, therefore they're not constitutionally allowed to own guns.
Cannot post this enough, after today's idiotic NRA press conference
Again, notice that this was in VA, AFTER the VA Tech shooting, the worst school massacre yet (32 students massacred in class, 17 wounded with armed guards on campus)
NRA seeks to weaken background check system in Virginia
Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in The Nation
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under federal law, a background check is required on any individual who purchases a firearm(s) from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. This system allows authorities to deny the sale of firearms to persons who are prohibited under federal law from buying them (i.e., convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill by a court, individuals who are the subject of an active restraining order, etc.).
In an August 18 alert to its members, the NRA described the VFTP as “obsolete and unnecessary.”
I just hope that if there is civil unrest and predators at my friend donini's door that he can keep them at bay tossing used Depends and brandishing ice tools.
Dec 21, 2012 - 06:19pm PT
my addition re:
the NRA Monument to Stupidity
(instead of my reposting it here, although perhaps that would be even more effective)
I also KNEW Mr. O was gonna have to go off re his gun-totin' wackness.
The saddest aspect to all this is our country once had an optimism that brought people together in crises; now, the prepper mindset has fostered a culture of cowardly, fearful, paranoid loners convinced they can somehow survive without anyone else, as long as they can kill everyone who approaches. What if, pray tell, those are actually people gracious enough to be coming to your assistance?
Wait a little while, and we'll get to see the first unarmed gunman, who walks into a school, grabs the nearest firearm off a teacher/guard then....
Or, the wierdo who gets a job "guarding" a school, then takes out a few dozen...
A story a few days ago summed it up succinctly: as long as such weapons are readily available, no amount of protection will be adequate, as made clear in the fact that Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady were surrounded by the best-trained, armed security in the world - Secret Service agents - yet were both nearly killed. The concept of armed defenders is total B.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
"The Cold War
The Cold War and similar arms races can be modelled as a Prisoner's Dilemma situation.[22] During the Cold War the opposing alliances of NATO and the Warsaw Pact both had the choice to arm or disarm. From each side's point of view: Disarming whilst your opponent continues to arm would have led to military inferiority and possible annihilation. If both sides chose to arm, neither could afford to attack each other, but at the high cost of maintaining and developing a nuclear arsenal. If both sides chose to disarm, war would be avoided and there would be no costs. If your opponent disarmed while you continue to arm, then you achieve superiority.
Although the 'best' overall outcome is for both sides to disarm, the rational course for both sides is to arm. This is indeed what happened, and both sides poured enormous resources in to military research and armament for the next thirty years until the dissolution of the Soviet Union broke the deadlock."
Public schools are just one of the things my people came up with. In Israel a teacher actually shot and killed a terrorist, but in Israel every citizen does 2 years (women included) in the world's finest military.
Can't arm teachers here, but can't pay for armed guards who can't be everywhere at once anyway.
Guns are not going away soon (no matter how many times you click your heels and wish on a star) so maybe it is time for a cultural change. Maybe we need to drop the rudeness. Maybe we need to destigmatize mental health issues.
I've said it before; make this a world people want to be part of.
Just one well-trained individual so that any potential mass killers will know that someone there at any given school is armed and trained to do whatever it takes to stop them.
More disassociation from reality from the right.
Your average classroom has 20 to 30 kids in it. If a psycho with an automatic weapon, who plans to off himself after he does his thing, enters that classroom and starts firing, how many minutes does it take him to do insane damage?
Next question - how many armed guards per school would it take to reliably stop him in this theoretical scenario before that damage is done?
How many "potential mass killers" would be deterred by the thought of being confronted by a gun toting security guard?
The NRA has one underlying goal - protect gun manufacturers' profits.
"Maybe we need to drop the rudeness. Maybe we need to destigmatize mental health issues.
I've said it before; make this a world people want to be part of."
Nope - too many psychos with guns.
Need to work on getting the guns away from the psychos, and those with criminal records
Here's what the NRA is doing to keep guns from those with criminal records:
Again, notice that this was in VA, AFTER the VA Tech shooting, the worst school massacre yet (32 students massacred in class, 17 wounded with armed guards on campus)
NRA seeks to weaken background check system in Virginia
Gun Lobby Would Scrap State Database That is Best in The Nation
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under federal law, a background check is required on any individual who purchases a firearm(s) from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. This system allows authorities to deny the sale of firearms to persons who are prohibited under federal law from buying them (i.e., convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill by a court, individuals who are the subject of an active restraining order, etc.).
In an August 18 alert to its members, the NRA described the VFTP as “obsolete and unnecessary.”
Personally, I think more people should buy more cameras. With a camera you can shoot all the effing time AND retrieve yer shots!
The government could have a program where as if somebody goes in to buy a gun, the salesman has to say, " Yes, that 45 is really nice but we have an 18 MP crop sensor here by Canon that you can take home fer less - here, take a couple shots - tell me what you think ".
Ed,
Why has no one noted how quickly we then annihilated the Soviets?
Oh, guess it was because we didn't.
Hmm. Makes one pause.
Unfortunately, the world has a few total nutjobs, along with a few total nut countries. I do not feel strongly about the lack of Russian firepower, the continuing strength of China, but I DO worry about adding Iran and Pakistan and North Korea to the list.
Extending the analogy, I feel a lot more comfortable knowing that at least reasonably trained law enforcement officers are the ones likely to be responding to the rare assault event, versus Rambo Ron types who are more likely to hit one another, or other innocents, in a melee, or even a simple false alarm.
The myth of the old West gunslinger is just that - very few law-abiding citizens packed sidearms, yet miraculously most of them survived.
Back on topic, clearly the NRA's primary agenda, now that Obama's reelected, is to sell as many sponsor's weapons and bullets as possible, and what better method than to convince paranoid populations that arming schools will somehow make them safer?
We already have well-regulated militias - the cops, Nat Guard, military etc
Private, civilian gun owners are neither well-regulated, or part of a militia, therefore they're not constitutionally allowed to own guns.
Pretty simple, really.
Hedge
Yes
The 2nd amendment says nothing about private civilians being able to have any weapon they want.
It's just another right wing con, twisting the Constitution to say what they want it to say
Public relations experts who have experience working with the gun industry expressed horror on Friday afternoon at the National Rifle Association's response to the Newtown, Conn., shootings.
The group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, struck a scolding tone on Friday, blaming the video game industry and media for exposing youth to a culture of violence, and calling for armed police or security guards in schools: "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.
Public relations professionals reached by The Huffington Post said the timing of his message, which broke a week of silence in the wake of the tragic murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, could be an irredeemable mistake for the group.
“It was worse than if the NRA had not spoken at all,” said Gene Grabowski, executive vice president of Levick Strategic Communications, a Washington, D.C.-based issues management firm that has worked with firearms manufacturers. "The same message about the culture in another time and place might have made sense, but in context of tragedy, it seemed mean-spirited, cold and misguided."
Grabowski also said the NRA made a mistake by remaining silent on its social media channels last week. After the Sandy Hook tragedy, the organization stopped activity on all of its Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts.
The NRA is under close scrutiny this week as the Sandy Hook shooting renews the political and social debate over gun-control laws. The organization is one of the nation's most powerful lobby groups, but its extreme policy positions don't jibe with all gun owners, many of whom support tighter gun-control laws, according to a survey from a prominent Republican pollster in July.
"They have come out too aggressively," said Jonathan Bernstein, president of Los Angeles-based Bernstein Crisis Management. "[I'm] not even sure they have listened to their own members."
The NRA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
10 Reasons Why Arming Teachers Is A Really Stupid Idea
2012/12/21
By John Viall
And now, with twenty-six fresh graves filled or to fill, what do the most strident gun-rights advocates want to discuss? What do Second Amendment absolutists (those who say the right to bear arms cannot be infringed) suggest that we do to protect innocents like Jack Pinto?
Of course! We arm people like Ms. Soto. We arm teachers.
Why is this idea stupid, you ask? As a former teacher, allow me to explain: first and foremost, it won’t work. It won’t guarantee the kind of safety our children deserve. And we, as a nation, can no longer afford the luxury of wishful thinking where these kind of attacks are concerned. We owe the victims of this horrendous attack better. We owe it to all of our children, both living and dead, to face reality and craft sensible national policies. Here are a few reasons why arming teachers is an absurd place to start:
1. If we place a gun in the office, ready to a principal’s hand (or to the hand of some other school defender), as some absolutists are now suggesting, what happens if the heavily armed intruder shoots his way in through a different doorway?
2. What if two maniacal killers are involved? Then one defender isn’t enough (See: Columbine, 1999).
3. If the psychopath has a semi-automatic weapon clearly the defender will require (at minimum) a semi-automatic weapon. How exactly does this gun vs. gun strategy play out if the attack occurs at the start of the school day, or during a class change, when halls are crowded with children? How many bullets do the absolutists want to see flying around our schools?
4. How do we protect kids on a playground during recess if a psycho shows up and starts spraying fire? (That’s already been done. See: Stockton, 1989)
5. What if the psycho lurks by the roadside and waits in the morning until a bus loaded with children passes by? What if he opens fire at that them? (Same idea: end of the day.)
6. What if the killer forces his way in through the kitchen and into the cafeteria at lunch? (Arm cooks with guns? At least they already have knives.)
7. How do we defend if the perpetrator calls in a fake bomb threat and the children empty out onto the lawn; and then he arrives to start shooting?
8. What do we do if the psycho pulls up in a car in front of any school, which is exactly what happened at Sandy Hook, and jumps out and starts shooting as students enter some morning? (Same idea, exiting: afternoon.)
9. What if the perpetrator parks his car, walks up to just about any first floor classroom in America and starts firing through windows?
10. Suppose a killer approaches a high school soccer field during the first period of a tie game and starts blasting? (Same idea: track meet, softball game, tennis match, marching band or cheer leading practice.)
while the idea of having armed guards at school is abhorrent. our current laws and near term future laws dealing with weapons WOULD NOT prevent a Sandy hook from happening.
the only thing that could have prevented sandy hook is an armed guard....
the only thing that could have prevented sandy hook is an armed guard....
Rain on your parade
What if Adam (whatshisname) did not have any guns and/or bullets
He won't make it to 80 - his kind consumes themselves from within
Probably true about the consumption, but it wouldn't surprise me if he lasts longer. I try not to wish anyone ill, so I won't. However, should he pass on, I would not be grieving.
"The NRA says there should be a cop in every school with a gun….
LaPieair didn't mention who was going to pay all those cops…
And don't ask the law and order republigoons for any taxes to pay for it"
Paying for it would be easy - it would not cost one extra dollar, if our dollars were spent intelligently.
Right now in California, cops, sheriffs, CHP, prison guards, and parole officers are able to retire at fifty years old with 90% of their pay as their pension.
Instead of retiring at fifty, cops, CHP, etc. should be re-assaigned to school security - at 90% of their former pay - when they turn fifty, and be required to work until they're 67 before retiring.
A better idea would be to just get rid of mass assembly style schooling, and school the kids at home.
But instead of gathering all the kids together at school, you send the education to the kids in their homes.
Kids don't have to sit within sight of the chalkboard or within earshot of the teacher anymore if you take advantage of modern media delivery methods - such as DVD and internet - and educate the kids right where they live.
