Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@H2O MAN,

Jon Stewarts monologue about starting a "dialogue" from 1/9 was really great. Im afraid , however, that idiots like spurt and Dave would miss thepoints , let alone the humor.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Why do Obama, Biden and Pelosi want to greatly restrict the civil liberties of law abiding citizens?

Actually, Nancy Pelosi has a history of opposing bans on assault weapons (I think she may be OK with magazine limits though).

I have not heard her voice her views on universal gun registration, but I suspect she might be against that one too.

Not that she is completely pro-gun, but it isn't fair to lump her in with thugs like Obama.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

In the state where I live:

Quote:
Illinois Attorney General seeks new hearing on concealed carry

Yes. We're within a couple years of the Supreme Court ruling that Americans have the right to carry handguns when they go about in public, even in our largest cities.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

How is a physician asking a patient about anything connected to health or safety a violation of "people's civil rights"?

They are just trying to gather data on who owns guns so that it will be easier for the government to come and seize them later.

In addition to that, they are hoping to hassle people for choosing to exercise their rights.

The NRA will not allow it.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You have a serious paranoia problem.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Jon Stewarts monologue about starting a "dialogue" from 1/9 was really great.

Jon Stewart is just a freedom hater who is really bitter over the fact that he is not capable of destroying our freedom.

Take him down to Guantanamo and waterboard him with the other freedom haters, IMO.

farmerman wrote:

Im afraid , however, that idiots like spurt and Dave would miss thepoints , let alone the humor.

Just because people care about our freedom, that doesn't justify calling them idiots.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You have a serious paranoia problem.

There is no problem. The NRA is strong. They will protect my freedom from all who try to take it away.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There is no problem. The NRA is strong. They will protect my freedom from all who try to take it away.

And even from those who are not trying to take it away!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

They are just trying to gather data on who owns guns so that it will be easier for the government to come and seize them later.

In addition to that, they are hoping to hassle people for choosing to exercise their rights.

So, if your family physician asks you about your drinking habits, that means the government is planning to reinstitute prohibition, right oralloy? They are coming to take away your booze, and that's what your doctor is really up to when he asks how much you drink. Not that you're paranoid...but, if the tin foil hat fits...

http://www.truckdriversnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tin-foil-hat.jpg

Quote:

The NRA will not allow it.

The NRA has no business dictating medical or health care practices. The NRA has no right to infringe on the First Amendment free speech rights of physicians, particularly in the context of their confidential relationships with patients.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

If guns are banned the police only have to show up at one house at a time in overwhelming numbers. You are free to shoot it out with them being the criminal you will then be.

Let see a 50 millions of homes or so with overwhelming numbers?

Talk about a civil war...................and you are not a criminal in a civil war unless your side happen to loss.

Now if I knew that a neighbor was being hit with overwhelming numbers and that I was myself on the hit list for laster that day why the hell would I not join in taking the swat team in the rear along with every other armed person with similar feelings within a few miles?

Let see the British have that idea of showing up in Concord with overwhelming force to seize weapons and leaders and there was only fifty or so citizens to resist 700 of them however thousands of armed citizens dropped everything and engage them all the way back to Boston from behind every damn tree and house on the march route.

It would be Waco by a factor of tens of thousands.

Given that armed citizens out number all law enforcement agents by over a hundred to one I would not give the idea that people would just stand by as they slowly work from one house to another in overwhelming force at all likely to say the least.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The colonies defended themselves in King Williams War (1690s), Queen Anne's War (the same as the War of the Spanish Succession), King George's War (the same as the War of the Austrian Succession), and in the French and Indian War.

King Williams War or also known as War of the Grand Alliance, the major action was seen in Europe, and any action that were seen in America were raids and border skirmishes. And you wouldn't call setting up border as before the war as a legitimate "win." Thus conflicts continued.
Again Queen Anne's War was primarily fought in Europe. And the colonies had aid. A British contingent did arrive and with its support the colonists were able to capture Port Royal, renamed Annapolis Royal, accomplishing the fall of Acadia to Great Britain.
In King George's war there was aid by Brittan. Sir Peter Warren and his naval contingent provided valuable assistance by preventing reinforcements from reaching the French fort and the siege ended in raid of the fortress by the British soldiers.

Setanta wrote:

In 1745, the colonists, without outside aid, captured the great French fortress of Louisbourg (which the British promptly gave back to France in the peace negotiations).

Liar, because there was aid from Brittan. Sir Peter Warren and his naval contingent that which outclassed the colonial ships provided valuable assistance by preventing reinforcements from reaching the French fort and when the two-month siege ended when British soldiers raided the fortress.

Setanta wrote:

The largest army to that time assembled in North America (1758) was made up of a majority of colonists, and the colonies supplied the logistical support.

Again, liar. Before we get to logistical support, let us look at the logistical problem. There was a lack of muskets as well as camp equipments. Now, the colonies did not supply the logistical support, Brittan were kind enough to give aid to the army and provided them with ten thousand muskets and camp equipment for four thousand men, then only were the "large army" was somewhat ready to be deployed into a battle scene. With even such aid there were supply shortages. But this large superior force was defeated by the smaller French force (led by Montcalm) by establishing stronger fortification in 1758.

