Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You think hate speech never led to murder?

Trump's legitimate complaints over all the lies that the media spouts about him are anything but hate speech, and the complaints had nothing to do with this shooting spree.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

The "right-wing" group had a permit to hold their rally/march and the police failed again to protect the Rights of a group to legally assemble by canceling their permit.

These groups should sue for having their rights violated. If these towns had to pay big every time they violated the rights of peaceful protesters, they would not be so quick to do so.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's perfectly logical to assume that hate speech against the press can trigger these sorts of murders. Some people may take what the Conman in Chief says seriously, you know?

Trump is hardly a con man.

Trump also did not engage in any hate speech.

The motives of this shooter are known, and they had nothing to do with Trump's legitimate complaints over the lies that the media spouts about him.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It remains unclear why you think so, other than denial of an inconvenient idea.

Perhaps he thinks so because the motives of the shooter are known, and the shooting had nothing to do with Trump's legitimate complaints about all of the lies that the media spouts about him.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

BTW, it is BS that homeowners can be held liable for people doing things on their property, when they had no right to be on their property. This is the same type of BS that allows people who break into people's homes to sue them for damage or injury...

Nope, it's the law in Florida. Quote:

Quote:

Failure to equip a new residential swimming pool with at least one safety feature as required under chapter 515, Florida Statutes, is a criminal violation of law that can and will apply to the homeowner and any contractor.

Source
You can argue all you want that a law you don't like isn't really the law, but the readers here know better. And you can try to laugh and go "ooooh ooooh scary rifles" about assault style weapons, but the readers here have seen the places get shot up by deranged people empowered by the gun lobby to obtain a rifle that they dealt death to so many innocent people. A rifle that fed into their fantasies about going out in a blaze of glory and taking as many people with them-frequently children. And still you people bleat on that the victims here are not schoolchildren or moviegoers, but gun owners.

Get this straight: A gun that looks like an assault rifle can legally be banned. And should legally be banned, since mass murder using assault style weapons has been accelerating since they were made legal again.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your usual nonsense. It is Trump doing the lying, not the media.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Your usual nonsense. It is Trump doing the lying, not the media.

Do you ever leave the house?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

I'm not at home right now, thank you. How about you?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
You are saying we should ban a gun because of how it looks...
Yup. Not just that, but that alone is reason enough.

The Constitution says otherwise. A law is only allowed to restrict a right if there is a very good reason for that restriction.

Blickers wrote:

News flash: We can ban something because of how it looks.

Not without a very good reason for doing so you can't.

Blickers wrote:

For instance, in Florida you can suffer criminal penalties, not just civil, for building a residential pool without a fence or approved pool cover. Why? The pool is too attractive to some people, they might jump in and drown. Even if the person swimming did not have permission to even be on the property, let alone use the pool, the homeowner is criminally liable if they fail to install protections from people entering his property illegally and using his pool.

A pool fence isn't about looks. A fence to keep people out is a functional device. A similar example would be requiring trigger locks to be sold with guns.

Blickers wrote:

Same thing with a semiauto rifle that looks like a military assault rifle. We are finding out more and more that they are too attractive to mentally deranged people to commit crimes with, so these rifles must be made illegal.

Since the presence of pistol grips makes zero difference to the outcome of these attacks, there is no justification for making them illegal.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

No it isn't. The last 2 big shootings were done with shotguns and not semi-auto rifles.

BIG DEAL!!!!

Here's a list of all the mass shootings done in the last six years using assault-style weapons.

June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.

June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.

March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.

May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.

Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.

Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.

June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.

Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.

Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.

Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

Once again, the readers can decide-which side has the facts, and which side is grasping at fantasy as they lie about the facts.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Mass shootings using assault-style semiautomatic rifles are accelerating. We must brake this momentum by making these rifles illegal.

Since the assault features make no difference to the outcome of the attacks, there is no justification for making them illegal.

Blickers wrote:

You seem to be saying that as long as it's inevitable that some people will be killed somewhere by some weapon, we have no right to eliminate any weapons at all.

You are only allowed to restrict a right if you can justify that restriction with a very good reason.

Blickers wrote:

I hope the people reading your posts are understanding that. At least you are being honest about your insane position.

It isn't insane to not want your rights to be violated for no reason.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Get this straight: A gun that looks like an assault rifle can legally be banned.

The Constitution says otherwise.

Blickers wrote:

And should legally be banned, since mass murder using assault style weapons has been accelerating since they were made legal again.

Since the presence of a pistol grip makes no difference to the outcome of these shootings, there is no justification for such a ban.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

The Constitution says otherwise.

The Constitution says no such thing. The Constitution said you have the right to bear arms, it says nothing about having a right to a certain specific type of armament.

Quote oralloy:

Quote:

A law is only allowed to restrict a right if there is a very good reason for that restriction.

The Constitution doesn't say that either. If the Supreme Court said it, please give the opinion and the quote where it said that as applies to buying a specific model of gun.

Understand this-there is no special bar a law against a specific model or color or shape of gun must pass to become law. If the legislature passes it and the president signs it, it becomes law. Or if the president doesn't sign it, it can be passed by higher majorities in both houses of Congress.

