Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

[urlhttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Gun-Appreciation-Day/470123833024708]Gun-Appreciation-Day[/url]

0 Replies

@aidan,

In actual fiction, if they wore white hats, the got shot in the shoulder. In movielife, a gunshot wound to the shoulder is a minor injury requiring the wearing of a bloody bandage for maybe two days.

0 Replies

The problem is not the 'big problem' that Obama and his minions say it is.
The problem is not the 'big problem' that our main stream media says it is.
The problem is not the 'big problem' that you 'under informed' believe it is.

Informed citizens know the occurrences of evil events like this continues to decline.

The 'big problem' is Obama, his minions in the media and the under informed.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The 'big problem' is Obama, his minions, the media and the under informed

People like you and Oralloy make it damn hard to joined together to fight this nonsensical attacks on gun rights.

Which do you care more about protecting guns rights or taking pot shoots at Democrats?

The far right Obama haters tend to be their own worst enemies.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Democrats?

On the first day of the 113th Congress, ten new bills were introduced with an emphasis on guns. The majority of these, eight, were introduced by Democrats. The two that were introduced by freshmen Republican Congressmen are designed to eliminate schools as “gun free zones.”

Four of the bills came from Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), who has been active for some time in trying to push more gun control legislation because of the fact that her husband was shot to death in 1993. McCarthy introduced HR 137, 138, 141, and 142.

HR 137 and HR138 would require people who are prohibited from purchasing a firearm to be cataloged in a national database and would also prevent transfers of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Her HR 141 bill would require criminal background checks at all gun shows, while her HR 142 bill would require face-to-face purchases of ammunition, the licensing of dealers, and the reporting of bulk ammunition purchases. Can you imagine what this will do to internet business regarding ammunition? That’s right, it will kill it.

Representatives Bobby Rush (D-IL) and Rush Hold (D-NJ) each put forth their bills, HR 34 and HR 117, which would tighten firearms licensing requirements.

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) proposed HR 65 which would raise the eligibility age of a person to carry a handgun from 18 to 21. Clearly she, along with others, have no concept of what “shall not be infringed” means.

Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) re-introduced his HR 21 bill, which would require background checks for all gun sales. It would also require gun owners to report when their guns have been stolen. While he claims that polls regarding the National Rifle Association’s membership support his bill, he doesn’t provide any sources for his claims.

In addition, Republican congressmen Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) put forth HR 35 and HR 133 which would end the federal law requires areas around schools to be designated as “gun free zones.” Their bills are based in reality with data that demonstrates that violence both in and around schools increased when the federal law took effect in 1990.

“By disarming qualified citizens and officials in schools we have created a dangerous situation for our children,” Stockman said. “In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones’ there were two mass school shootings.

“In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings,” he continued. “Not only has the bill utterly failed to protect our children it appears to have placed them in danger.”

So what of Feinstein’s legislation? According to Senate leaders, they have set aside January 22 as the first day that the Senate will allow new legislation to be proposed. We’ll keep you informed. http://freedomoutpost.com

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

In addition, Republican congressmen Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) put forth HR 35 and HR 133 which would end the federal law requires areas around schools to be designated as “gun free zones.” Their bills are based in reality with data that demonstrates that violence both in and around schools increased when the federal law took effect in 1990.

I thought violence was down. Now you are arguing the opposite? Which is it spurt?

And one should also note that most of those school shootings in the last 22 years have happened since the ban on assault weapons expired.

1 Reply

@Val Killmore,

Still on your logic, Forest Whitaker can never speak out against dictatorship having played Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Your vitriol is you furiously backpedalling because you made a stupid statement while you were 'upset' by the message so you attacked the messengers. Exactly what you are doing to me. Try applying your brain to the arguments rather than the players and maybe you'll do your position some justice. Right now you're soiling it.

As for name calling? Well... you're a poopyhead.

1 Reply

@parados,

Violence both in and around schools increased once government schools were designated as “gun free zones” by our Federal Government in 1990. Democracy prevailed and ruled the day, with the help of the big 3 TV networks word of this Federal designation did spread quickly and street signs were posted around each and every tax payer funded hunting preserve. The desired demographic saw the signs and received the message loud and clear. Evil sick individuals within our society took full advantage of these designated "gun free zones." Democracy sent the invitation, rolled out the red carpet and Evil came calling.

Democracy is mob rule and it sucks!

0 Replies

One need to wonder if the news media and the fireflies of the world would have given a **** if this kid bomb plot had work out as long as no firearms was used.

It not the deaths of children at Newton that is of concern it is the fact that the manner of their deaths help the anti-gun lobby.

