Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@spendius,

O

Quote:

kay--then there's no logical reason elsewhere if a gun ban is effective.

An how in the hell are you going to do that by waving a magic wand as laws sure the hell are not going to do it.

See once more the ban on street drugs in the US or the bans on firearms in Mexico or..........................

0 Replies

H2O says:

Quote:

A carrier is a city, but it's also an island that restricts unauthorized arrivals and departures. It's a controlled environment with it's own armed security and police forces.

In other words, it's a fascistic state with a monopoly of force by an unelected government and total state control over a disarmed and cowed citizenry. I'm surprised you don'f fight that as totally unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

here is no "the people". There is an aggregate of individual men, wonen and children.

Sorry the people in this case the citizens of the US as follow .......

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

0 Replies

Killer Rabbit.

Do you blame the bunny or the putter?

Do you ban the bunny or the putter?

http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/White-Rabbit-1.jpg

0 Replies

@firefly,

Firefly I would bet you have some of the making of high power explosives in your own home such as nail polish remover and hair dyes that can with a little research can be turn into a far more deadly weapon then any so call assault rifle.

See the following info from the homeland security website.---------

Some commonly-used, over-the-counter products contain chemicals that in high concentrations become hazardous and unstable when combined with other chemicals.

 These mixtures form homemade explosives (HME) commonly used by terrorists, such as the HME used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and 2005 London mass transit bombings.

Prevention Opportunities
The posters and cards display common examples of hazardous chemicals and products that
utilize them.
 Both acetone and hydrogen peroxide are components of triacetone triperoxide
(TATP), which was used in the 2005 London mass transit bombing. Acetone is found
in solvents and nail polish removers, and hydrogen peroxide is found in pool sanitizers
and hair dyes. These two chemicals brought simultaneously may indicate that an
individual is constructing TATP.
 Both ammonium nitrate and urea are used as fertilizers and, when combined with
other chemicals – among them, benzene – form a secondary high explosive.
Ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing,
whereas urea nitrate was used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
 MEKP is a liquid explosive containing hydrogen peroxide and is used as a curing and
bonding agent.
 Hexamine, found in fuel tablets, serves as a component of hexamethylene triperoxide
diamine (HMTD), another highly unstable peroxide-based HME.
 Strong acids found in batteries and cleaning products serve as the third ingredient of
both TATP and MEKP, among other explosives

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Quote:
I think the fact that only 4.7 million households in America can watch Al Jazeera speaks volumes.

To be fair the vast majority of homes don't even have access if they were interested.

Actually that's the point I was making.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Nice work from your lads and ours - scum sliding down!

Yours did very well, we were lucky.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Point taken, clear as mud.

0 Replies

@parados,

r

Quote:

e you saying humans purposely don't use the most effictive way to kill?

Purposely no but in error surely as for example the selling wrongly to the public that so call assault rifles are the most deadly firearms when semi-auto high caliber hunting rifles and pump shotguns are far more deadly in doing mass killings.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

You, and the other gun-lobby groupies, posting in this thread have to resort to denying reality because you have no other option when you try to assert that the prevalence of guns, coupled with our lax gun laws, does not have a destructive effect on public health and safety in our country. If you continue to deny reality, you will continue to have nothing to contribute to a discussion of how to reduce our national problem with gun violence.

Pointing out reality is hardly denying reality.

And for "people who are not contributing", funny how we've managed to derail Obama's plot to violate the Constitution before it could even be attempted.

firefly wrote:

Fortunately, other, more responsible, gun owners are now raising their voices, and opening their wallets, in order to counter-act the self-serving interests of the NRA/gun manufacturers lobby that has hampered attempts at better gun control and regulation, and that has stymied research into the entire issue of gun violence on the part of the CDC.

Those Freedom Haters will never have the power to outvote the NRA in rural congressional districts.

firefly wrote:

Unlike you, these more responsible gun owners recognize that gun violence is not a "gun rights" or 2nd Amendment issue--gun violence is a public health and safety issue--just as the spread of a harmful disease is a public health and safety issue--and it must be addressed with governmental actions to better protect the general welfare of our populace.

