Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@spendius,

Quote:

Whenever anybody announces that they have booked a holiday in the US most people look at them as if they have taken leave of their senses.

When the six young gentleman blow themselves up in your tubes and bus systems was there any Americans killed?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Agreed--personally I prefer to deer hunt with a muzzleloader. Ain't nothing like the sulfur laden smoke of black powder in the morning.

A good hunting bud of mine--a former sniper scout trained at that Army base in Western Kentucky along side the Cumberland River, once told me that the second shot is only half as effective as the first, and the third half as effective as the second, and so on.

Consequently a hunter that demands a thirty round clip can only approach the effectiveness of two good marksmen, even at close range.

BTW IMHO the most effective firearm for castle protection is a pump shotgun. And if the Marines show up at your door, the best survival strategy is to lay face down on the floor with your hands behind your head regardless of what type of wanna be assault weapon you might possess.

Rap

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The extremists on both sides have no ability to find any middle ground--which is why they can't be allowed to dominate the national discussion seeking solutions to the problem of gun violence--they block the solutions in order to retain their extremist positions.

Note the fact that you are one of those extremists.

And you can't stop the NRA from dominating this discussion. We're the ones with all the power.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Not really. But if you manage to come up with these supposed cites of my posts, I'll address whatever you come up with.

You know very well that I'm not going back over the thread.

Let the record show that you have failed to cite any instances of me being wrong.

spendius wrote:

I have asked you questions you have not answered. I know that for sure.

It's possible. But I likely answered them if they were at all reasonable.

I've never pledged to answer unreasonable questions.

spendius wrote:

And mm is no fascist and he does not hate the Constitution. That's just your foolish mantra.

Wrong. He suggested outright violating people's civil rights, and all for the "crime" of defending other people's civil rights.

He is very much a Fascist.

As for his hatred of the Constitution, he sure does erupt into a storm of childish name-calling if he sees someone suggest that we should respect the Constitution.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

BillRM wrote:
In my opinion it is too bad that more of the population do not have the facts so they would know they are being sold bullshit when it is stated that a rifle that used an assault round is too powerful to be in civilians hands and only belong on the battlefield

But, when it's said by someone like Stanley McChrystal--the four star general, who commanded our troops in Afghanistan and ran Special Operations in Iraq--someone with extensive actual battlefield and weaponry experience, who says, with considerable authority, that some types of weapons do not belong in civilian hands or on our streets, only a fool, like you, would accuse him of trying to sell "bullshit."

I wonder which of you most people would consider more credible or authoritative?

I for one fully accept that McChrystal meant exactly what he said.

That is why I openly accuse him of calling for a a ban on all hunting rifles.

0 Replies

@raprap,

Quote:

And if the Marines show up at your door, the best survival strategy is to lay face down on the floor with your hands behind your head regardless of what type of wanna be assault weapon you might possess.

Marine do not do law enforcement within the US and that been true of all US military since shortly after our civil war.

Now the police tend to like to play soldiers however not always with good results as one man took out two swat team members with an old fashion lever action rifle.

The ATF does no have a great record see the Waco mess and the FBI did not do well when face with the Randy Weaver family even if they did killed a young boy and his dog and the boy mother while she was holding her new born at the price of two dead agents.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I think the 2nd should be scrapped. It will be one day.

Not until someone manages to defeat the US military in a nuclear war it won't.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Actually I can't comprehend how a civilised country of 312 million people, who are ordinary by definition, can be made to put up with this **** on the basis of some mouldering old document that was pretty much out of date soon after it was written and most certainly by 1850.

In 2012 it's as daft as a moose's head stuck on the wall paneling over the fireplace. 1798 was a world we cannot even understand. We can only pretend we do.

How about a document written in 1215, does it have any relevance today?
Or a document written in 1066, or 1231, are they still relevant?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Right then Bill. I have got the picture. You have no battlefield experience, You are not a soldier. Never have been.

Thus, like many people, you have a free ride from the safety of your armchair off those who have battlefield experience.

H2O tried the same trick.

I have been on a battlefield and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about other than faking up that you have more hair on your balls that you actually have. To impress ladies I assume. I hope so.

My problem with the plot of Deliverance was that only one of the silly twats got shot.

"You should never let other people get your kicks for you"--Bob Dylan.

2 Replies

@spendius,

We live in different countries, with different histories and traditions, and, quite possibly, different cultural and social factors/problems operating as well.

If we could wipe out all those differences between us, what you are saying and suggesting wouldn't be at all extreme.

But the solutions to gun violence in this country have to start with accepting the reality of our situation. The Constitution does allow the personal possession of firearms for home and self defense, and for hunting, and while that right is nowhere as extensive or limitless as oralloy seems to think, it is a basic right that most people here do want to retain.

We have to get back to protecting the basic rights granted in the Second Amendment, without the crazy lack of limitations over the acquisition, and purchase, and regulation of firearms, that extremists like oralloy, and the gun-lobby, insist on promoting. We have gone more than slightly gun crazy in this country, and now even many gun owners are saying, "Enough!" because they recognize how far overboard we've gone, and the price we're paying for it.

Just as a lack of adequate regulation in our banking and mortgage industry led to the collapse of our economy, a lack of adequate regulation in our gun policies has created conditions which are insidiously, and continuously, eroding our quality of life because of the impact on public health and safety--and peace of mind--that is the toll of gun violence. It took 9/11 to wake us up about our lax airport security, and how easily 4 planes could be simultaneously hijacked, and it took too many mass shootings in recent years, and a final unspeakable slaughter of 20 young children, to finally wake us up about the need for better regulation to prevent gun violence, even though this is a country awash in gun violence, of various sorts, on a daily basis.