Setanta wrote:

The British were able to re-take Louisbourg in 1758 becaues of the aid of the colonist.

Again Liar. Not counting the naval troops, around 11,000 British regular troops and 200 American Rangers.The prudent battle tactics of James Wolfe and a strategy that used the foggy weather to British soldiers advantage helped the British re-take Lousibourg in 1758. There isn't evidence to conclusively say that British won because the colonists participated.

Setanta wrote:

As i've already pointed out, the equipment was identical from one army to the other.

I've never said they were not identical, all I said before was that the British troops more equipped in the beginning of the war, while there were weapon shortages for the colonials.

Setanta wrote:

You don't make any specific claims about the revolution, just vauge flings from your comic book vision of history. You make no specific references to people or events. That's because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

On the contrary old man, time and time again I've shown how inaccurate you are in remembering history.

Setanta wrote:

As for you hilarious scenario about "the people" rising in arms against their government, you don't even provide a logical scenario. Fewer than half the voters even show up to vote in national elections, but you claim they'll take up arms against an allegedly tyrannical government. You provide no definition of what kind of tyranny will lead them to that extreme, nor do you canvas the issues of organization and logiscial support for your fantasy army.

Now partaking in providing a "logistical support" and "logical scenario." That is what you would call fantasizing. All those role playing games have gotten into your head, hasn't it?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

idiots like spurt and Dave would miss thepoints , let alone the humor.

I honestly never even expected them to watch. Sigh.

I particularly liked:

"If at first you don't succeed, well, **** it!"

But there was gold all through it. The lunatic database, for example. Gawd help the US (although if he tried she'd probably be shot Razz

)

MUSKETS FOR ALL!

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

So you read the links, and now you're even more of an expert that you claimed to be before hand. You'd never have known as much if i had not provided you those links. Your claims about support for the colonists, first don't deny the important role the colonists played, and second are not supported by anything more than your claims. You speak of muskets provided--muskets purchased from England by the colonies. There is more than just guns to logistical support--you need transport and rations, and those the colonies provided.

At any event, it shows what idiocy there was in the claim that the British were "hardened" veterans and your inferential claim that the colonists had not military experience at all. You also know nothing of the organizational structure of the British army. Regiments were operational units, they were administrative units. Each regiment had a first battalion, which was a cadre of experienced officer and non-commissioned offiers. To serve overseas, to raise a second battalion, it was necessary to recruit troops. The rank and file of the battalions sent to North America had no more, and in most cases probably less experience than the Americans. The German mercenaries were hired in large numbers precisely because Britain could not meet its manpower needs to fight the war. Their standing battalions were already in the West Indies or India, and they couldn't raise troops in North America as they had done in the French and Indian War.

Once again, you're pig ignorant on this subject, and your idiotic analogy fails because the situations are not analogous. Not with your comic book view of history. You've shown nothing but your ignorance and arrogance.

Most importantly, you've failed to show any scenario in which Americans would rise in arms against their government--the heart of your dull-witted fantasy.

Loon.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So you read the links, and now you're even more of an expert that you claimed to be before hand. You'd never have known as much if i had not provided you those links. Your claims about support for the colonists, first don't deny the important role the colonists played, and second are not supported by anything more than your claims. You speak of muskets provided--muskets purchased from England by the colonies. There is more than just guns to logistical support--you need transport and rations, and those the colonies provided.

No old man, unlike you I don't have the free time to read the links and post lies. Most of the stuff is what I remember from previous history courses, I just had to look up the dates in wiki to correlate with the timeline of the belated lies you spewed.
And regarding logistical support, it only takes one who can do simple arithmetic quickly and have talent in organizing to run smooth such an operation that you mentioned. It's not like you need a rocket science major to do it. The difficult part is attaining the supplies in the first place.

Setanta wrote:

At any event, it shows what idiocy there was in the claim that the British were "hardened" veterans and your inferential claim that the colonists had not military experience at all. You also know nothing of the organizational structure of the British army. Regiments were operational units, they were administrative units. Each regiment had a first battalion, which was a cadre of experienced officer and non-commissioned offiers. To serve overseas, to raise a second battalion, it was necessary to recruit troops. The rank and file of the battalions sent to North America had no more, and in most cases probably less experience than the Americans. The German mercenaries were hired in large numbers precisely because Britain could not meet its manpower needs to fight the war. Their standing battalions were already in the West Indies or India, and they couldn't raise troops in North America as they had done in the French and Indian War.

Great, now are you just putting more miscellaneous info. Geez man, haven't you made a big fool of yourself already?
I don't give a **** about that, and what you are talking about is well into the war where the colonies started to get aid French,Spanish & Dutch Republic, while I only focused on the first two years of the war.
And no, a great number of the colonial troops were lacking in experience and poorly paid and supplied, compared to the British contingents, despite the presence of veterans from French and Indian War in the army. What gave the colonials a large advantage are strategic alliances, fighting in their home turf, and the fact that the British empire was fighting 3 other wars in different parts of the world at the same time.