I want hand grenades. Wal Mart is close and convenient.
We are tearing apart our nukes at a frightening pace. That is a damn waste of good money. I think that we should have a tactical nuke at every school.
Seriously, I am a hunting rifle owner, and I need two or three bullets per year max. Others enjoy just shooting stuff up, and that is all fine, but the NRA has gone fullblown batshit crazy.
I fell asleep on the couch with one of the Sportsmen channels on, and kept having this recurring dream as I slept. I woke up and realized that the NRA was playing this 30 minute piece about how if we sign an agreement with the U.N. it will take our guns away. They were comparing Obama to some of histories great tyrants, and were saying that if he won the election he would have us be invaded by U.N. troops.
U.N. TROOPS? DOES ANYONE REALIZE HOW INEPT U.N. TROOPS ARE? First, they are donated in small quantities from other nations. They don't have a bunch of bases and good weapons. U.N. troops are the guys in white APC's and blue helmets who don't get to carry ammo.
Me and my wife could get rid of U.N. troops.
What planet does LaPierre live on? The NRA used to be pretty normal. Now they might as well hire Ted Nugent as the next president.
And like I said, I own guns. Hunting guns, but quite dangerous and locked up.
To all you limp dicked gun nutter Rambo-ettes proposing arming schools** GO F*#K YOUR SELVES!**
Keep your whack nut crazy assed sh#t and your guns out of my country's schools. How many of you have kids in school? How many of youare teachers or are/were married to teachers. Your ignorance and arrogance disgusts me.
Columbine had an armed gaurd how did that work out?
What's interesting is that NRA chieftan blames the media for sensationalizing these types of shootings but yet he himself buys into the whole hysteria thing saying we need to arm everyone. It's all just a little disgusting.
But instead of gathering all the kids together at school, you send the education to the kids in their homes.
You gotta be joking!
"gathering all the kids together at school" is half the education, if not more. How are kids going to learn to interact with their peers in a healthy way if they don't learn with a variety of other kids?
And what are the parents of these kids who learn at home, rather than in school, going to do for the day? Quit their jobs to watch their kids? Hire nannies?
I suppose all nannies should be armed too, cuz you just can't be too paranoid...
WTF is wrong with republicon minds? Why do they all think like this?
5000 threads later there is still precious little critical thinking... I wonder if it's always been this way.
A horrendous act happened, very similar in nature to recent horrendous acts.
Rather than stopping and actually thinking logically, the sheeple on both sides simply react. The ones who fear black sticks that go bang blame the big scary magazines. "Assault Rifle" sounds scary too. Go with that. Only the 'police' need scary things like that.
The other side calls for more guns, more Iraqi-esque green-zones to be set up at Sunny Days Elementary. Shoot the perps in the head. Those f'ing crazies! Make a daterbase of 'crazies' too... Yeah, that'll do it.
Emotion rules the day, and then the week, maybe the whole month. Thinking is either impossible for the masses or suspended.
Both sides hurl insults and use little dead kids as punctuation for their remarks. Libtards, gun-nuts, etc... Pictures of phalluses are introduced. Everyone has to be lumped into little tribes and teams their small brains can grasp and probe.
Fascinating.
Laws will be passed based on said emotions. Their content mattering not a bit. The government doing what it does... Growing like a cancer and seizing more power.
All the while, the next guy, maybe in Hackensack, NJ, who is about to snap is watching TV about drones accidentally killing 4, maybe 5 "brown" people in Afghanistan. Ooops. He pops a Lexipro. Maybe a valium tonight too.
The keys for his Mobil tanker fuel truck accidentally get knocked to the floor.
Columbine had an armed gaurd how did that work out?
You make a good point, we need two armed guards. Added benefit, if one guard goes postal the other can shoot him, like the plan they had for officers in the missile silos.
Wait, maybe we need three armed guards, yeah, thats right, three armed guards.
The cost, minor detail, with 130,000 k-12 schools the cost would be 9.1 billion dollars, assuming a cost of 70k per guard (includes cost of benefits, we want happy guards right). Hmm, seems low, oh, my bad, that is for one guard per school, 27 billion dollars for three guards. Oh, and read my lips, no new taxes.
Go easy fear, we're just a bunch of slightly evolved chimpanzees you know.
edit:
You make a good point, we need two armed guards. Added benefit, if one guard goes postal the other can shoot him, like the plan they had for officers in the missile silos.
Wait, maybe we need three armed guards, yeah, thats right, three armed guards.
The cost, minor detail, with 130,000 k-12 schools the cost would be 9.1 billion dollars, assuming a cost of 70k per guard (includes cost of benefits, we want happy guards right). Hmm, seems low, oh, my bad, that is for one guard per school, 27 billion dollars for three guards. Oh, and read my lips, no new taxes.
Hahahaha... good stuff.
I was just thinking along similar lines. You get some PTSD Marine in there armed to the teeth and next thing you know you have a highly trained ex-military personnel wreaking carnage. Probably unfair, but is this how we want kids to grow up? Like they're in a third world country?
Oh yeah, I forgot that conservatives bowing to their corporate masters want just that. They'll bring jobs back from overseas once they've driven the American worker to the point where they are working for rupees.
The beauty of the NRA's statement today is it will backfire on them. No pun intended.
you'd think they'd figure out how to appear smart enough to show they were willing and able to engage in a meaningful conversation. But todays statement clearly shows they are not. Guarding our schools with armed guards is beyond stupid. It shows a complete disconnect with those that are not NRA members (read, most of the country).
That disconnect comes as no surprise.
Further if you think that everyone should carry you also clearly show a disconnect with the country as a whole. Most want nothing to do with guns. It's a ridiculous "solution" to a major problem.
Stay disconnected I guess....
So the result I think will be is in another week or two there will be some other mass shooting (maybe the NRA will get lucky and it'll be a month or more) and the discussion or rhetoric will continue. I certainly don't wish that but let's be real. We all know there are people out there that watched this latest mass shooting and want to one-up that psycho. It's only going to get worse before it gets better.
I suspect those advocating for restrictions on guns will start to really organize and make a statement/difference. This latest event is galvanizing those of us that realize something has to change. One the other side the brain damaged NRA is advocating for turning our schools into reverse-prisons.
Y'all really think that'll turn the conversation into something constructive?
But instead of gathering all the kids together at school, you send the education to the kids in their homes.
Kids don't have to sit within sight of the chalkboard or within earshot of the teacher anymore if you take advantage of modern media delivery methods - such as DVD and internet - and educate the kids right where they live.
Rather than stopping and actually thinking logically, the sheeple on both sides simply react.
Fear said what I have been wondering about for a long time. The difference between Canada and the US.
You have sides. Either one side or the other is in power, but everyone is on a side and after 5000 posts, you can't leave your sides and display critical thinking and solve issues. You are very representative of your country as a whole. If it came down to it (and it has in the past) you simply shoot the citizens 'on the other side' until one side declares victory.
In Canada, we have political hot button topics, but everyone is first and foremost a Canadian. All the finger pointing ends up pointed at the government - a largely detached and independent entity in society led by the fact that we had the Queen as head of state for so long. We just don't have the kind of hateful destructive arguments as a country as a whole over issues because when we differ on opinions we point our fingers at the government, not at each other.
In the US, the republicans are responsible for the NRA, guns are responsible for mass killings, and therefore Ron is responsible for these school kids.
A decade of watching this phenomenon in each country and I've finally figured it out!
private gun ownership
mandatory public service or military
harder driver's license tests
decriminalization of drug possession
more pay for cops and teachers
restoring public land (no grazing, wild horses or burros)
Against
welfare/nanny state
uneducated liptards having a vote
idiots that mishandle firearms
litterbugs and vandals
property tax (you want services? Pay for 'em)
censorship of nudity rather than violence
people that have kids but don't want to spend the time and effort to raise them properly!
So tooth, I am a libertarian. Do I really have to choose a side? Why can't I just sit in the bleachers and watch the game?
Our EGO MANIACAL govt is to busy attempting to be some friggin "WORLD POWER" whilst stepping on the backs of ALL THEIR OWN people.
Yeah we will GIVE MONIES we dont even have to third world countries that do nothing but act as an enemy but solving our own problems like SCHOOL SAFETY fall right off their "bills".....
nstead of BILLIONS to places such as AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN and ANY OTHER STAN,, why dont we put that money into making our schools safer..
Great idea
Better yet... spend all those billions giving our people a better education with better mental health services, and then there wouldn't be any need for armed guards at schools.
Paying for it would be easy - it would not cost one extra dollar, if our dollars were spent intelligently.
Right now in California, cops, sheriffs, CHP, prison guards, and parole officers are able to retire at fifty years old with 90% of their pay as their pension.
Instead of retiring at fifty, cops, CHP, etc. should be re-assaigned to school security - at 90% of their former pay - when they turn fifty, and be required to work until they're 67 before retiring.
A better idea would be to just get rid of mass assembly style schooling, and school the kids at home.
I'm torn… Sounds like a great way to pay for the cops that the NRA are calling for and a great way to save taxpayers money…. The other side of my brains says "Chaz said key words that don't seem to have any value to a certain ideological political group that is hell bent on getting rid of government…. a political party with a proven track record of shady spending of any taxes given to them."
So I don't trust it will happen the way that is stated by chaz, though I commend him for making the clearly thought out statement
No foreign power will ever subject Nevadastan. The terrain is treacherous, there is no food for an invading army, and the natives are armed and dangerous.
edit: I'm sure Nevadastan is a net giver of venereal diseases.
edit: My wrong, Nevadastan has an enlightened posistion on prostitution. It is regulated so it is safer for everyone. Now if they would just do that with guns.
and Locker,, Horse is not bad at all.. Delicacy in some countries.
Rump roast of Mr Ed man! Much better than chewing on tough ol jack wabbit. And tastier than BUGS...
Yes, Nevadastan be rich in minerals and much much more. From salt to gold, gypsum to tungsten, and all points in between! What invaders WOULDNT want to conquer the great basin state? The rural nature on Nevadastan alone has invited a host of invaders. And it is very safe to say that its those invaders that cause the most havoc here.
And yes TV,, i hear the first meals may be a wee rich for yur average consumer. Side effects MAY inlcude: Nausea, vomiting, explosive shatting, Gas, Bowel churning, Pin worm infection to the brain, Lethargic symptoms, Rashes, fever and death.. Please seek a physician or lawyer if the latter.
Tax the ones who want to keep them and the manufacturers, in order to pay for all the additional protection they require in society.
Brilliant concept, but it won't work, either. Similar tactics have been attempted for tobacco, etc.
Look how many decades it took to get tobacco companies to pay? Now what do you think is the likelihood that the government will be able to able to get gun manufacturers to pay?
Increasing the tax on an item has been PROVEN to reduce consumption. A consumption tax has been proposed on everything for cigarettes to gasoline, alcohol, Big Macs, and everything else that is "bad" for you and results in significant cost to society.
We can't even get a nickle deposit added to soda cans. Lobbyists have blocked all other consumption taxes. Can you imagine trying to get a tax on guns?
