Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@oralloy,

Quote:

You lied repeatedly when you said my facts were hyperbole.

When I call your attention to the fact that you OFTEN use hyperbole...is it not a lie...it is an inconvenient (for you) truth.

Quote:

And I call relatively few people liars.

Yes, when compared with the number of people alive on the planet, you do call relatively few people liars. But compared with the number of people with whom you interact in this forum, you call relatively MANY liars. And it does seem you do call more people liars than anyone else in the forum

Quote:

Although I certainly have no qualms about doing so when they deliberately lie.

Actually, you have no qualms about calling anyone a liar just because y0u feel like calling them a liar.

1 Reply

@spendius,

"For last year's words belong to last year's language
And next year's words await another voice.
And to make an end is to make a beginning.” ― T.S. Eliot

To make an end of the rights of citizens to be armed, I suppose, is to make the beginning of a Tyrannical government. Well put T.S. Eliot.

Perhaps this will help you to understand The Second Amendment:
"I ask you, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers of America

0 Replies

Another version of something very cheap, simple, and light which doesn't quite meet the military definition of an assault rifle but which would more than suffice for a lunatic's purposes:

http://www.ruger.com/products/1022Carbine/images/1103.jpg

That's the little Ruger 10/22, everybody's favorite 22 semiauto and a $200 - $300 item anywhere firearms are sold. Something to ban after you ban gasoline, swimming pools, knives, forks, and parents.....

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Gee. and there is no constitutional right to own an assault weapon.

Constitution says otherwise.

The fact that there is no legitimate reason for banning a pistol grip or a flash suppressor means that doing so would violate Rational Basis Review.

There is no legitimate reason to demand ID for voting.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
All the Republicans are doing is requiring a photo ID in order to vote. That is a perfectly reasonable barrier to raise.

So if a citizen should have to show a valid ID to a government official every time they want to exercise a Constitutional right does that mean every right can require a valid ID be shown to a government official before they exercise that right.

So.... Every time you want to carry your gun outside your home you must FIRST present a valid ID to a government official. That means EVERY TIME you want to do it. Not just when you register to carry a gun.

Best of luck getting that one past the NRA.

The last time I checked the NRA has nothing to do with who decides what is constitutional.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. People get semi-autos because:

a) they are more effective for self defense

b) because they are easier when firing lots of rounds (varmint hunting for example)

c) they reduce recoil

I'm sure there are other reasons too. But those are three big ones.

Damn.... I thought you said those features were merely cosmetic. Now you want to argue that they do have an effect?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Damn.... I thought you said those features were merely cosmetic. Now you want to argue that they do have an effect?

Sorry but at least half the 300 millions firearms in the US are semi-auto and the ban was not against all semi-auto but just so call assault rifles due to features that make them no more deadly then any other semi auto weapon.

Now for myself I prefer a high cal wheel gun to even the most reliable semi-auto such as a model 1911A 45 due to jamming that can happen at the worst possible times with any semi-auto weapon.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Are you going to make the same argument that oralloy does? The argument that shows you have no clue what the law was?

2 Replies

@parados,

I am aware of the law and please tell us how any of the formerly ban weapons was any more deadly then others similar rifles without those harmless features that was sold legally during the period of the ban!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is a semi=auto of the same cal as a so call assault rifle any less deadly?????

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Right... So you are arguing that the military is paying extra for those items when they don't affect the weapons ability in any way.

Sure Bill. Maybe you should write the Pentagon and tell us to stop wasting the taxpayers money.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip are no danger to the general welfare.

You're right--the entire gun is what may pose a danger to the general welfare--particularly since our lax controls and regulations allow that gun to be easily acquired by any would-be terrorist or criminal.

We need to be able to trace the ownership of these guns.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

jamming that can happen at the worst possible times with any semi-auto weapon.

Like when you are trying to shoot up a movie theater or a shopping mall?

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

our lax controls and regulations allow that gun to be easily acquired by any would-be terrorist or criminal.

