Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@oralloy,

Quote:

One step in the right direction would be to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Even coming from a gun culture, I cannot rationalize the sale of assault weapons to everyday citizens. (The Washington Post reported that Holmes had a shotgun, two pistols and an AR-15 assault rifle, all legally purchased.)

But this will be an uphill battle because the National Rifle Association has been extremely effective at promoting its agenda and sowing fears that gun rights are in jeopardy even when they are not...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/blow-mourning-and-mulling.html

oralloy wrote:

Wow. The freak who wrote that piece calls for a blatant violation of our Constitutional rights,
and then says that our rights are not in jeopardy.

Freedom haters really are something else.

I don 't think much of baseball nor of basketball; I have no interest in them,
but I acknowledge the rights of those who CARE, to involve themselves with them.

Quote:

Even most Americans don’t know that Congress has, in recent years, refused to consider laws that would ban the sale of assault weapons capable of firing 100 bullets without reloading, and declined to allow the attorney general to restrict people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/guns-and-the-slog.html

oralloy wrote:

Better than the other freak. At least this one did not call for violating our rights, and then lie about it in the same breath.

The focus on harmless cosmetic features (that would be illegal to ban in any case) is pretty silly.

If 100 bullets are fired without reloading from a gun with a pistol grip and a flash suppressor, and another 100 bullets are fired without reloading from a gun without a pistol grip and a flash suppressor, there is no difference between the two sets of bullets.

And yes, the government is not allowed to violate someone's Constitutional rights just because their name is on a watch list.

That is an excellent point.
The means of amending the Constitution r set forth in its Article 5,
which does not recognize putting anyone's name on a list
as a means of effectively amending the Supreme Law of the Land.

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Gun control is great for keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands and little else

Thats as untrue as "Gun control has not worked"> This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried. A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

3 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Gun control is great for keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands and little else
Thats as untrue as "Gun control has not worked"> This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried.
A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

That 's good. It defeats the rape of the Constitution by liberals.

The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is NOT SECRET;
it is among the world's freely available engineering data.
If criminals had no guns, they'd arm themselves using that
information and access to the hardware stores of America;
thus the FUTILITY of the "gun control" philosophy:
the disarmament of criminals is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

REMOVAL from America of violently felonious recidivists can reduce misconduct.
Crime comes from bad people, not from tools.
Should umbrellas be blamed for rain? pens for forgery? spoons for obesity?

Repressionists want to disarm citizens, saying that guns are
sometimes used to facilitate crime. They fail to understand that
the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND, whose cleverness
has not been controlled nor restrained (not even in prison).

This mind expresses itself perseveringly, into the manifestation
of its felt needs or desires, and it has FOREVER to do the job that it selects (e.g., the art of the gunsmith/gun merchant).

In the 1920s, it was pervasively proven by citizens privately making bathtub gin,
or using Speakeasys (and is proven again now by marijuana users) that Prohibition is futile, farmer.

David

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried. A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

Yes if we only try harder it will work and even having bullets in Mexico is a serous crime and how is that working out for our friends and neighbors Farmerman?

Oh yes of course that is due to the evil US shipping guns south so how about the UK police now needing to patrol certain areas with police arm with submachine guns Farmerman?

There is right now more firearms then citizens in the US and no gun law is going to make them disappear second any machine shop can turn out firearms ......................................

But if we only try prohibition real real hard this time human nature will change and all those guns that people wish to have will somehow disappear like alcohol and drugs had disappear.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Gun control is great for keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands and little else

Thats as untrue as "Gun control has not worked"> This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried. A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

Does "gun control" mean "complete gun ban" for the purposes of this post?

If so, countries have tried it. The only big impact was the loss of freedom.

We will never be trying it here in the US.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried.
A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

BillRM wrote:

There is right now more firearms then citizens in the US and no gun law
is going to make them disappear second any machine shop can turn out firearms ......................................

But if we only try prohibition real real hard this time human nature
will change and all those guns that people wish to have will
somehow disappear like alcohol and drugs had disappeared.

Thank u, Bill. WELL SAID!!!

David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is NOT SECRET;
it is among the world's freely available engineering data.

BillRM wrote:

any machine shop can turn out firearms ......................................

Probably the best weapon for covert manufacture would be the equivalent of a sawed-off shotgun firing buckshot. The requirements for tight mechanical tolerances would not be as great. The ammo would not be complex to make. And the per-round effectiveness would be high (presumably with covert manufacture it would be preferable to not have to supply the guns with a huge volume of ammunition).

2 Cents

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Quote:
Gun control is great for keeping guns out of law abiding citizens hands and little else

Thats as untrue as "Gun control has not worked"> This is all bullshit because gun control has never really been honestly tried. A city may outlaw them but you can usually drive 10 miles to another muni and have all your needs fulfilled

Does "gun control" mean "complete gun ban" for the purposes of this post?

If so, countries have tried it. The only big impact was the loss of freedom.