Well,, Nevadastan IS in the USA...And it is ALSO a state that GIVES more than it gets..
Debatable. What isn't debatable is the fact that Nevadastan is a dry dusty desert populated with sparsely scattered enclaves of firecely proud primitive tribals that cling to their guns and religion.
Oh yeah then there's Las Vegas, that is a bit like the Green Zone of Kabul.
well, in fact,, most of its is HIGH desert with a lot f alpine and sub alpine zones. I know a tiny hidden creek in a canyon that appears to be a dry dusty desert, that once in unfolds into a gorgeous tree infested place and so many brookies in the creek its black with them in spots. Theres about two hundred thousand other canyons with much the same.
Tribal? Yes, and with the sprawl of wilderness living here, guns are the only way to ensure safety as LEOS might be two hours away.
Much like the taxidermists i know in BC. They are out a ways from civilized Law.
BAHAHAHA! Thats what my Washoe and Paiute friends ALWAYS say to each other!
Washoe to Piaute : Bahhh yur tribe was all bugeaters,, we had all the FISH and DEER! We only let the QUIUI suckers down the river cuz they tasted like crap!
First LaPierre says banks have armed guards - wrong, most don't
Then he says that reporters are protected by armed guards
"Most of the media -- I know you don't have armed guards here -- but most of the media, when I go around this country, they're protected by armed guards."
No one has the slightest idea what he's talking about - the media isn't protected by armed guards
"I know you don't have armed guards here", hahahahaha
Ultimate irony: No guns allowed at NRA meetings - gee I wonder why
Must be fun to live in a delusional, pre-adolescent fantasy world
Ron said that he felt that the NRA was "spot on" with their stance on adding armed guards and/or teachers to every school or classroom.
a pair of trained attack dogs would be more effective, german shepherd or rottweiler rescues would probably work, trained to spot a gunman and ATTACK in tandem
they could be kenneled and released electronically....and supplied at a fraction of the cost of human guards...subsidized by Purina and other billion dollar pet companies, etc
The National Rifle Association's annual meeting is this weekend and it's a galaxy of pro-gun stars!
Sarah Palin!
Glenn Beck!
Newt Gringrich!
Ollie North!
Oh, and no guns.
Yes, in this celebration of all things that go bang, each of these NRA-sanctioned speakers will be offering their address before a crowd of disarmed gun enthusiasts.
On its website, the NRA warns:
North Carolina State law prohibits the carrying of firearms in the Charlotte Convention Center, and the Time Warner Cable Arena. In addition, the Rules and Regulations of the Charlotte Convention Center prohibit the carrying of firearms in the Center. Pursuant to Time Warner Cable Arena policy, all individuals entering the Arena will be subject to a magnetometer security check.
To think that you'd have to suffer the indignity of going through a metal detector to hear someone proselytize about your right to carry your gun anywhere you want is easy irony.
So why is the NRA allowing their leadership, their membership, and their special guests--even NRA board member Ted Nugent, yes, even the Nuge!--to be forced to undergo the indignity of being stripped of their guns with little more than a whimper?
Well, because to do otherwise would frankly be nuts.
And despite complaints lodged on pro-gun message boards, the NRA knows this. And I'm willing to bet that the rationale offered by Ken at NRA headquarters isn't very satisfying to most concealed and open-carry fans:
Thank you for contacting us.
The Charlotte Convention Center does not allow the carrying of firearms, both open and concealed.
The large size of our event and the fact that many of the largest convention centers are in some of the most restrictive cities leaves us with relatively few convention centers large enough to accommodate the Annual Meetings. In an effort to provide all NRA members a better opportunity to attend the Annual Meetings, it is important that we move the event around the country as much as possible. While we will not consider bringing the Annual Meetings to a city with gun laws we feel are restrictive, we must however deal with convention centers that have restrictions simply because there are so few convention centers that both allow conceal carry and are large enough to host all of the events that comprise the Annual Meetings.
Actually, I thought Pulp Fiction was a piece of crap, well overrated, like most of Tarantino's rubbish. I did like the Tim Roth restaurant scene, and I thought that Bruce Willis was fine in his cameo. But John Revolta and Jackson suck. Though Jackson is a good actor, but Vinnie Revolta, no I guess I just don't get it.
And Donald, you certainly have lived down to my expectations.
If there was a big enough convention center in a more gun favoring legal climate they would doubtless use it.
The SHOT Show was only 165,000 people and used The Sands.
I've never seen so many guns in one place, maybe 50,000 on cable tethers so you could dry fire them.
Edit;
I took down the SHOT Show photos. I've shown them before.
People are turning so ugly that it is easy to lose sight of core issues and respond in kind.
One would be people showing respect.
Emilie Parker was laid to rest yesterday in her home town of Ogden (that of her parents, Jello too).
Hundreds of residents lined the street in the cold.
"Whitman sawed off the barrel of the 12-gauge shotgun, and packed the weapon, together with a Remington 700 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, into his footlocker. The footlocker also held a 6mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35 caliber pump rifle, a .30 caliber carbine, a 9mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol and a Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver, and over 700 rounds of ammunition."
BTW, you can still find bullet holes in the areas around the tower (limestone I think)
LaPierre, who literally trembles when the omnipotent gun lobby is under siege, went ballistic painting a threatening picture of the dystopia that awaits if we don’t protect our schools from guns by putting guns in schools.
The press conference, where the press was not allowed to ask questions, played like an insane parody: a tightly wound lobbyist who earns a million or so a year by refusing to make the slightest concession on gun safety, despite repeated slaughters by deranged shooters with jaw-droppingly easy access to firearms.
LaPierre makes Charlton Heston look like Michael Moore. The N.R.A. vice president, who once called federal agents “jackbooted government thugs,” insists the solution to gun violence is putting police officers, or “armed good guys,” in every one of the nation’s 98,817 K-12 schools.
His logic is spurious. Hunters can have their guns without leaving Americans so vulnerable to being hunted by demented souls with assault rifles that can fire 45 rounds per minute.
And consider that in 1999 an armed sheriff’s deputy policing Columbine High School exchanged fire with the shooters, and still they killed 12 other students and a teacher. Mayor Michael Bloomberg accused LaPierre of “a shameful evasion.”
It’s hard to believe that the N.R.A. needed to go dark for a week after the Newtown shootings to cook up such a chuckleheaded arms race. And LaPierre made a worse case against himself than the media ever could. It’s shocking that the N.R.A. can’t even fake it better.
It didn’t try to mask its obdurate stance by putting forth a less harsh official — a woman who’s a mother and a hunter, for instance. Maybe it could have prompted a serious discussion about armed guards at schools if it had a less crazed presentation and less of an absolute vision that “guns are cool,” as David Keene, its president, says.
The 63-year-old LaPierre and the 67-year-old Keene, a cantankerous former Bob Dole adviser whose son went to prison for shooting at another driver in a road-rage fit, seemed as out-of-touch as Mitt Romney’s campaign and the rest of the white, macho Republican Party.
President Obama, who should have been alarmed that his re-election inspired a boom in gun sales, seems daunted at the prospect of taking on gun lovers, having handed the matter off to Joe Biden to study. The president seems to be setting the table for defeat. If only he had the visceral outrage of a Bloomberg. Who knows what could happen?
He was simply correcting what he felt or knew was misinformation posted earlier. Maybe that is more his area of expertise than Constitutional Law and the interpretation of that.
Maybe we should be pretty thankful right now that the area of expertise of our President IS Constitutional Law.....
I've no doubt Ron knows his weapons well, but that is the easy stuff.
My point is why even bother with the minutiae of dull technical detail when the only thing of relevance is how many rounds of death you can squeeze off per minute? That being the determining factor for what gets banned and what gets registered / licenced / insured / etc.
That and determining the true meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment?
I think i know the answer to that but if its the answer I'm thinking of it deserves a quick death.
"Don't confuse the middle school kids with facts, Ron. Beavis and Butthead are having fun giggling at "ManLicker" right now."
Hahahahah, actually the "BushMaster" label is by far the funniest, considering how inversely proportional it is to a gun fetishist's ability to actually "master" any "bush"
The tribe/team concept is very strong with the Sheeple.
If you like firearms then you're a gun-nut and obviously in league with the NRA.
Everyone just has to fit into a nice tiny box so we can hate and ridicule rather than fixing anyone.
Republican, Democrat, Gun-nut, Libtard, etc...
Why does anyone hate that Wayne/NRA character? Because he made a stupid suggestion? So what? The other side is making equally stupid suggestions. Who cares what the NRA suggests? Who cares what the US government suggests?
NEITHER HAVE OUR BEST INTERESTS IN MIND.
Read that again.
I was watching someone grill that Wayne guy in an interview. The host was practically dripping with venom. You could see him just seething with hate like he had Hitler and Ted Bundy in the hotseat. I don't know this Wayne from anyone else but he seemed like typical corporate deadwood like you'd find in any boardroom across the US.
When something tragic and horrible happens the Sheeple demand an instant answer so they can have the illusion of "safety" again. They are typically incapable of rational thought or simple problem solving. So main stream media whips everything up into a frenzy. Today's sacrificial goat? Wayne Lapierre? Really? Who the f*#k is he?
And yet, nobody focuses on the issue because that would be too difficult. We have to apparently have someone to hate and BLAME, preferably a group of people we can hate. The NRA, "gun nuts", the evil Government, the NWO, Bushmaster, pick one.
It must be just assumed young males are now going to go on random murderous sprees with no manifestos. That "just happens".
Just a clue. Obama, the US government, the NRA, Wayne L., have nothing to do with this problem, or the solution.
But it won't matter now, the wooly folds have taken their sides of the pasture intent on fighting each other.
"If you like firearms then you're a gun-nut and obviously in league with the NRA."
Nope
The ridicule is based not on "liking guns", but on having a gun fetish, and the all-too-obvious Freudian male-inadequacy issues that gun fetishism broadcasts like a 10,000 megawatt radio tower
Like I already said, the liberal/MSM news outlets are going about gun control all wrong - they should simply label gun fetishism for what it really is: penis envy.
I like these guys with no first hand firearm ownership experience, who, using nothing but their immagination, claim to know why others do own firearms.
No experience, no knowledge, but your uninformed opinion is supposed to matter the same as someone who has both knowledge and experience.
"I like these guys with no first hand firearm ownership experience who, using nothing but their immagination, claim to know why others do own firearms."
Gun ownership? Nope. Not what I'm talking about.
Gun fetishism? Fairly obvious what that's all about.
I'm not going to get into the gun debate in much detail. I own guns. I know people who have taken the AR platform and created some outstanding hunting guns. I will say that there are a lot of people out there who like playing Navy Seal, and spend a lot of money on guns with no real use, unless you believe that the frail United Nations is going to take over the country under Obama's invitation. The NRA actually believes this.
The NRA actually believes that Obama is going to flood the country with U.N. troops to take over America. How do I know this? Because I left the tube on in the other room one night, tuned to one of the Sportsmen hunting channels. All night long they played the same thirty minute infomercial that was pretty much just nuts. The NRA had gone Ted Nugent insane. It isn't about teaching gun safety like when I was a kid, it actually makes outrageous claims.