If I'm wrong, please show me.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Your usual nonsense.

Facts are certainly inconvenient to liberals.

But facts aren't nonsense.

MontereyJack wrote:

It is Trump doing the lying, not the media.

No. The media has been busted for lying about Trump many times.

Off hand, I can think of the example of their presenting misleading pictures to make it look like the crowd at his inauguration was smaller than it really was.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

If I'm wrong, please show me.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Quote Baldimo:
Quote:
BTW, it is BS that homeowners can be held liable for people doing things on their property, when they had no right to be on their property. This is the same type of BS that allows people who break into people's homes to sue them for damage or injury...
Nope, it's the law in Florida. Quote:

What are you saying nope to? I only expressed concern for a law I thought was BS.

Quote:

You can argue all you want that a law you don't like isn't really the law,

I don't think I said this. Saying I don't agree with something isn't saying it doesn't exist.

Quote:

but the readers here know better.

Not sure what you think they know better, what I actually said or what you are implying I said?

Quote:

And you can try to laugh and go "ooooh ooooh scary rifles" about assault style weapons,

I do laugh about you and your ilk wanting to ban scary looking rifles, you can't give any real facts about the guns, just the propaganda you've been dealt. When presented with some facts, you usually put your fingers in your ears and say "blah blah blah", and then shift the focus of the subject to some other made up aspect of the gun debate. None of the real stats back your arguments, you have to rely on made up stats of potential harm.

The very weakness in this whole gun control debate is the total and utter avoidance of the 2013 CDC study on gun violence, that was ordered by Obama. If it held ever a little bit of proof to any of the things you say, it be would be the number 1 piece of proof your ilk would use in the debate. Instead you all discuss this subject like the study doesn't even exist.

Quote:

A rifle that fed into their fantasies about going out in a blaze of glory and taking as many people with them-frequently children.

I'd point out the mass shootings which have taken place with no semi-auto rifles, the last 2 mass shootings that have taken place were done with shotguns, but you would just ignore it and go with the emotional argument, because that's all you have.

Quote:

And still you people bleat on that the victims here are not schoolchildren or moviegoers, but gun owners.

I've never made any such argument, why are you lying. I have never called gun owners victims.

Quote:

Get this straight:

You don't even have a straight argument with any facts related to the laws you want to pass. You think banning scary looking rifles is going to stop mass shootings, when mass shootings are a very small part of over all murders.

Quote:

A gun that looks like an assault rifle can legally be banned.

Looks... it's easy to get around the "looks" of a gun when the baseline operation of the gun has no bearing on how it looks. A semi-auto varmint hunting rifle like the Ruger Ranch Rifle operates no different than the AR-15. The real aim is to ban the semi-auto gun altogether, which comprises about 80% of all guns in the US. You start with how it looks and when nothing changes, you move on to the next "gun" in line you don't like until semi-atuo anything is banned. You have already made this clear.

Quote:

And should legally be banned, since mass murder using assault style weapons has been accelerating since they were made legal again.

Stop with the bogus facts. There has been no acceleration in such crimes let alone with semi-auto rifles since the end of the Assault Weapons ban in 2004, in fact several major shootings took place during the ban, but you anti-gun people forget to mention those as part of your examples. Columbine anyone?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

In point of fact, trump,s crowd was smaller. Now I invite your attempted refutation of all of the 3000-plus falsehoods
lies , misleading statements, wrong and vastly inflated mumbers,, unidentifiable data, and outright inventions that Trump has documentedly tried to foist on us in the last year and a half. Disprove all of them in your reply. It is clear, the lies are coming from Trump.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Smaller than Obama's, yes.

As small as the media misleadingly portrayed, no.

I don't deny that Trump lies. He is clearly as colorful with the facts as Teddy Roosevelt was.

But the media is lying as well, so it is best to discount everything that the media says about him.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Last Thursday 5 people were killed by a convicted stalker with a grudge using a shotgun. This all happened in my backyard, not my figurative back yard, but right behind my community and we were in lockdown for hours while the police looked for additional shooters. This happened in the newsroom of a local paper that most people outside Annapolis never heard of, but but since the murders we are being swamped by people with banners stating "God gave us the second amendment", "Never give up your guns" and the survivors have been getting death threats and celebratory messages from people they don't know absolutely pinching themselves in glee over the deaths.

Although none of the reporters or the new hire receptionist expressed views that could be considered anti-Constitution, that didn't stop the crazies from reveling in the attack against a newspaper (even if it only is a small town paper that reports honor society announcements, covers high school sports and lets you know what time church services start) These survivors and loved ones of the deceased are being tormented by "Fake News" devotees glorying in the takedown of the 'enemy of the people'..........

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

These survivors and loved ones of the deceased are being tormented by "Fake News" devotees glorying in the takedown of the 'enemy of the people'..........

People don't like it when the media lies about the President.

Their anger at this specific newspaper may well be misplaced, but their anger at the lying media in general is quite justified.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know