Alabama police: High school white supremacist planned bomb attack

By Matt Pearce

January 7, 2013, 4:36 p.m.
Alabama police say they have averted an attack on a high school by a student aligned with the white supremacist movement.

Russell County High School student Derek Shrout, 17, appeared in court Monday after officials said they'd found bomb-making materials at his house Friday.

Officials said a teacher had come across his journal at school and found plans for an attack. Six students and one teacher were named in the journal; five of the students were black.

The senior class president, David Kelly, told WTVM-TV that Shrout was in the junior ROTC program and "was confident, well-rounded, but as time went by, he was doing the whole white power thing."

Kelly told WTVM-TV that Shrout would do Nazi salutes at school: "In the hallway, at breakfast, at the lunch tables, after school where we have our bus parking lot, he'd have his big old group of friends and they'd go around doing the whole white power crazy stuff."

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
The 'big problem' is Obama, his minions, the media and the under informed

People like you and Oralloy make it damn hard to joined together to fight this nonsensical attacks on gun rights.

Which do you care more about protecting guns rights or taking pot shoots at Democrats?

The far right Obama haters tend to be their own worst enemies.

It is a fact that Obama, and a large portion of the Democratic Party base, are plotting a huge assault against the US Constitution and against American freedom.

Defending America will require publicly condemning them for these actions.

It is also true that there are a number of Democrats who oppose Obama's all-out assault on our Constitutional liberties. Nancy Pelosi in particular will likely be the person most responsible for the defeat of any assault weapons ban. I suspect she also takes a very dim view of this new push for gun registration.

But we have to be open about what Obama and his foul co-conspirators on the left are plotting to do here. If we don't confront them on this, American freedom could be destroyed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

assault against the US Constitution and against American freedom.

An the GOP is trying to take the voting franchise away from as many citizens that do not support them as possible.

Our freedoms are far more at risk from the far right GOP/teaparty then by the left wing of the Democrats in my opinion.

The tea party is a damn good reason for the Democrats to support guns rights and armed themselves.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:
assault against the US Constitution and against American freedom.

An the GOP is trying to take the voting franchise away from as many citizens that do not support them as possible.

Nah. The Republicans just want people to have to show a secure picture ID to prevent cheating.

For large-scale voter disenfranchisement, look at what Obama and the Democrats did to Michigan in the 2008 Presidential Primary.

BillRM wrote:

Our freedoms are far more at risk from the far right GOP/teaparty then by the left wing of the Democrats in my opinion.

The tea party is a damn good reason for the Democrats to support guns rights and armed themselves.

The existence of people with differing views is just a part of politics. The reason they should support gun rights is because living in a free country is just plain awesome.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Sorry let not play games people in the GOP had done as must as possible to interfere with the voting of people that do not support them such as in Florida cutting down the early voting hours by half knowing that Democrats tend to vote early.

We have voting lines of seven hours in some democratic distracts for some strange reason.

The US with the imbalance of wealth now so great that the top 500 or so of citizens have more net worth then the bottom 50 percents of the population is ripe for a dictatorship of the right not the left.

The people on the left should be all for the 2 amendment given the danger of a de facto corporate state coming into existed.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Still on your logic, Forest Whitaker can never speak out against dictatorship having played Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland
...Your vitriol is you furiously backpedalling because you made a stupid statement while you were 'upset' by the message so you attacked the messengers. Exactly what you are doing to me. Try applying your brain to the arguments rather than the players and maybe you'll do your position some justice. Right now you're soiling it.

Oh geez, I was right about you, you really are a fuckhead.
In the first place, we were talking about gun violence, not dictatorship or Hitler, etc, and my original statement is fine as it is.
Second of all I am focusing on the message put out by some actors in this demand a plan relative to their contract with Hollywood that earns them dough. As I have had to explain to you thrice, some of these actors have time and time again played characters in films potraying gun violence, sending out a clear message that glamorizes such violence. Hollywood and its employees - famous actors - in this case is in an awkward position to pass it's holier-than-thou sermon on gun violence, when in the first place it releases works year in, year out that glamorizes and makes gun violence "cool" and appealing to the masses. It's just not one movie or one year, it is every year that they put some trigger happy character(s) on the pedestal, as if it serves some purpose, desensitization and creativity - maybe. But highly graphic gun violence itself sure as hell isn't meant to edify the viewers, unless you twist the message chugged out of the Hollywood factory to suit your interest.
I'm ok with that, as freedom of speech extends to the corporations as well as individuals. But the thing that bothers me is the message that Hollywood and its "slaves" put out to the public to line their pockets all the while sending out a contradictory message that it puts out after a tragedy happens. This contrasting message is what makes them hypocritical fools. Interestingly, Stallone and Schwarzenegger were smart enough to sit this one out.