Hey, if we are gonna be invaded by the U.N. you are gonna see their asses kicked, because U.N. troops consist entirely of small contributions from various countries around the world. They rarely get in a real fight. They are only good for trying to save people from genocide in Africa and attempting to stop ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. They failed at both. In Africa, the bloodshed was unchecked. In the Balkans, the U.S. had to take over and bomb the sh#t out of Serbia's infrastructure. The U.N. is a pitiful organization for military force. Compared to being invaded by Canada or Mexico, I would far prefer the U.N. They would go down in two weeks because they are so weak.
Nevertheless, LaPierre was right there in these crazy infomercials, just like a new and gun laden Jim Jones, preaching a right wing gospel that really had nothing to do with gun safety.
I am one that believes that gun problems are extremely region specific. Alaskans who live in the interior would starve without guns, even the crazy ones. Even the AR platform has been around so long that they are now regularly tweaked as fer real hunting platforms. This, of course, has no purpose in inner city Chicago.
It is a social problem. I don't think it is a gun problem. Personally, I don't like guns which are only designed to kill people, like high mag capacity handguns or AK-47's in the hands of gangs. Others like a high capacity mag on their conceal carry licensed pistol, just in case they are met with a criminal. OK, I don't see them as much of a risk.
The fact remains that the NRA has indeed gone Ted Nugent batshit crazy over guns. They serve the gun industry, who likes to sell their products, and limitations on certain things like super high capacity magazines piss off the gun dealers and manufacturers.
Do you know who is one of the biggest arms traffickers in the world? Us.
The old NRA is gone. Now they are a mouthpiece for the extreme right, and posit extreme theories about arming yourself to the teeth to defeat an imaginary foe, no matter that coming up with a credible foe is impossible.
So La Pierre is an awful spokesman for them. Because he is crazy and needs to go on the list. He is obviously crazy. Crazies should not own weapons, he said it himself.
"Nevertheless, LaPierre was right there in these crazy infomercials, just like a new and gun laden Jim Jones, preaching a right wing gospel that really had nothing to do with gun safety."
Hahahaha, yes as if any gun that any gun nut could wield would have any effect against the gov't the nuts claim to be owning them in defiance of
There might be ONE incident where the feds lose a firefight to armed, wingnut insurrectionists
After that, it's Apache helicopter time, baby
I actually hope something like that actually does happen, and soon - the high-definition footage of a wingnut compound disintegrating via Apache, broadcast thousands of times on every news outlet in the world, would collapse the gun industry overnight.
Similarly to the so-called fiscal cliff, Obama simply needs to push through a revived ban on assault weapons and similar things, together with the restrictions agreed to even by a vast majority of NRA members, then push it through a court challenge. Get the supreme court to finally rule on what the second amendment actually means - that is to say, that it almost certainly gives both state and federal governments reasonable powers to regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of firearms by individuals. The leadership of the NRA and its business backers is scared stiff of that happening - well, actually they're generally frightened people, pushing an agenda of fear.
NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense
1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
"Similarly to the so-called fiscal cliff, Obama simply needs to push through a revived ban on assault weapons and similar things, together with the restrictions agreed to even by a vast majority of NRA members, then push it through a court challenge. Get the supreme court to finally rule on what the second amendment actually means - that is to say, that it almost certainly gives both state and federal governments reasonable powers to regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership and use of firearms by individuals. The leadership of the NRA and its business backers is scared stiff of that happening - well, actually they're generally frightened people, pushing an agenda of fear."
The list quoted is simply the restrictions that NRA members themselves agree to, and no doubt they'd consent to others. They're not so fanatic as their widely-mocked 'leadership'. Some of them would surely even agree to a ban on assault rifles and related weapons, which should be the centrepiece of what Obama proposes, together with uniform federal regulation, and reasonable measures for phasing assault weapons out, e.g. a buy-back program.
Yeah, TGT , I was just going to point that out to Anders.
Base 104's invasion of the smurfs scenario is not realistic, however using the unabashedly anti-gun ownership platform of the UN as an excuse to be part of the gang is.
For the first time in man's history (and that of this country) more humans live in cities than rural areas. The demographic is changing and firearms are becoming more of a foreign tool to the population.
The anti-gun crowd is attempting to use this to erode piecemeal gun rights. On this much I agree with some of the more strident voices here.
Overall I hope that they fail.
But if the type of "ban" that they tried two decades ago comes back I stand to make a $hitpile of $.
Win/ win.
Well Anders already answered. I wish he would define assault weapon.
The gun owners that would ban defense weapons because they only own hunting pieces are a myopic judases (judasses? judi?), the exceptions used to "prove" the rule.
Nice attempt to redefine the debate. It won't work.
The gun owners that would ban defense weapons because they only own hunting pieces are a myopic judases (judasses? judi?), the exceptions used to "prove" the rule.
We're talking about assault weapons, not defence weapons. Nobody said anything about banning ordinary rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Reasonable regulation as to their acquisition and ownership, no more. The 1994 statute did a reasonable job of defining them, although it could perhaps be improved. Severely restricting assault rifles and such is quite another question.
Are those gun-owners who are in favour of prohibitions on public ownership of machine guns, cannon, bazookas, recoiless rifles, and other heavier weapons then also judases? Even you're smart enough to agree that there are many gun-like weapons that the public shouldn't be able to own, and has no legitimate reason to own. It's just a matter of where the line is drawn, isn't it? And it's been drawn far too permissively.
I said it before, but gun laws make differing sense in differing areas.
Even a crazy guy needs a gun just to eat in interior Alaska. Yeah you can buy store food. If you want to go broke.
I have hung out with a fair number of eskimos and even further south. Those guys love the AR platform and the .223 with a fat clip for bears.
They take down grizzlies with those things. They certainly kill caribou and moose.
I read a book about one guy who would kill caribou with a .22. He would always go for a neck shot and multiple rounds. It actually worked if he was close.
Any "assault" weapon ban should apply to police weapons, too.
Not that we ever think we are going to go up against the police, that'd be suicide stupid.
But the "assault" weapon ban should apply to cops too because it is never the job of the police to assault citizens. Cops are armed in order to defend themselves.
Cops should only be allowed to carry / possess Defense Weapons. Weapons only capable of self defense, and useless for assault.
Responsible Citizens should be allowed access to the same weapons.
In reality, I believe if we stick with guns, there should be widespread gun education. I'd even tentatively agree with Piton Ron's suggestion citizens should do a public service of some sort for their country, it beats the hell out of what I was doing the first couple of years out of high school.
If we go for guns, take the fear out of it borne from ignorance and put personal responsibility for our country back into the enterprise such that we aren't making threats bordering on sedition because of disloyal outrage.
So many people are simply unable to cope with any deviation in their vision of what the world should be, quickly escalating their rhetoric to threats and widespread fear. Our country needs to toughen the f*#k up and the people need to stop expecting it all for nothing. No, you don't get an awesome country by dodging your taxes. No, your life will not be worth a sh#t when your sole aspiration is to suck from the welfare nipple, whether that teat is pumping public assistance or corporate bailouts.
I don't like the gun nut rhetoric, but I don't feel a knee jerk the other way is gonna get it done either.
I do, of course, enjoy trolling the sh#t out of this topic when I can ;).
Nice try Anders, but the primary reason that people own these weapons is for defense, although as has already been pointed out it is possible to make a tack driver out of the AR platform.
Even cops own ARs for defense. I know personally of several cases.
I actually hope something like that actually does happen, and soon - the high-definition footage of a wingnut compound disintegrating via Apache, broadcast thousands of times on every news outlet in the world, would collapse the gun industry overnight.
Nice sociopathic rant... you actually want people who you know nothing personally about, but different from you, to die. On TV nonetheless in a hail of Apache gunfire.
"It's just a matter of where the line is drawn, isn't it? And it's been drawn far too permissively."
And the NRA pushes assault weapon ownership as a defense against intrusive gov't - meaning the intended use is against cops, National Guard, US Military etc
Which is, of course, fantasy. What happens when SWAT teams aren't sufficient? The gov't surrenders?
Strange how wingnuts are the most eager proponents of the military - yet believe in gun ownership as a means of repellng it if gov't becomes too intrusive.
But expecting logical patterns from them is hardly to be expected at this point
"Nice sociopathic rant... you actually want people who you know nothing personally about, but different from you, to die. On TV nonetheless in a hail of Apache gunfire."
A few dozen armed insurrectionists, as a means of saving 12,000 innocent victims of gun violence? Hell yes.
The same logic used by gun nuts sacrifices those 12,000 in the first place.
Plus, like I said, the gun industry would collapse overnight, as a result of their product's ineffectiveness being broadcast on live TV.
Inuit use .223 on everything. Its cheap, but for a big bear I'd want a shotgun or .45-70, but taking caribou with a .22lr might not be an ethical kill.
Any "assault" weapon ban should apply to police weapons, too.
Not that we ever think we are going to go up against the police, that'd be suicide stupid.
But the "assault" weapon ban should apply to cops too because it is never the job of the police to assault citizens. Cops are armed in order to defend themselves.
Cops should only be allowed to carry / possess Defense Weapons. Weapons only capable of self defense, and useless for assault.
Responsible Citizens should be allowed access to the same weapons.
Glocks and AR's seem to be what the cops like.
.......this post is spooky on many levels
seems to imply the police are the natural enemy of the people
Cops now need heavy weapons to deal with people who possess such guns, AKs mostly
Some citizens are. We certainly aren't well trained professionals adequate to the task of policing ourselves.
The cops aren't the only ones dealing with unsavory elements.
I'd really love to see the stats where you abso-frickin-lutely "need" ARs and the like to do "deal" with these elements. Outside some vigilante movie nonsense, I'd bet a simple six shooter properly deployed is the most anybody needs in the vast majority of self defense situations.
Criminals are lazy cowards by definition, do you really think they are going to continue coming at you in the face of any armed resistance? If you've got some much more serious, sophisticated fellas coming at you, you are probably worm food regardless unless you're some extremely well trained and skilled operator.
"Cops should only be allowed to carry / possess Defense Weapons. Weapons only capable of self defense, and useless for assault."
"Responsible Citizens should be allowed access to the same weapons."
Thank you for that frank admission.
Gun nuts want assault weapons to shoot cops and feds with.
Which they might get away with at first.
Then what, Chaz? Think the feds will just surrender? When they have the most sophisticated arsenal on earth? They're going to surrender to civilians with rifles?
Armed insurrection against the United States government?
You wouldn't happen to be of Southern extraction would you?
30% of americans own a gun ,i dont care where you live ,country,city.nobody ,either here or in gov has the balls to put it to a vote.......americans avoiding democracy.just get in line w/the4 million of the nra .theres a plan
Cops carry weapons for self defense purposes, not to assault people.
Cops are professionals, obviously.
When I'm looking for a tool for a job, the first thing I do is find out what the pros use.
And for self defense, apparently the Glock and the AR are what works.
You want to ban self defense tools? Because that's what you're proposing.
Remember. Not everyone's fourtunate enough to be white, and live in a peaceful neighborhood. For a lot of folks, self defense is more than theory. It's survival.