Setanta wrote:

Once again, you're pig ignorant on this subject, and your idiotic analogy fails because the situations are not analogous. Not with your comic book view of history. You've shown nothing but your ignorance and arrogance.

My analogy is better than your lies which you spewed, and you blame me of the "comic book view" of history. You can spew all you want, old man, but that doesn't make your lies truths, or is it the alzheimer's acting up which makes you repeat delusions over and over again.

Setanta wrote:

Most importantly, you've failed to show any scenario in which Americans would rise in arms against their government--the heart of your dull-witted fantasy.

I never partook in fantasy and just gave a what/if scenario, but you're asking me to partake in fantasy by calculating logistics and the events which will lead to such catastrophe. Sorry, I will decline, as I don't have time to sharpen my fantasies by playing role playing games. By the way, old man, get out once in a while and do take breaks from playing role playing games, too much of that ain't healthy for you.

Limp dick loser.

2 Replies

You're a typical internet bullshit artist. You had never heard of any of this until i mentioned it. When i provided links, you rushed off to scan the articles to try to find some points ot quibble about. You don't even know what logistical support is. Ten thousand muskets are a fine thing, but you can't eat muskets, you can't keep warm at night by sleeping under your musket, you can't get up the lakes by paddling your musket. Logistical support is arms, ammunition, clothing, blankets, shoes, boots, food, water and transport--and the colonies provided the lion's share of those things, in 1745 and in 1758.

You're ignorant, you're loud-mouthed and abusive, and your scenario of the people rising against their government is bullshit, just like everything else you post. I'm not going to waste any more time on you because your a loud-mouthed, abusive bullshit artist. If it weren't for insults, you'd have nothing at all.

Loon.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

you've failed to show any scenario in which Americans would rise in arms against their government-

And your Government is too weak, as governments go, to call the bluff. If it can't even call the bluff it's nothing but a well paid bunch of corrupt fat cat hot air merchants who are allowed to be decisive overseas to allay their sense of meaning something.

A flat out ban, 3 months to hand them in without compensation after which 5 years for possession and life for use in furtherance of a crime. That would halve the murder rate, at least, and require a determination to massacre to be of a higher order than it is now when a temper tantrum can suffice.

All the other solutions create more bureaucracy, more government spending, larger deficits and will achieve little or nothing. It's that or oralloy's solution it seems to me.

If visitors to the US are not allowed to carry then they are unprotected in the way oralloy, David and H20 insist on being. I imagine that a lot of potential visitors refrain because of the fear these men express.

So the Tourist Board, which runs ads on our TV from time to time, never mentioning guns of course, should be in to bat against the NRA.

I think your guns are costing you a far larger amount of scarce resources than has so far been considered.

1 Reply

Concerning the issue of assault weapons and high capacity magazines and curtailing their use, I would like to remind you of their purpose.
The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions, for you see, there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees in opposing enemies foreign and domestic and against disorder and tyranny within our country. (Your not going to do that with a six shooter!)

Secondly, limiting the capacity of how many rounds a magazine will hold, is a frugal gesture that solves nothing. I ask you Sir, do you really think that reducing a magazines capacity to ten rounds will cause criminals, or mentally-unstable people, to stop their courses of action?

I would also like to remind you that the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, was not cause by a gun, but a bomb! May 18, 1927 Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58.

The fact is, you cannot legislate morality. People bent on evil, will find any means at their disposal to implement atrocities. The worst thing you as a legislator could do while in office would be to impair the law abiding citizen to defend his family against criminals with equal force, who have no regard for the law, along with denying him his freedom from protecting his country against tyranny, which is guaranteed in the Second Amendment.

Further banning is not the answer. More education and acknowledging the responsibility of each and every gun owner to ensure that his/her firearms are secure .

0 Replies

@Setanta,

You didn't provide links, you provided lies. And what is this quibble about logistical support that you are hanging onto for all of a sudden? Is that your last hope, hypocrisy spewing liar?

And on the contrary, if it weren't for lies, you would have nothing at all. All I provided were facts. Go check them if you so please. As I said again, I didn't rush of to scan for the articles. On lunch break all I had to look up were the time line to make sure what I remembered served me correctly.

Setanta wrote:

'm not going to waste any more time on you because your a loud-mouthed, abusive bullshit artist.

LOL, I thought you had a lot of time to waste old man. Why are you leaving so soon? The conversation was just getting interesting. So what role playing games do you play?

Limp dick looser.

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

There is more than just guns to logistical support--you need transport and rations, and those the colonies provided.

President Lincoln said that he can make generals but that he can't make horses. Nor their fodder I expect he had in mind.

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

In connection to logistical support did not Franklin put his credit and most of his wealth on the line when hiring 100 plus supply wagons for General Braddock in 1755 by offering to be a "co-signer" for the debt in case the British government did not promptly paid the owners and in fact the British government was so slow in their payments that for a time Franklin was looking at finance ruin?

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know