Quote:

Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. cited from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Shove your shitty wikipedia article up your ass fuckhead.

Let me give you a better source.

http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/

Quote:

The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.

So, what this means in practical terms:

o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.

5. So - *WHAT DOES IT MEAN*?

Fine, fine - it means that somebody's eventually going to say
something about the Nazis in any thread that lasts very long. When it
happens, the thread is going to start either degenerating into a long
flamewar over Nazi Germany or about Godwin's Law. Either way, the thread
is effectively over, and you can safely killfile the thread and move on.
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/

0 Replies

The United States is awash in guns. Gun control cannot solve the problem, right now. That doesn't mean that it cannot eventually solve the problem. People sell guns at gun shows--that's a loophole that needs to be closed. People sell guns out of their pickup trucks in parking lots (i've seen it more than just a few times)--that's a loophole that needs to be closed. None of those problems can be solved overnight, which is not a good reason to just throw up your hands and do nothing.

The argument that people need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government is a pathetic absurdity. If the government ever comes for you, just like Ruby Ridge or Waco, they will come in flack jackets and helmets, with assault rifles or machine pistols, in helicopter gunships and/or armored personel carriers. Good luck with your Smith and Wesson.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The argument that people need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government is a pathetic absurdity. If the government ever comes for you, just like Ruby Ridge or Waco, they will come in flack jackets and helmets, with assault rifles or machine pistols, in helicopter gunships and/or armored personel carriers. Good luck with your Smith and Wesson.

You don't think that if it came to it, that members of the armed forces wouldn't side with the citizens? All you have to do is look at places around the world right now. Syria being one of them, with their FSA.
Anyway, what's your argument with the Taliban and insurgents fighting with assault rifles, IEDS, and rocket launchers that are doing to our forces with M1A2 battle tanks and F22s and B2s and drones. We have all this technology and we still can't win that war.

The purpose of every citizen to have the right to bear arms is to ensure a free country where we have rights to do what we want as long as it does not infringe on a person's rights. They knew that without the ability to defend one's self from your government, you no longer are a citizen but a subject to that government. It's having rights vs having privileges. I truly believe in the right to peacefully protest. I hope that any issues that arise in this country can be changed by the sound of voices and not by the sound of gun fire. But the fact is, the men who started this country tried to protest, they tried to go the peaceful route, they tried to use their voices, but our government at the time did not care to hear what it's "subjects" had to say. So they did what they thought needed to be done.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry let not play games people in the GOP had done as must as possible to interfere with the voting of people that do not support them such as in Florida cutting down the early voting hours by half knowing that Democrats tend to vote early.

Sometimes early voting can be taken to an extreme. People should at least have to wait until after the final debate before being able to vote.

BillRM wrote:

We have voting lines of seven hours in some democratic distracts for some strange reason.

Hardly strange. Big cities have lots of people in them.

BillRM wrote:

The US with the imbalance of wealth now so great that the top 500 or so of citizens have more net worth then the bottom 50 percents of the population is ripe for a dictatorship of the right not the left.

We are not going to have any dictatorship.

BillRM wrote:

The people on the left should be all for the 2 amendment given the danger of a de facto corporate state coming into existed.

There is no such danger. The reason people should insist on the Second Amendment is because having freedom is awesome.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The United States is awash in guns. Gun control cannot solve the problem, right now. That doesn't mean that it cannot eventually solve the problem.

There's no problem to solve. Having the nation awash in guns is a good thing.

Setanta wrote:

People sell guns at gun shows--that's a loophole that needs to be closed.

Did you mean sell guns without background checks?

Because selling guns is pretty much the whole point of a gun show.

Presuming you were just complaining about "without background checks", I'll again point out that the NRA has in the past supported universal background checks at gun shows, so long as the government is required to complete the checks within 24 hours.

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

No, i don't think the members of the armed forces would side with some notional representative of the people, such as the loons in the so-called Michigan Miliita. But quite apart from that, if the government come for you, it won't be the armed forces. It will Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and/or (and most likely it will be and) the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It will be long service, career government employees, and they will have more men, better equipment and they will be better armed. You exercise your fantasies to your heart's content. I would hope for you sake that your fantasies don't carry you to a place where you are so stupid as to attempt to confront the government in arms, because you'll lose and you might well lose your life in the process.

1 Reply

Presume what you like, i have no interest in the ploys of the NRA.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know