That's why there should be more emphasis on education, gun and otherwise, and support afterwards. I know some here would insta-cream their fruit of the looms if they shot somebody down, but others like myself would feel a little bloody handed. Sh#t doesn't go down how it does in the movies, and we're not steely-eyed Clint Eastwood.
My job of the moment is dealing with mentally unstable people, probably why I keep coming to these threads ;). Anyway, the security folk and personnel who are most effective de-escalate situations rather than "pulling the trigger" by doing take downs and the like. If you resort to a firearm, that is a failure to some extent. Unavoidable sometimes for sure, but it should not be seen as the hope, that is a sick, murderous mindset, the kind celebrated in the bushmaster advertisement campaign I'm sure.
Then why aren't 12,000 a year dying in the UK, instead of 35?
In part because the population of the UK is about 1/5 of that of the USA. So if the UK has 35 gun murders a year, the USA should proportionately 'only' have 2,400. Something like that, anyway - perhaps there's a crime studier around who could help with this.
You're right JGHedge. While I support guns, you have to acknowledge the fact there IS a price being paid. If not, you are a liar at the very least to yourself. Without guns you would have less gun deaths. If you don't acknowledge that, you are a fundamentalist to whom facts don't matter. Accept that this is the cost and try to work within that to decrease the toll.
So why do all these supposed trad climbers want sport climber guns? Isn't there any pride in the six shooter, really knowing how to do that sh#t ground up cowboy style?
Only one I heard preaching that was KSolem. Trad climbers should have trad guns. Revolvers, lever actions, double barrels. That's all you need, you aren't responding to Heat are you?
Piton Ron - initially reports stated Whitman had a tumor, glioblastoma, a type of brain tumor, putting pressure on regions of his brain responsible for the regulation of strong emotions.
Later reports disputed that. I'm no expert. Maybe someone who is can weigh in on this. Even if he did, most folks with brain tumors don't shoot up a bunch of innocents so the role of a tumor (if present) on his behavior seems up to debate imo.
This morning on Meet the Press, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre elaborated on why he believes placing armed guards in every school is the best way to prevent tragedies like the Newtown shooting: The policy has already proven successful in Israel.
"Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing," said LaPierre. "They said, 'We're going to stop it,' and they put armed security in every school, and they have not had a problem since then." So if eliminating the problem is that simple, why aren't other countries following Israel's lead?
Well, according to Israeli officials, what LaPierre said isn't exactly true. “We didn’t have a series of school shootings, and they had nothing to do with the issue at hand in the United States. We had to deal with terrorism,” Yigal Palmor, spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, tells the Daily News. “What removed the danger was not the armed guards but an overall anti-terror policy and anti-terror operations which brought street terrorism down to nearly zero over a number of years."
Reuven Berko, a retired Israeli Army colonel and senior police officer, agreed that Israel's problem with gun violence in schools was fundamentally different. “There is no comparison between maniacs with psychological problems opening fire at random to kill innocent people and trained terrorists trying to murder Israeli children,” he said.
“It would be better not to drag Israel into what is an internal American discussion,” suggested Palmour.
That's especially true for the NRA, since Israel actually has stricter gun control laws than the United States.
But the "assault" weapon ban should apply to cops too because it is never the job of the police to assault citizens.
You are seriously crazy. Your crazy thinking led to the shooting of a number of police officers in my community, when they did not have the firepower to deal with TWO guys in body armor who decided to take out a phalanx of cops while robbing a bank:
Local patrol officers at the time were typically armed with their personal 9 mm or .38 Special pistols, with some having a 12-gauge shotgun available in their cars. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor. They also wore body armor of their own. Since the police handguns could not penetrate the bank robbers' body armor, the patrol officers' bullets were ineffective. SWAT eventually arrived with rifles powerful enough to penetrate the body armor. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their capabilities in similar situations in the future.[4]
Because of the large number of injuries, rounds fired, weapons used, and overall length of the shootout, it is regarded as one of the longest and bloodiest events in US police history.[5] This incident would later lead to California enforcing a highly restrictive law on firearms, including the controversial "10-round magazine-only" law for most firearms owned by state residents.
If there were an armed guard in a school, a student shooter would probably just walk up behind him and off him first thing, then the shooter would have twice as many guns. A big kid could probably whack him with a baseball bat and get the gun!
Just sayin. Plus, teacher are being laid off in droves and somebody wants to pay armed guys to hang out in schools? To save a few kids every few years? Seems misguided
One more thing: Your Fellow Citizen is a good person. You can trust him with a car, an AR, or your kid. Seriously.
This was hammered home the first professional bar fight I was in. I had just turned 21, I had been tending bar for a couple weeks. One night I had to hop the bar to get serious with somebody over something, and we ended up boxing.
While we were boxing, I noticed everybody at the bar standing up to get themselves involved in the boxing too.
I was thinking "ah shit! I'm already busy with this guy, now these all these other guys all want to kick my ass too". Why wouldn't they want to kick my ass? I was the guy who had been charging them $1.50 for fifty cents ( if that ) of booze, over and over again for the last couple of weeks.
But instead, a couple of those guys rushed past me - one shoving me out of the way - to get to the guy I was boxing with, and f*#king flattened the guy!
I tended bar at a bunch of, let's say, less-than-genteel joints for most of the next twenty years, and I saw the same thing happen over and over again. People engaging in momentary violence to secure an on-going peace.
Your fellow citizen - whether armed with an AR ( like the cops ), or not, wants the same things you do. I've seen it demonstrated, over and over again.
"Your fellow citizen - whether armed with an AR ( like the cops ), or not, wants the same things you do. I've seen it demonstrated, over and over again."
Again, you're saying the cops should only be allowed access to the same weapons we are, and vice-versa?
Chaz, Ron, et al: By virtue of being citizens of the USA, you are all already under significant limitations. One of them being the kinds of weapons that you, or anyone, can own. Those limitations are primarily for public safety, and if anything are much too generous when it comes to firearms. The balance is way out of kilter.
Given the healthcare decision last summer, the election in November, and the likelihood that Obama will be appointing several justices, it would be interesting to see just how your supreme court would handle a new federal gun control statute that sought to restore some balance. Even the so-called strict constructionists would be on the horns of a dilemma.
"Given the healthcare decision last summer, the election in November, and the likelihood that Obama will be appointing several justices, ..."
Add to that the extreme unlikelihood, due to demographics and the suicidal tendencies of the repub party, that there will ever again be a repub president in any of our remaining lifetimes...
Also bear in mind that while Obama will be officially out of office in 2016, his stature and proven track record as a constitutional scholar will ensure that he's involved in choosing SC nominees for several more decades to come - in fact he could very well end up being a SC justice himself, unless there's some rule against that I'm unaware of
Also bear in mind that while Obama will be officially out of office in 2016, his stature and proven track record as a constitutional scholar will ensure that he's involved in choosing SC nominees for several more decades to come - in fact he could very well end up being a SC justice himself, unless there's some rule against that I'm unaware of
I think Obama was our best choice and Like much about him but geez, once Obama claimed the right to indefinitely detain citizens without due process and even assassinate citizens without due process he lost all claim to have any respect for the constitution.
He and Bush share the distinction of two presidents who have done the most on the road to disrespecting the constitution in my mind
In recent years, restrictions on gun ownership in Israel have been tightened, not relaxed.
“Israeli citizens are not allowed to carry guns unless they are serving in the army or working in security-related jobs that require them to use a weapon,” said Berko.
In other words, they have a well-regulated militia.
What a concept!
Despite having a standing army of more than 100,000 and police and security guards carrying guns on the street, Israel has strict firearms licensing and supervision.
Licenses must be renewed regularly and cannot be issued to people with a history of mental problems or a criminal background.
“In a country where hundreds of thousands of people carry firearms, it is essential to manage the training, licensing and authorization of those who wish to be armed,” said Yakov Amit, head of the firearms licensing department of the Public Security Ministry.
All I know is reading the "rap" sheet (violence, corruption, vigilantism, etc) of some of those NRA board members make the Weathermen, Symbionese Liberation Army, IRA, Red Brigade, and other fascists groups, look like beginners.
According to Yaakov Amit, the head of the Public Security Ministry’s Firearms Licensing Department, the difference between the gun laws in the US and Israel are as clear as night and day.
Amit said that since 1996, not long after the Rabin assassination, there has been a continuous reduction in the amount of weapons in public hands due larger to stricter regulations. He estimated there are about 170,000 privately-owned firearms in Israel, or enough for around one out of every 50 Israelis, far less per capita than the US, where there are an estimated more than 300 million privately owned guns for a population of a little more than 300 million.
I think Obama was our best choice and Like much about him but geez, once Obama claimed the right to indefinitely detain citizens without due process and even assassinate citizens without due process he lost all claim to have any respect for the constitution.
He and Bush share the distinction of two presidents who have done the most on the road to disrespecting the constitution in my mind
Actually, other presidents have done things that are even more outrageously illegal and/or unconstitutional.
Obviously Nixon comes to mind.
There's a difference between doing something Illegal and having an unconstitutional policy that your enshrine forever. I might grant you Nixon, but probably not for the reasons you think. He was part of this horrible trend of going to war without declaring war by congress as required by the constitution by calling it a "police action." Nixon didn't get us into Viet Nam through so he is really a secondary criminal, like Obama, in that regard. He didn't start anything as bad as Bush started, he just used it and made it normal
But Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and Adams championed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Not to give Obama a pass, but he isn't much different from other Presidents.
yup, you practically have to back to Lincoln to get as unconstitutional as Bush and I blame Obama for using Bush's excess and making it normal
Karl and Dirtbag are correct. It seems a longstanding policy that presidents can get such legislation passed. Though I am surprised that Obama, who I like (but didn't vote for in 2008), being a so-called constitutional lawyer/expert, would continue and perhaps indeed make such legislation even more draconian.
I think that by continuing policies that Dubya/Cheney instigated, in my mind it puts a huge blot on Obama as a president. In fact, policies that have been in place, for the most part, at least since WW2. I won't go into Manifest Destiny or anything, or what the country's founders thought were good policies, ie guns for militias, because those were the times, right or wrong (ie native American "genocide" and forced renewal). And slavery.
But the US has been living, and is a global power, in the 20th and 21st centuries, and should be showing more moral courage. To say the least. But politicians suck on the teat of corporations and big business.
And of course, the NRA is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the States.
Why do people with no legal training think that a Constitutional scholar must interpret the Constitution exactly as they would?
I don't agree with many of the recent encroachments on civil liberties. In my uneducated opinion, they violate the spirit, if not the text of the Constitution.
But I also understand there is a legal grey area between crime and war. Enemy soldiers are not protected under the Constitution, American citizens accused of crimes are.
Many people see terrorism as "war" against a foreign enemy - I see it simply as crime. But war is more profitable than law enforcement...
Ultimately we are governed by the rule of law and these questions must be settled by the courts.
How do we make that happen? Support organizations that have enough resources and legal knowledge to challenge the new laws.
If every American gave $1 to the ACLU, they would have $300 million to fight in the courts. That's enough to put up one helluva fight.
Nothing is "over" Riley,, and im willing to get not much will be added.
The press was blasted by the NRA , and rightly so. They are complicit in every one of these tragedies - as we here have all stated.