No, your plot to violate the Constitution is very much a Second Amendment issue.

firefly wrote:

This is no longer the "pro-gun" vs the "anti-gun" factions, because the people we are hearing from now, and who are demanding change, like Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Mark Kelly and Gabrielle Giffords, are people who own guns, and have experience with guns, yet recognize the need to take action to address our problem with gun violence.

Nonsense. Giffords and McChrystal hate the US Constitution with a passion.

General McChrystal even went so far as to call for banning all hunting rifles.

firefly wrote:

To call such people "anti-gun" or "anti-gun rights" would just be absurd.

Hardly. Look at the way General McChrystal called for banning all hunting rifles.

Quote:

"On issues like assault weapons . . . we differ with the (National Rifle Association) leadership," Kelly said.

Yes. He and his wife are Constitution-hating trash.

Quote:

But in fact, I think a lot of our positions on this subject are much in line with the NRA membership."

No. The NRA membership does not share their vile hatred for the US Constitution.

firefly wrote:

Responsible gun owners understand that rights confer responsibilities--and one of those responsibilities is to protect others from the violent harm that firearms can inflict on the population, and better controlling the purchasing of such weapons, and certain types of ammunition, is one way to accomplish that.

Certain types of ammunition?

Is this a reference to General McChrystal's call for a universal ban on hunting rifles? Or is there some other plot to violate the Constitution?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
They'd be just as dead if they were murdered with knives.

Interesting trivia, but I still think they'd be just as dead if they were killed without a gun.

Interesting trivia - they are just as dead if they were killed by a meteor. Your knife argument is nothing but a red herring that has no more meaning that people are just as dead if they are killed by the earth falling into a black hole.

2 Replies

@parados,

But to continue with your argument the oralloy. Are you saying that a knife is just as effective as a gun?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

The problem is not firearms or a type of rifle label an assault rifle but the mentally ill being encourage by the media to get their 15 minutes of fame by doing mass killings.

The media is responsible for mass shootings? The media reports the news.

The problem is that the gun manufacturers don't care whether potential mass killers, or even other potential criminals, get their hands on their weapons, any of their weapons that can spray high numbers of bullets rapidly, because sensational mass shootings, and reports of crime, help them to generate the fear that sells more of those weapons. And, right now, the military-type assault weapons are an important source of their profits--and they have an obvious vested interest in not wanting to see such sales curtailed--regardless of any issues of public health or safety.
And the gun-makers have a vested interest in finding more and more possible buyers for their weapons, which is why they have had links to their catalogs of products on the Web sites of the makers of violent video games. Why encourage the connective leap from playing violent fantasy shooting games to the possible use of actual weapons in that way, unless you don't care whether your weapons are used in a violent way?

As I said, you continue to deny our national problem with gun violence, which encompasses far more than just our mass shootings, and you consequently wind up sounding foolish and downright silly.

Quote:

Of course Firefly I do not see you as likely caring about solving this problem but are just using it and the dead children as a mean/excuse to take more freedoms from the people.

And you'd have to include both Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Mark Kelly in that vile accusation as well, since both have commented on that massacre of children, and both have now spoken out, loud and clear, calling for action on the problem of gun violence.

People like Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Mark Kelly have put their lives on the line to serve this country, and, by serving it, defended it's freedoms--including those of the 2nd Amendment. When people, like you, accuse them of using," the dead children as a mean/excuse to take more freedoms from the people," because they are asking for serious efforts to reduce our problems with gun violence, you not only sound like an idiot, you really have no appreciation of the cost of freedom, or appreciation for the efforts of those, the real heros, who defend it for people like you.

Face it, BillRM, you're just a spineless punk, who has been brainwashed by the fear-mongering propaganda of the gun lobby, and you're needlessly worried the big bad government will take away your all guns. And people, like Gen. McChrystal and Mark Kelly, gun owners who aren't afraid to stand up against gun violence, or against the gun lobby, show someone like you up for being the sniveling little twerp you are.