LOL so laws are magical and therefor it is hard to impossible to buy illegal drugs and would be the same for firearms if only we make more laws then the once we already have on the books.

Cities like Washington and New York have almost no gun crimes due to their verys strict gun laws. As after all laws are a form of magic.

Quote:

the entire gun is what may pose a danger to the general welfare

Once more how is the entire rifle with the label assault rifle any more deadly then the same cal semi-auto rifle that is not label an assault rifle?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Thanks for the strawman, firefly.

0 Replies

@firefly,

And you think being able to trace guns will stop random massacres from happening? Is that the only variable you have taken into account?
Although quite delusional, your propaganda is fiendishly clever. The worst school massacre in U.S. history happened at the Bath Consolidated School in Michigan in 1927. A school board treasurer used explosives from his farm to kill 38 kids and six adults while injuring 58 more and committing suicide. Would tracing the gun ownership in such scenario be helpful?

Have you ever thought about putting better security and attack prevention programs in schools?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Like when you are trying to shoot up a movie theater or a shopping mall?

More like when either my wife or I are dealing with a home invader. Do not wish to have a stove pipe round jamming the gun.

Having an engineering background if I ever went off the rail and decided to kill one hell of a lot of people firearms would not be the means for my doing so.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Once more how is the entire rifle with the label assault rifle any more deadly then the same cal semi-auto rifle that is not label an assault rifle?

ALL guns, particularly all semi-automatics, need to be better controlled and regulated--they are all deadly--if they weren't, they'd be rather useless as weapons, wouldn't they. These weapons can currently be easily acquired, without limit, by any would-be terrorist or criminal.

We don't need suicide bombers in this country--our terrorists can just walk into a gun store, or gun show, or place an internet order, and get all the high power firearms and ammunition they need to shoot up classrooms, movie theaters, commuter trains, houses of worship, shopping malls, supermarkets, military bases, and firemen trying to put out a blaze.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

ALL guns, particularly all semi-automatics, need to be better controlled and regulated

So you wish a near total ban on semi-auto firearms and do so by???????????

Going to removed roughly 150 millions or so semi-auto from the citizens?

How about level action rifles that are just as capable of doing mass killings as semi auto?

In any case, if you got you wish the people who tend to do mass killings are on average bright enough to finds dozens of means to do mass killings without firearms.

The two biggest mass killings in the country did not involved firearms one involved box cutters and the other a home make bomb.

Are those people any less dead by not being killed by firearms?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Ah, your delusional propaganda is eloquent as always, firefly.

firefly wrote:

We don't need suicide bombers in this country--our terrorists can just walk into a gun store, or gun show, or place an internet order, and get all the high power firearms and ammunition they need to shoot up classrooms, movie theaters, commuter trains, houses of worship, shopping malls, supermarkets, military bases, and firemen trying to put out a blaze.

firefly, must I explain to you that all terrorists are criminals but not all criminals are terrorists? And what does suicide bombers have to do with walking "into a gun store, or gun show, or place an internet order, and get all the high power firearms and ammunition they need to shoot up classrooms, movie theaters, commuter trains, houses of worship, shopping malls, supermarkets, military bases, and firemen trying to put out a blaze."

Why do you think the bad guy is an inanimate object? Are you that paranoid? Guns do not commit crimes, or by its own will kill people, it is a tool. It is generally common sense that law abiding citizens who become criminals can easily get guns or use other crude weapons to commit crimes. If something needs changed in regards to firearms, make laws that cannot be dismissed during prosecution when a firearm is used to commit a crime. Stronger Laws against law abiding citizens who become criminals. Criminals commit crimes, not guns.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Have you ever thought about putting better security and attack prevention programs in schools?

That won't help keep children safe from gun violence once they walk out the schoolhouse door.

More children are already killed by guns in the home, and on the street, than they are in schools.

Better security for children, and for the general population, does require "attack prevention"--which is why we need better gun control. One aspect of "attack prevention" is to limit, and better control, the types of weapons currently being used in mass attacks.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know