We call for help NOW right? Do you think ANY legislation will SOLVE anything NOW? Now that every extended magazine and every AR style rifle has been purchased in the country?
Do you think the black market will SLOW DOWN? Nope, just the opposite.. Kinda like POT,,if you cant get it legally,, theres five hundred thousand other avenues to obtain yur smoke right..?
The NRA is being pro-active in designing protection plans for our nations schools at their own expense and giving them to schools free. So far, thats the only PRO activity ive seen. They suggest armed guards at our schools, and that has been used even BITD of the 70s when i attended high school. We had armed police as guards for a week over a gang fight, and in that week we had ZERO violence, and ZERO after school fights..
So how DO we protect those children NOW? By a LAW?
These latest killings unfortunately set the bar for future ones. Evils seems to do that- eclipsing the last evil.
We have armed guards at football games, Offices, Malls, special events of all types and more. We guard our nations CASH better than we do our children.
Times have changed. We ALL suffer from the effects of terrorism from abroad and e we have our own right here.. Not one of them will ever follow a law.
"...once Obama claimed the right to indefinitely detain citizens without due process and even assassinate citizens without due process..."
A few Al-Qaeda activists who were in active cells, who got capped along with the other terrorists
Dude, Obama called a second strike on the 16 year old US citizen KID of that US citizen Cleric that they drone-killed. (and even the cleric hadn't been proved of anything besides being a cheerleader for terrorism, (bad, but how different that folks here cheerleading for bombing Iran?)
and plus, saying "but Obama is only using this blatantly unconstitutional power wisely and sparingly" is the biggest BS ever. Obama may even BE wise and sparing but, believe it or not, we could even get Jeb Bush in the white house in 2016 (or some worse Dumbf^&k eventually) and they are likely to abuse the power that we fail to question now
Jeb Bush? Actually, as I understand it, the GOP wanted him to run in 2000, but Karl Rove stepped in, and... we know what happened there.
Again, look at some of the history of the NRA board members, not so pretty in my eyes.
As for me, I have no solutions on violence in schools. Throwing more guns at the problem doesn't seem logical, considering the past history.
Will education and social change work? I don't know, I just grieve for 20 dead children and six adults, as much as I imagine people in Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, African conflicts and so on grieve for innocent (young) victims.
But from what I read, and maybe it is just my perspective, the NRA is being run by a bunch of nutters nowadays.
There must be some sort of solution. Rational, logical minds are needed not knee-jerks like Wayne LaPierre.
"These latest killings unfortunately set the bar for future ones. Evils seems to do that- eclipsing the last evil."
With nuts like you being the most widespread example of that evil
You advocate for the police and military, and better law enforcement, yet stockpile guns to be used against the gov't if those laws infringe your false "right" to own that stockpile
You advocate for better mental health care and armed guards in schools, yet vote for cutting the funding for health care and schools
You advocate that it's impossible to control guns, but every other industrialized democracy does so, with a tiny fraction of the gun deaths the US has
Your idiotic party's electoral extinction can't come soon enough - then your delusional, failed ideology is finished, and we get to be a rational society again, not one that has to pander to resentment over losing a Civil War 150 years ago, or imaginary paranoia over socialism.
Do you believe the gubbment acts in OUR best interests now?
Do you believe we have the right to claim to be the WORLD POWER?
Do you believe we have the right to interfere with others civil wars?
All of that is why we are in the mess we are in today.
When the gubbment makes laws dealing with its citizenry like they were /are terrorists they have gone too far.
When they make laws DIRECTLY against the grain of our Constitution, they go to far.
I wrote 17 times to three different representative in our govt over this.
The fact alone that we have Hundreds of laws already on the books leaves the question as to the broad brushing law contained within the NDAA 2013 defense bill.
Lets go hypothetical for a moment.. What would the QUICKEST way to usher in more stringent gun control in a society like America where freedoms are first? If you had some long range goal of absolute control,,(NDAA 2013)
and the problem is a very well armed citizenry, what would make that citizenry voluntarily give up arms..? Obviously it ISNT the daily gang shootings from coast to coast- those dont even make the news anymore. Nor is it the killings daily of adults -they only get a brief passing mention in the news. But what if the urge for ultimate power was enough to do things such as make the NDAA2013 law? Would that urge also be enough to devise some plan to dis-arm the American public, making "total control" a far easier task to obtain?
These are just questions. But even IF this wasnt some deep -evil plan,,it will be used in the manner described above. Washington, and the career idiots we call politicians would LOVE,, i repeat LOVE an UN-ARMED society as would most ANY govt on the planet. They will ALWAYS prefer their sheep un-armed.
Generals in the Services often refer to acceptable rates of casualties. Statistics in other words, as long as the ratio is in the plus, its a win.
To think our top politicians dont think the same is folly. They do.
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Dec 24, 2012 - 09:43am PT
Hey howz that gravel quarry comin along Rong?
Yeah Philoww,, i know your hate for me is much like your hate for your brother .. Youll go to any length to get you digs in here, even if it involves the decimation of a popular climbing area that YOU obviously dont give a rip one about.
"Lets go hypothetical for a moment.. What would the QUICKEST way to usher in more stringent gun control in a society like America where freedoms are first? If you had some long range goal of absolute control,,(NDAA 2013) and the problem is a very well armed citizenry, what would make that citizenry voluntarily give up arms..?"
A "very well-armed citizenry" compared to what? The US Army? Who and what do you think you'll be using your guns against? The Boy Scouts?
If you're engaging in armed insurrection, what do you think wil be the gov't's reaction to that?
Hedge it isnt that our military has the tools to put down insurrections- remember Kent State? It is the REACTION that they fear. From the press to the internet.
Karl, counter-terrorism is quite dirty work. Everything I've ever read on it shows it to be so, and there is no way that you can put lipstick on the pig.
One of the critical things operationally, is to protect methods and sources.
So the gov't launches a drone attack against a group, and wipes them out. I am outraged, and post to high heaven about out inappropriate and unconstitutional that was. I don't know that the group was observed killing the family members of Navy Seals, and that fact is trying to be suppressed so as to not let others know that strategy worked. But I find out, and leak it, because I believe in freedom of information. And I press, and I press for WHO observed this....I think maybe nobody did, and it was just a convenient excuse to off this group. But finally, my persistance pays off, and I get the scoop. I weigh the issue of the remainder of the world-wide terrorist network coming after the observer, vs the "right to know", and decide on the side of liberty. The headlines ring out throughout the land: KARL BABA "ALLEGED" WITNESS TO SLAUGHTER.
And the great thing is, the Gov't has made no deal to waste resources having to protect or hide you, in the newest iteration of Salman Rushdie.
Aren't I one effing patriot in that scenario, Karl.
"Hedge it isnt that our military has the tools to put down insurrections- remember Kent State? It is the REACTION that they fear. From the press to the internet."
You think you're going to shoot it out with the cops, and you're going to kill them all and win, and then the gov't will...what? Just leave you alone?
And you think the public's going to be on your side?
And you think shooting at cops is the same thing as being shot by them for peacefully protesting?
Is that really as far as you've thought this through?
"You think you're going to shoot it out with the cops, and you're going to kill them all and win, and then the gov't will...what? Just leave you alone?"
That's how they're doing it in Afghanistan.
If a bunch of illiterate cavemen wielding small arms can run TWO superpowers out of town, why are you so quick to write off a much more advanced civilization, such as our own?
Yeah Philoww,, i know your hate for me is much like your hate for your brother .. Youll go to any length to get you digs in here, even if it involves the decimation of a popular climbing area that YOU obviously dont give a rip one about.
Wrong again Rongo. I hate neither you nor my brother. I loathe the misinformed right wing bagger programming you both constantly barf up. You both jump to extreme conclusions that are usually completely wrong. For example your willfully uninformed impression that the removal of some surface boulders smaller than three feet in diameter is tantamount to the decimation of a popular climbing area. Do you climb a great many 3' rocks?
a much more advanced civilization, such as our own?
Note to the wingnut brain trust - it is an oxymoron to include yourself in the concept of a much more advanced civilization. A "much more advanced CIVILIZATION" would not need stock piled arsenals and plans for armed insurrection.
If a bunch of illiterate cavemen wielding small arms can run TWO superpowers out of town, why are you so quick to write off a much more advanced civilization, such as our own?
Yeah, that's a really accurate description of what's going on there.
"If a bunch of illiterate cavemen wielding small arms can run TWO superpowers out of town, why are you so quick to write off a much more advanced civilization, such as our own?"
Hahahaha, so you guys will start living in caves, like the Taliban, so you can keep your guns.
And because the US has no reliable intel in Afghanistan, that means the Army will have no reliable intel when combatting armed insurrectionists in the US
Please go right ahead and try this, gun nut idiots...most of you will die of heart attacks hiking up to your caves, carrying your arsenals
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about - this is as far as these IDIOTS have thought this through. Comic-book level fantasies that children grow out of by the time they're 9 or 10.
Ken M: I don't buy it. Those who would shred the constitution for a tiny extra protection against terrorism deserve nothing.
Terrorists have killed about 1/10 of the people in the US in the past 8 years than Falling coconuts kill worldwide in one year. And for that tiny bit of extra protection we're willing to let the president kill anyone, anywhere, far from any congress declared war (as if that constitutional requirement to declare war was observed anymore) That's madness and that's how tyranny starts
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither~ Benjamin Franklin
We're rockclimbers. Let's not sign up with the crowd to be a nation of cowards
"Terrorists have killed about 1/10 of the people in the US in the past 8 years than Falling coconuts kill worldwide in one year."
Nukes do more damage than falling coconuts, and that is what the president is concerned about
There is no way to protect against terrorists that involves giving them the same rights US citizens have
If you're a US citizen in an Al-Qaeda cell, you have effectively renounced your citizenship, so please don't tell me Obama is killing US citizens, just because the US-born terrorists haven't filed the proper paperwork with the State Dept to renounce their citizenship
So we have had all states put up petitions to withdraw from the Union,, which is a first. There are still states pursuing this as well. Also for the first time we have states in direct violation of fed arms laws that have refused to change their own laws. (Montana) This is unprecedented actions by states. I certainly never remember such things in my fiddy some years.
The talk in washington over all of this has led to agencies such as the IRS and SS to procure millions of rounds of hollow point ammo from 9mm to 223 and above. This is also unprecedented as never before have such agencies been involved in such massive ammo stock piles..
These are all well known facts.
So why do they now stockpile millions of rounds of hollow point ammo here in this country? Does anyone even wonder about those little details?
You all talk about GUN NUTS yet seemingly ignore the fact that you own govt is making GUN NUTS look sane by comparison.
That is why organizations like "Oath Keepers" have sprang up and grown rapidly. And they are for the most, either current or former military personnel. DEDICATED to the preservation of our constitution and their oaths.. That is another reason the govt now buys massive amounts of ammo, as they are the same military personnel that have been used in illegal wars and police actions that resulted in no change what so ever. From Nam to Afghanistan.. And they for the most are PISSED OFF!
"So we have had all states put up petitions to withdraw from the Union,, which is a first."
States? Nope. Wrong, as always.
The people in the states, yes. No state has petitioned for secession. Not even Rick Perry supports secession anymore. You're ignorant of the facts, as always.