1 Reply

Its time for me to jump in here.
I am going to start by saying that I own 3 guns, a rifle for hunting, a pistol for home and self defense (I do have a CCW permit), and a smoothbore musket that I have loaned to the local museum(its almost 300 years old).

Now, that you know where I am coming from, I have some points I would like to make.

Oralloy, you are a complete idiot.
Nobody is trying to deny you the freedom to carry or own a gun.
The right to own and carry a firearm comes with the responsibility to do so safely, and to make sure that your weapon is under your control, not being used to commit a crime and not bring stolen from you.
As a Hunter, I have absolutely no problem with a ban on high capacity magazines. A 5 round magazine is more than enough for the average deer hunter in this country, no matter what caliber you are using.

h2o, you are also an idiot.
You and oralloy have attacked anyone on here that disagrees with you. You call people "freedom haters", you ignore and avoid direct questions asked of you, and you are generally making yourselves look like idiots and doing nothing to help your case.
The two of you are classic examples of people who should not be given a CCW permit.

The right to own a firearm is ingrained into our constitution, and I personally think its part of the American mind set.
Yes, there are people that are "anti-gun", but I seriously doubt that they are anti second amendment.
I know that there are people that are anti second amendment, but I tthink they are very few and very unimportant in the discussion.

Spendius, you are also a complete idiot.
Your statement...

Quote:

True enough. You can call me "anti-gun" or "anti-gun rights" if you like. I think those people are pissing into the wind.

If they don't support an all-out ban they are pro-gun. As is anybody else who doesn't.

Is the statement from someone that has either never been around firearms, or has complete, and total faith in the government to protect you.
That faith is foolish, in my opinion.
Your position calling for a total gun ban is foolish and leaves no room to negotiate at all, which is also wrong.
Even in countries that have some sort of gun ban or restrictions on private ownership, there are murders committed with firearms, so we know a total gun ban wont work.
Also, what guns would be exempt from your total ban?
Would you allow people that are members of shooting clubs, such as Olympic shooting teams, to own their own weapons?
After all, each member has their weapon custom built for them.
Would you allow police officers to own their own off duty weapons?
What about the gun that has been in my family forr almost 300 years? Would you make me turn it in?

As for relying on the police to protect you, they are under no legal obligation to protect the common citizen

Quote:

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981

http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
So that does mean it is up to the citizen to protect themselves.

I fully understand the call for an end to gun violence, and I appreciate it.
However, to truly end gun violence, you must stop a leading cause of it.
That cause is simply lack of opportunity.
To many young people see crime as their only way out of situations where they see no hope.
When a child grows up in an area where guns, drugs, and money are prevalent, they learn that there is no other option.
Before we ban guns, lets start by giving those kids options.
Let them see that therre is a way out that doesnt involve guns and violence.

Also, lets start seriously enforcing the gun laws already on the books.
Lets make every gun buyer subject to a background check.
Lets ban any magazine of more than 5 rounds.

But lets not ban weapons like the Bushmaster, because around here where I live almost everyone owns one.
They are great for shooting varmints, and just plain fun to take to the local gun range.

There is a common ground for agreement, but we cannot allow the extremists on either side to set the rules for reaching a compromise. The "all or nothing" crowd on both sides of the discussion must be ignored, and cooler heads must prevail.

OK, I have had my say, you can all go back to the name calling and arguing now.

6 Replies

@mysteryman,

Thanks, mysteryman, for a really thoughtful post that clearly shows the gun owners here are not all of the same mind or same mind-set.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

You mean in the war zones? You are still proving the point that guns are more efficient. In Iraq, once the coalition forces cut off sources of guns, the opposition turned to IEDs and, to their credit used them as weapons of terror and propaganda. In Afghanistan, the Taliban occassionaly uses bombs against targets as girls' school, but they really like fire fights.

As to the "Impact Detonated Devices"~~~~that sounds like a good old grenade. Okay by me, try to get close enough to toss that puppy.