We will never be trying it here in the US.

Freedom of self defense and to the means thereof,
is the CORNERSTONE of a free country; it is based on SELF RELIANCE, rather than dependence on the collective
and its henchman, government, for one 's existence.

Gun freedom is very fundamental.

David

0 Replies

Yeah, David, I really blew it on the hundred shots to kill someone. I was WAY low.

Quote:

US Forced To Import Bullets From Israel As Troops Use 250,000 For Every Rebel Killed -- Global Security

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

1 Reply

And at Gettysburg, about 7 1/2 million rounds were expended in total for about 50,000 casualties, which works out to about 150 rounds per casualty. And these were trained soldiers firing at each other. Those other 149 rounds went somewhere. They killed trees and cows and buildings. You get essentially untrained--and most people are, you included, in spite of how much time you spent on a pistol range, you're untrained--firing in a closed space with a few hundred bodies there and you're mostly going to hit those people, not the other shooters, and you have absolutely no way of telling who the "good" shooters are from the bad shooters. You're still a loon, David.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

You get essentially untrained--and most people are, you included, in spite of how much time you spent on a pistol range, you're untrained--firing in a closed space with a few hundred bodies there and you're mostly going to hit those people, not the other shooters, and you have absolutely no way of telling who the "good" shooters are from the bad shooters.

These silly false assumptions that you keep fabricating do not justify violating our Constitutional rights.

And both the NRA and the US Supreme Court will not allow you to do so.

MontereyJack wrote:

You're still a loon, David.

Nonsense. All he is doing is telling you that you are not going to be allowed to violate people's Constitutional rights.

And he is right. You will never be given the power to take our freedom away.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Does "gun control" mean "complete gun ban" for the purposes of this post?
If so, countries have tried it. The only big impact was the loss of freedom.

That's an odd definition of "freedom".

Personally I enjoy the freedom from fear, of knowing the man I meet is not carrying a gun.
I know that, in this country, a traffic-rage incident is not going to end in a shooting.
That's a comfort. That is civilising. That is a worthwhile "freedom".

2 Replies

re McTag. My definition of freedom too.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Yeah, David, I really blew it on the hundred shots to kill someone. I was WAY low.

Quote:

US Forced To Import Bullets From Israel As Troops Use 250,000 For Every Rebel Killed -- Global Security

US forces have fired so many bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan - an estimated 250,000 for every insurgent killed - that American ammunition-makers cannot keep up with demand. As a result the US is having to import supplies from Israel.

No. U don't understand what we r discussing.
American troops r using a lot of automatic weapons,
like helicopter mounted M134 Miniguns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyF0G7g4KfY
whose helicopter gunners use the Minigun's automatic fire
of up to 6,OOO rounds a minute for broad area coverage
somewhat like a gardiner watering his lawn with a hose.

What we r discussing here is POINT BLANK ` aimed defensive gunfire
at a super-obvious target almost within arm's reach.
I say for the 3rd time:
there was a kid on the TV news, looking around 12,
who said that the murderer was 3 feet from him.
THAT'S the subject matter of this discussion,
not shooting into the great blue yonder, in vague hope
of generally doing some good with a handgun.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Yes...I was highly amused at freedom being defined as the right to bear arms of whatever sort wherever and whenever you feel like it. Meanwhile, the people who define that as freedom seem to live locked in intense fear and paranoia....Omsig being the prime example of that.

I don't argue with gun nuts...it's like putting lipstick on a pig, but I think that is one of the oddest things about the gun nut mentality.

3 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

That's an odd definition of "freedom".

No, it's the standard one.

McTag wrote:

Personally I enjoy the freedom from fear, of knowing the man I meet is not carrying a gun.
I know that, in this country, a traffic-rage incident is not going to end in a shooting.

Actually, you don't know those things.

McTag wrote:

That's a comfort. That is civilising. That is a worthwhile "freedom".

That's not freedom; that's security, a totally different concept.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Where is the right to carry guns a standard definition of freedom? In the NRA?

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

My definition of freedom too.

Given your rampant opposition to our Constitutional rights, your definition of freedom is a bit suspect.

I think we'll keep defining freedom the way it's always been defined, thank you.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Yes. What the rabbit said.

Fear and paranoia.

Remembering the story of a British tourist who got lost at night, went to a nearby house to ask for help or directions, knocked on the door, and the owner shot him through the door without opening it.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Yes...I was highly amused at freedom being defined as the right to bear arms of whatever sort wherever and whenever you feel like it.

That is only one component of freedom. A necessary component. But still only one.

The "whatever sort" is a bit misleading. The fact that we do not allow freedom haters to ban weapons that we have the right to have, does not mean there are not weapons that are not covered by the right.

dlowan wrote:

Meanwhile, the people who define that as freedom seem to live locked in intense fear and paranoia....Omsig being the prime example of that.

I think you are mistaken here. Unlikely there is much fear or paranoia, with him, or with most other civil rights advocates.

0 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know