And citizens don't need to petition to secede - they can just renounce their citizenship, which is effectively the same thing, and is perfectly constitutional to boot.
Or do you fantasize that you will secede, and keep your citizenship? Hahahahaha
If someone really wanted secession, and truly had the courage of their convictions in the first place, they'd start the ball rolling by renouncing their citizenship. Has a single gun nut done that yet? ONE?
So we have had all states put up petitions to withdraw from the Union,, which is a first. There are still states pursuing this as well. Also for the first time we have states in direct violation of fed arms laws that have refused to change their own laws. (Montana) This is unprecedented actions by states. I certainly never remember such things in my fiddy some years.
The talk in washington over all of this has led to agencies such as the IRS and SS to procure millions of rounds of hollow point ammo from 9mm to 223 and above. This is also unprecedented as never before have such agencies been involved in such massive ammo stock piles..
These are all well known facts.
So why do they now stockpile millions of rounds of hollow point ammo here in this country? Does anyone even wonder about those little details?
You all talk about GUN NUTS yet seemingly ignore the fact that you own govt is making GUN NUTS look sane by comparison.
That is why organizations like "Oath Keepers" have sprang up and grown rapidly. And they are for the most, either current or former military personnel. DEDICATED to the preservation of our constitution and their oaths.. That is another reason the govt now buys massive amounts of ammo, as they are the same military personnel that have been used in illegal wars and police actions that resulted in no change what so ever. From Nam to Afghanistan.. And they for the most are PISSED OFF!
No, they are traitors to the Union.
Patriots do not attempt to undermine the Union. They do not talk about assasinating the leaders of the Union.
They don't LIE and MAKE UP CRAP, like the stuff you put up, above.
They don't do straw purchases of firearms while active law enforcement officers to subvert laws.
They don't attempt to break off states from the Union, centered around military organization and firearms.
Chaz, I'm on your side but I'm afraid that the Afghans are so warlike that they are the world's expert at expelling foreign invaders for millennia now.
Must be all the intramural games.LOL
Used to be that Americans were rugged and independent but 3-4 generations of the nanny tit allowed us to forget.
Fat dumb and happy, Franklin's warning is lost on them.
Ron, these are the "anti-gov't" killer-nut "patriots" that you like to hang out with, saving America from our gov't:
A gunman set a trap and shot and killed two firefighters responding to an early morning blaze in Webster, N.Y., police officials said. Two other firefighters were also shot and both are listed in guarded condition at a local hospital.
"It does appear that it was a trap that was set for first responders, but the cause or reasons we don't have at this time," said Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering as he described the scene where shots were fired at West Webster firefighters when they arrived at 5:35 a.m. to battle the blaze along Lake Road. Webster is about 10 miles east of Rochester.
The apparent gunman was found dead at the scene, but it’s unclear if he was killed by a self-inflicted gunshot or if it was from a weapon from police officers who were chasing him.
The victims were Mike Chiapperini, also a lieutenant and public information officer with the local police department, and Tomasz Kaczowka, Pickering said.
Chiapperini was described by Pickering as a lifelong firefighter who started with the department's explorer program and had about 20 years of experience. Kaczowka was a younger firefighter and was also a 911 dispatcher, he said.
West Webster firefighters Joseph Hofsetter and Theodore Scardino were seriously injured and are at Strong Memorial Hospital with gunshot wounds, a hospital spokeswoman said. Scardino has injuries to his chest and lungs. Hofsetter was injured in the pelvis, the spokeswoman said at a media briefing.
An off-duty police officer from nearby Greece, N.Y. John Ritter was also injured by shrapnel during the shooting, Pickering said.
Pickering said that one of the firefighters who survived made his way across a bridge to get to safety. The other three did not make it across, Pickering said. Police arrived and rescued the other three firefighters, but two were fatally shot, Pickering said.
"These are volunteers who get up in the middle of the night to fight fires. They don't expect to be shot and killed," a tearful Pickering said at the press conference.
The morning scene was described as chaotic as police and firefighters dealt with an immense blaze as well as gunshots, local news station WHAM-TV reports.
“I’m not aware of anything like this happening in Webster, obviously not a firefighter being fired upon,” Webster Fire Marshal Rob Boutillier told the Democrat and Chronicle. Pickering described Webster as resort lakeside community that is quiet and usually peaceful.
There at least four houses that have been damaged by the fire along Lake Road, WHAM-TV reported. Firefighters had to leave the scene and stop battling the blazes while police secured the scene. They continue to battle the blaze.
There is no way to protect against terrorists that involves giving them the same rights US citizens have
If you're a US citizen in an Al-Qaeda cell, you have effectively renounced your citizenship, so please don't tell me Obama is killing US citizens, just because the US-born terrorists haven't filed the proper paperwork with the State Dept to renounce their citizenship
Don't be a BS hypocrite Hedge. You are smarter than that. When Bush was doing the same things, you were crying foul (with good cause)
That 16 year old kid was not a part of any Al Queda cell, particularly in some bum f*#k nation that hasn't managed to attack us anywhere. THere are plenty of people on this very thread who want to have assault weapons in case they have to fight the government someday. Aren't they just as fair game? Aren't they potential terrorists too? Have they effectively renounced their citizenship too?
Don't let your partisanship make you lame. People aren't able to effectively police the other party. We need to check our own side to make sure we stay with truth and freedom
Ron, those are the same type of tactics (roadside bombs, ambushes) Chaz said could be employed in this country to take the government down if they lose some gun rights.
Which side will you choose if it comes down to that?
Comments like Ken made to me regarding my "brother" firemen would if said in person, likely end up with a kick to the teeth.
Like I said, Ron, threats of violence, mixed with guns, alcohol...make you a very dangerous person.
Your FIRST instinct is to commit violent acts if you don't like what someone is saying.
THAT is what the guy who killed volunteer firefighters was doing. He had a grievance. I'm sure it was irrational. But his response was to commit violence...like you.
As a sportsman, I've never understood the concept of needing a gun that was semi-auto in nature. Just blasting away, hoping to hit SOMETHING.
Someone wants to hunt, bolt action rifles tend to be more accurate. And powerful. I think that's why snipers favor them.
Spraying weapons don't seem sporting to me.
For home defense, shotguns seem optimal. I understand that most incidents of firing rarely involve more than 10 feet. For people who are not practicing weekly, which is almost everyone not in law enforcement or competition, shotguns take a lot of mis-aim out of the equation.
Serious background checks that cannot be gotten around, should be the order of the day.
As a sportsman, I've never understood the concept of needing a gun that was semi-auto in nature. Just blasting away, hoping to hit SOMETHING.
Someone wants to hunt, bolt action rifles tend to be more accurate. And powerful. I think that's why snipers favor them.
Spraying weapons don't seem sporting to me.
For home defense, shotguns seem optimal. I understand that most incidents of firing rarely involve more than 10 feet. For people who are not practicing weekly, which is almost everyone not in law enforcement or competition, shotguns take a lot of mis-aim out of the equation.
Serious background checks that cannot be gotten around, should be the order of the day.
+1 for common sense and basically how I have felt and have tried to articulate but a lot of people don't see it that way.
I'd like to point out hand grenades. How many people have been slaughtered by hand grenades? You know why? Illegal and not available for public consumption. It works when something inherently dangerous is banned. so why not assault style weapons. There's absolutely no need for them. I spent five years of my life carrying one around for uncle sam and his marine corps. I know the need. I know the need in a combat situation. Since we don't live in a combat situation here stateside I don't really get it. A lot of my friends feel differently and it makes me sad.
Hey Joe,, why is it that i found a live grenade at a local boat ramp laying in the mud..? Banned you say? So are chinese made AK 47s,, that flow into this country on a near daily basis.
Bannings do one thing, effect already law-abiding citizens..
Out of the over 400K known gang members here, you can bet their are at least double that in guns, not on the books in any way..
The thing with banning grenades or mega clips for that matter...
If they are illegal, at least the criminals can get in trouble if they are found with the contraband. If they are legal, you can drive around with them in your trunk and the police can't do squat if they catch you but not red handed, even on the way to a crime
The illegal ones - you wont know they are there until its too late--like the IHOP shooter and his chinese AK 47.
We have these shootings happening, much like they have in other parts of the world. Hollywood couldnt design a better scenario of some sinister plot to create havoc here in "river city"..
And no, im not advocating the carrying of grenades. Although i hear they make wonderful fishin tools as the Marines found out at Juntion res, on Sonora pass.
"Many of you wish for guns to go away completely, and so does just about ANY govt, like in N Korea, for instance. And how did that work out for them? "
Gee, no mention of the UK, gosh I wonder why...
Because their gun laws prove you completely and totally RONG - as always.
"The gunman who ambushed four volunteer firefighters, killing two, in upstate New York had spent 17 years in prison for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer in 1980, police said."
Hahahaha, only in this effed-up country are psychos allowed to have arsenals
Oh but of course this has nothing to do with there being too many guns, nooooo couldn't possibly
Idiots on this very thread are saying they need arsenals for this very reason - to blast away at public safety workers
Just get it over with, Rong - be a real man and start shooting at the cops! Prove to the world you have the courage of your convictions!
The response (factual) to the NRA example of guns in the school, etc:
Officials challenge NRA’s claims about Israeli gun policies
AMY TEIBEL
JERUSALEM — The Associated Press
Published Monday, Dec. 24 2012, 4:57 PM EST
Israel's policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America's top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.
Far from the image of a heavily-armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks.
Though military service in Israel is compulsory, routine familiarity with weapons does not carry over into civilian life. Israel has far fewer private weapons per capita than the U.S., and while there have been gangster shootouts on the streets from time to time, gun rampages outside the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unheard of.
The National Rifle Association responded to the Dec. 14 killing of 20 first-graders and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school by resisting calls for tighter gun control and calling for armed guards and police at schools. On Sunday, the lobby's chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, invoked his perception of the Israeli school security system to back his proposal.
“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said, ‘We're going to stop it,’ and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then,” Mr. LaPierre said on the NBC News show Meet the Press.
Israel never had “a whole lot of school shootings.” Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.
In 1974, 22 children and three adults were killed in a Palestinian attack on an elementary school in Maalot, near the border with Lebanon. The attackers' goal was to take the children hostage and trade them for imprisoned militants.
In 2008, another Palestinian assailant killed eight young people, most of them teens, at a nighttime study session at a Jewish religious seminary in Jerusalem. An off-duty soldier who happened to be in the area killed the attacker with his personal firearm.
Israel didn't mandate armed guards at the entrances to all schools until 1995, the Education Ministry said — more than two decades after the Maalot attack and two years after a Palestinian militant wounded five pupils and their principal in a knifing at a Jerusalem school.
Israel's lightly armed school guards are not the first or the last line of defence. They are backed up by special police forces on motorcycles that can be on the scene within minutes — again bringing out the main, but not the only, difference between the two systems.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor spelled it out.
“We're fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S,” Palmor said.
Because it is aimed at preventing terror attacks, Israel's school security system is part of a multi-layered defence strategy that focuses on prevention and doesn't depend on a guy at a gate with a gun.