Joe(best of luck with that)Nation

LOL, they have been using IED's, even before coalition forces ineffectively "cut off" their gun supplies. After an IED was detonated, the insurgents have often used machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades to continue the attack. Anyway, 60-70% casualties to the coalition forces are by IED's. Safe to say, IED, more than guns, tactically employed by insurgents have been very effective in wearing down an adversary. Relatively low cost, relatively easy to construct and emplace, and can achieve both strategic and tactical and psychological results more so than a stream of bullets.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

As a gun owner you do know that so call assault rifles used a cut down round with the power somewhere between a pistol round and a normal high power rifle round so that soldiers can carry more rounds in a normal combat load out and with fully auto rifles can put down more covering fire when that is call for.

They have less range and less killing power then heavy hunting rifles and the idea they are more deadly the civilian firearms is nonsense even if they are better overall battlefield weapons.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Spendius, you are also a complete idiot.
Your statement...
Quote:

True enough. You can call me "anti-gun" or "anti-gun rights" if you like. I think those people are pissing into the wind.

If they don't support an all-out ban they are pro-gun. As is anybody else who doesn't.

Is the statement from someone that has either never been around firearms, or has complete, and total faith in the government to protect you.
That faith is foolish, in my opinion.

Good grief!! You're as bad as the other two you mention. You call me an idiot and you prove it with an opinion.

I have been around guns. And I do have faith in our government to protect me although I am aware it is not 100%. I'm happy with that. And so it the vast bulk of my fellow citizens.

If the US had a gun ban like ours it is highly likely, not certain, those kids would be going to Sandy Hook school as usual on Monday and that the vast majority of those killed since Newtown that Joe reported would still be alive and nearly all of the 12,000 to be killed by guns in the next twelve months also.

The only reason I might be an idiot is in making the case for a complete gun ban like ours when I know it is impossible because you have not got a functioning domestic government whatever it is in relation to foreign policy.

Quote:

Even in countries that have some sort of gun ban or restrictions on private ownership, there are murders committed with firearms, so we know a total gun ban wont work.

That is a very crude sophistry and if you don't know why you are the idiot.

Quote:

Also, what guns would be exempt from your total ban?

Authorised ones. Subject to training, strict periodic checks and only carried for approved reasons.

Quote:

Would you allow people that are members of shooting clubs, such as Olympic shooting teams, to own their own weapons?

No. I am in favour of not having such teams. I prefer synchronised swimming.

Quote:

Would you allow police officers to own their own off duty weapons?

No. And they don't. (Do you read my posts?)

Quote:

What about the gun that has been in my family forr almost 300 years? Would you make me turn it in?

Yes if it is capable of killing someone. As a lump of archaic junk--okay.

Quote:

As for relying on the police to protect you, they are under no legal obligation to protect the common citizen

They are here. And, apart from special highly trained units, they are unarmed on duty.

Quote:

Before we ban guns, lets start by giving those kids options.
Let them see that therre is a way out that doesnt involve guns and violence.

Also, lets start seriously enforcing the gun laws already on the books.
Lets make every gun buyer subject to a background check.
Lets ban any magazine of more than 5 rounds.

That's all wishy-washy to me. I see anything short of promoting a full-on ban as mere grandstanding. Using the situation to demonstrate one's wonderfulness. And if Obarmy has done that, which is looking likely, then I don't think you even have a President except in name.

Full ban or status quo is all I see. With no total ban I'm on oralloy's and H2O's side.

What do you want to shoot animals for? I'ts ******* disgusting imo unless deemed necessary by a Minister of State taking responsibility for it.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
They'd be just as dead if they were murdered with knives.

Interesting trivia, but I still think they'd be just as dead if they were killed without a gun.

Interesting trivia - they are just as dead if they were killed by a meteor. Your knife argument is nothing but a red herring that has no more meaning that people are just as dead if they are killed by the earth falling into a black hole.

Hardly a red herring. You are making a huge fuss over the question of whether someone is killed with a gun verses some other weapon. It is valid to point out the fact that it makes absolutely no difference.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

But to continue with your argument the oralloy. Are you saying that a knife is just as effective as a gun?

No. But a knife is still more than effective enough for a murderer to kill someone with one.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know