Your views are extreme only because of where we are. We've got to be more realistic about our proposals in order to accomplish anything that will meaningfully help to curb our problem with gun violence--deeply entrenched radical or extremist positions, from either side, won't help to accomplish anything on this side of the pond--the constant clashing of extremes stymies meaningful discussion, just as it has done in this thread. Each side digs in, repeats their position, and nothing moves forward. The fact that we're now seeing an attitude change, and a willingness to discuss the issue, with an aim toward finding better solutions, and a demand for better solutions, from a great many people in this country, who are not extremists, is a more hopeful sign that we will accomplish some effective change to help reduce gun violence. For us, that's progress. Smile

4 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Right then Bill. I have got the picture. You have no battlefield experience, You are not a soldier. Never have been.

Thus, like many people, you have a free ride from the safety of your armchair off those who have battlefield experience.

True and so what as far as this issue is concern?

Quote:

I have been on a battlefield and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about other than faking up that you have more hair on your balls that you actually have. To impress ladies I assume. I hope so.

That nice however are you therefore claiming that a round from an assault rifle is not a cut down less powerful version of the older military rifles rounds or now existing heavy hunting rifles?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

But the solutions to gun violence in this country have to start with accepting the reality of our situation.

That's all very well ff as long as you accept that the resources expended on electing a President are not intended to produce a leader but only to play some fey game intended to pretend you are democratic.

We elect Prime Ministers who can bang their fist on the table and shout "Just ban ******* guns!!!"" That's how we got our National Health Service. For better or for worse. Any gump can be decisive in the hill country of west Pakistan. Only 1 in 50 Americans will know where it is I imagine.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

and shout "Just ban ******* guns!!!""

Somehow soldier I do not think that Churchill would be proud of the nation you had become to say nothing of Kipling.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I have been on a battlefield and you have no ******* idea what you are talking about other than faking up that you have more hair on your balls that you actually have. To impress ladies I assume. I hope so.

No. What he said about the power of typical assault rifle rounds was spot on.

He knows exactly what he is talking about, and he is telling the truth.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

while that right is nowhere as extensive or limitless as oralloy seems to think,

Wrong. Long-standing legal principles like Rational Basis Review are not something that I just dreamed up.

firefly wrote:

We have to get back to protecting the basic rights granted in the Second Amendment,

The courts are already doing that.

And one of the necessary steps in protecting our rights will be decisively defeating your incessant attempts to violate those rights.

Incidentally, the Second Amendment does not "grant" any rights. It protects pre-existing rights.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

For someone who claims that the problem isn't guns, you can't stop talking about guns, various kinds of guns, gun features, gun details, etc.

How about simply focusing on the general types of weapons which are involved in most of the gun violence in this country--not just the mass shootings, but the every day gun violence that goes on all the time--like the "automatic"/semi-automatic handguns, as well as the military-style assault rifles that have been the weapon of choice for our recent mass shooters. In other words, try focusing on the aim of reducing gun violence, rather than just indulging your penchant to talk about various guns. Do you really think the sort of "gun talk" you enjoy engaging in has anything to do with the gun violence in places like Chicago or Detroit and the number of illegally acquired handguns that abound in those cities because straw purchases are so easy to make elsewhere?

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

For someone who claims that the problem isn't guns, you can't stop talking about guns, various kinds of guns, gun features, gun details, etc

That's what happens when someone actually knows what they are talking about. They tend to have facts at hand ready to back up their claims.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

How about simply focusing on the general types of weapons which are involved in most of the gun violence in this country--not just the mass shootings, but the every day gun violence that goes on all the time-

You do like to dodge and weaver Firefly however this thread deal with mass killings by mentally ill people and steps that might make our children safer from such events and if you care to cover other subjects as you had told me a few time start another thread.

However if you wish to cut the overall violence in this country inner cities it not the tools that need to be removed by some magic but the funding of drug gangs due to our so call war on drugs that have never stop anyone from finding drugs.

Also pour in the billions of dollars that now go to this so call war into the welfare and the education of the inner city youth so they can see a better path to the future then selling drugs on the street corners and fighting other gangs.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

What document was written in 1066?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

That's all very well ff as long as you accept that the resources expended on electing a President are not intended to produce a leader but only to play some fey game intended to pretend you are democratic.

We elect Prime Ministers who can bang their fist on the table and shout "Just ban ******* guns!!!"" That's how we got our National Health Service.

spendi, you will note that when President Obama takes his oath he will say...

I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Our President, quite rightfully, cannot disregard the Constitution--which includes the 2nd Amendment--he must uphold the current laws, or he risks impeachment and removal from office.
He cannot just, of his own initiative, ban guns. He does not have that authority.

That's why it's crazy for the paranoid gun nuts to think he can do that, or even would try to do that.

And our lawmakers in Congress take the same oath. No one is going to ban all guns--they can't.

But the right to possess firearms is not an unlimited right--Justice Scalia has said that, and he has said "dangerous" weapons can be prohibited. We've had weapons bans in the past and we may well have them again, but they wouldn't ban all guns in this country, we've still got too much of the Wild West mentality for something like that to fly here.

People can propose amending the Constitution, to alter the 2nd Amendment. They certainly could try to do that lawfully. They just won't get anywhere...

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know