Intelligence gathering inside Palestinian territories, a large military force inside the West Bank and a barrier of towering concrete slabs and electronic fencing along and inside the West Bank provide the first line of defence.
Guards are stationed not just at schools, but at many other public facilities, including bus and train stations, parking lots, malls and restaurants.
“There are other measures of prevention of an attack taking place, which are carried out 24 hours a day, seven days a week, all over the country,” police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. Many are not for public knowledge.
Gun lobbyists who might think Israel hands out guns freely to keep its citizens safe might be less enamoured of Israel's actual gun laws, which are much stricter than those in the U.S. For one thing, notes Yakov Amit, head of the firearms licensing department at the Ministry of Public Security, Israeli law does not guarantee the right to bear arms as the U.S. Constitution does.
“The policy in Israel is restrictive,” he said.
Gun licensing to private citizens is limited largely to people who are deemed to need a firearm because they work or live in dangerous areas, Mr. Amit said. West Bank settlers, for instance, can apply for weapons licenses, as can residents of communities on the borders with Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. Licensing requires multiple levels of screening, and permits must be renewed every three years. Renewal is not automatic.
The policy is designed “to strike a balance between needs and risks,” Mr. Amit said. “We know that weapons are a dangerous thing, and in the hands of someone who isn't trained or isn't reliable, it causes problems.”
The gap between Israeli gun ownership and U.S. gun ownership is consequently staggering. A total of 170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel, or about one gun for every 30 adults.
In addition to the privately held weapons, 130,000 guns are licensed to Israeli security companies, firing ranges, government ministries and companies that operate in areas deemed dangerous. Soldiers who carry assault rifles off base during their regular or reserves service turn them in when they complete their tours of duty.
By contrast, U.S. authorities estimate that at least one-third of all American households have firearms — and in many cases, not only one.
Americans are also much freer to choose what type of guns they buy. Automatic weapons of the type gunman Adam Lanza used to gun down his victims are banned for private ownership in Israel. It is also rare for a person to be authorized to own more than one firearm, Mr. Amit said.
Eighty per cent of the 10,000 people who apply yearly for licenses are turned down, he said. In the U.S., people can purchase firearms from private dealers without a background check or a license of any kind.
In Israel, applicants must undergo police screening and medical exams, in part to determine their mental state, Mr. Amit said.
Many Israelis receive weapons training in the military. But to be licensed to receive a weapon outside the military, they must undergo at least two hours of additional training, then repeat the training and medical exams every three years before they can renew their licenses.
Anybody who possesses a legally acquired gun waives the right to confidentiality, and authorities cross-reference for new information about the gunholder every three months.
“The point is not to complicate, but to make sure the system makes things safer,” Mr. Amit said.
But hey, what do I know? I'm Israeli !!!!!!!
A good model for the states? I mean the USA at least IMAGINES they are under similar siege so we'll cut 'em a little slack to keep the fantasy running. Ron for instance, who is under near constant threat from Latino drug gangs could easily demonstrate as much ....... I think.
Dirk, think about it this way. We have armed guards at banks, malls, jewelry stores, high-end schools where politicians and celebrities kids go, art museums, etc. etc. Are not all children worth protecting this way? I guess regular kids don't rate. These are good jobs.
We will never stop a madman from killing. Take all the guns away. Won't change that. Especially in a gun free zone for crying out loud!
Especially in a gun free zone for crying out loud!
imagine that. there are these little islands of "gun free zones" awash in an ocean of weaponry which only intent is to kill people, and somehow somebody penetrated the perimeter like ten thousand semen surrounding and egg.
Hey I got an idea. Why not make everywhere a gun free zone like the whole of the civilized world.
No wait - Thats dumb. lets eliminate gun free zones completely. It works fine for Somalia right?
Mimi, like most of the places you mentioned, there are no armed guards at banks any more. When was the last time, other than armored car pick ups and deliveries, that you saw armed guards at a bank? It is the 21st century they use cameras now.
Proven to be a far better deterrent. Arguing to arm our schools because there are also guns in all these places is a charade. A sick and perverse fools game.
It would cost BILLIONS to put just one armed person in every school in America. It would be better to put the BILLIONS into education. Lord knows the Republicans have cut school districts budgets to the bone. First line of defense is public education.
Bruce, you are too evolved. We live in a world of savages. I say if we continue to expand government as we are, this job category is a worthy one.
Philo, get rid of a chunk of TSA and we can protect our schools and other public and undefended places. Government waste could be much better spent in this way.
Didn't know that about Columbine. Not an expert in mass shootings. I'm sure much was learned about proper reaction to this type of attack.
You will never stop a determined, intelligent, otherwise f*#king psychotic killer. If you don't fix the root of the problem you waste time and divide an already divided country even deeper. We can fix the problem but there is a lot of money riding on nobody asking those questions.
The problem of this new crop of mass killers is different than that of "gun control".
But few seem to understand that or have the capacity to focus on root issues. They see a "bad guy with a gun" and run off onto the gun control tangent, never to return.
If Adam Lanza had crashed a Mobil tanker into the school and burned 200 or maybe hacked 9 little kids to death with a machete, would that make anyone feel safer? Dead is dead...
Trying to compare Israel to this country is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Coming in second are comparisons to England.
Stop paying attention to the NRA or whatever the Black Jesus puppet comes up with. Think for yourselves.
oh I don't know about that. Look, gun cultures exist like all cultures. Like Flyfishing or climbing cultures. World wide too. There are gun cultures in Canada certainly . Australia, The Congo, Sudan, Argentina ..... etc. Even in the Antarctic for all I know.
America certainly has one. In fact it is so central to the broader society that the boundaries are blurry at best. I'm not saying at all that the existence of gun culture is bad but I am saying that American gun culture is morally flawed and far far too dominant a political force in a society that claims to be civilized. Somalia, the Sudan, the Pakistan / Afgan border regions may actually have an actual benefit, albeit short term hopefully, but anywhere civilized forget it.
Yup guns are not the problem. Its your culture. The problem is that they are not mutually exclusive.
They have no problem defining what an assault weapon is.
Wrong again there monotone.
What they do is list makes and models based on how badass they look.
Not a very good way to distinguish when you consider that Mini 14s were not included even though, had they been produced a mere 5 years earlier, they would likely have become our service rifle rather than the M16.
Gas operated high capacity box feed* Garand style carbine that fired the essentially the same cartridge.
*(I do have a beta-mag for one)
So requesting a clear definition based on functional features rather than badassery seems reasonable to me
Mimi, thats a red herring. Of course gun nuts are predominantly good and responsible people, just like most people who belong to the Prosperity church may be. But at times good people find that whatever they are doing is in fact feeding another purpose altogether. I think those values that they find through the smoking barrel of a gun are found at a terrible cost. Other gun cultures don't quite seem to have the same out of control costs, and that may have a lot to do with how they regulate it.
Huh, sounds a lot like the financial industry dosn't it?
You will never stop a determined, intelligent, otherwise f*#king psychotic killer. If you don't fix the root of the problem you waste time and divide an already divided country even deeper. We can fix the problem but there is a lot of money riding on nobody asking those questions.
The Chinese stabbings on the very same day as the Lanza massacre don't really jibe with your argument. Guns make it very convenient to kill, whatever the root cause. If guns didn't, why would hunters favor guns rather than, say, slingshots?
Let's own up to what guns are and what they can do, not quibble with semantics and pretend they are something else. Take some responsibility!
Let's speak plainly about the capabilities of guns and go from there, whichever way we move. As Piton Ron points out, it is bad enough obfuscation exists in the very basic terms of the argument, much less when people deny the most obvious features that make guns desirable in the first place. It's patronizing and many see through it easily.
And "Black Jesus puppet"? Really? Lame.
If you are arguing there is a new type of killer, it would seem this type of killer is one of convenience. They are not grabbing revolvers, rigging bombs and enacting complicated schemes; they are grabbing very convenient weapons that work very well for this job and simply plodding into crowded areas and pulling the trigger. These are Americans who want murder done their way.
I don't deny that they are efficient tools for killing.
But if criminals can get them easily (and they always will) then why not at least allow a level playing field?
If I have violent perps breaking in and I find it necessary to dispatch them with an AR then it is not an assault rifle , it is a defense rifle.
I needed some ammo for plinking in the desert so I went to nearby gun shop.
It was packed and all their ammo was gone. Went to walmart and thier stock was gone also.
Went to the big gunshop 30 miles away and there was a 2-3 hour wait. the place was packed. Hit up another big one, same wait time.
Finally ended up buying online.
The dealers I spoke with said it was a total panic buy and they "emptied the shelves" numerous times since the 14th.
All the places except walmart push NRA membership and a lot of the folks buying are first time firearm owners. Hopefully, they'll do their homework before joining this organization.
I don't deny that they are efficient tools for killing.
But if criminals can get them easily (and they always will) then why not at least allow a level playing field?
If I have violent perps breaking in and I find it necessary to dispatch them with an AR then it is not an assault rifle , it is a defense rifle.
Assault weapon is a deliberately pejorative term.
I don't agree that we couldn't do as the UK do and all but eliminate guns from the criminal tool box. I don't believe only outlaws would have guns, or that law enforcement couldn't outgun them and make them pay in blood for their choice of weapon. Our country can do whatever it wants, and slippery slope arguments just don't hold water (because, you know, the angle).
If we have guns remain part of our culture, we need to stop this handing the government our ammo talk. That sh#t should frighten and piss off anybody who loves this country. One of my clearest memories of that phrase, in fact, was on the shirt of a friend's sister's neo nazi boyfriend's shirt. That rhetoric's not acceptable in my book unless you are going to bust a cap in the next government official's ass you see. At least then you wouldn't be such a driveling hypocrite.
We need better education about guns and honest talk that acknowledges, yes, guns ARE dangerous. They f*#king are, don't dress that sh#t up. You OWN a gun BECAUSE it's dangerous. Managing danger, then, is the key, just as it is in climbing. Less charged language, and more focus on education is the way to go. Really, something needs to be done to bridge the gap between gun owners and the non gun owning public, something that puts guns in the hands of people who would otherwise not have shot one. That should be the focus of those who want to avoid restrictions on their firearms. Not the unrealistic sh#t being thrown down the line that A) won't work, B) makes us look like a 3rd world, paranoid country, and C) offends the sh#t out of people in a delicate time.
If you are a reasonable gun owner, talk honestly, and disassociate yourself from paranoid types that make everybody nervous thinking, damn, that whackjob has access to some finely crafted killing machinery? People are smoking too much paranoia nowadays.
I remember when they created a fear of an impending toilet paper shortage in the 70s. Then a feared coffee shortage. Then a gas shortage. Same crazy panic buying. You all taught those Madison Avenue marketing mavens a powerful lesson to be sure. And now it is a Happy Holidays for the gun and ammo corporations.
Credit: philo
By the way I hear there will be a dire shortage of gravel. Stock up stupid humans.
I'm torn… Sounds like a great way to pay for the cops that the NRA are calling for and a great way to save taxpayers money…. The other side of my brains says "Chaz said key words that don't seem to have any value to a certain ideological political group that is hell bent on getting rid of government…. a political party with a proven track record of shady spending of any taxes given to them."
