Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Irrelevant. I have irrefutable evidence that it IS unconstitutional.

Thanks Senator McCarthy... Why don't you wave the paper around some more so people will believe you really have it but just won't show it to us.

I've showed it over and over and over in this thread the past couple days. And you've responded to me showing it over and over by repeatedly bobbing and weaving without ever confronting the substance of my claims.

The fact that you refuse to address a claim does not justify you falsely alleging that the claim has not been presented.

Stop being so disingenuous.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

You are using too many assertions oralloy.

I'm saying that you are lying when you claim you are a supporter of freedom.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
That kook is lying when he claims to have ever been a supporter of freedom. Only a born Freedom Hater could pack so many outright falsehoods into a single sentence.

More of your factual non-hyperbolic "truths" it seems.

Yep. Freedom haters just don't have the skill to pass as a normal human. They're just too full of lies, and it shines through no matter how hard they try to disguise it.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Such a problem is so difficult to solve that it would be a lot easier to make a law like ours with a 3 month amnesty for the guns to all be handed in before they become illegal.

You have your arms sticking out of your shoulders. Bear them.

We're not going to give up our freedom here in the US. Sorry.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Such a problem is so difficult to solve that it would be a lot easier to make a law like ours with a 3 month amnesty for the guns to all be handed in before they become illegal.

That sound like a great means of starting a civil war.

0 Replies

@parados,

There should be a national referendum on guns in this country. The timing couldn't be more pervasive as now. The NRA wouldn't have a chance to overturn anything so important to most parents.

FACT: China outlaws the ownership of guns. One crazy man stabbed 22 children, and they all survived.

FACT: It's not necessary to have a 100 bullet magazine for sports shooting.

FACT: Owning guns is not safe: children "accidentally" kill and/or maim family members of gun owners. Adam Lanza killed his mother with her own gun.

What's so sacrosanct about gun ownership that supersedes our children's safety?

4 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
RexRed wrote:
An interesting monologue.

Text from the page:

"And our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-style, high-caliber, semi-automatic combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want."

That kook is lying when he claims to have ever been a supporter of freedom. Only a born Freedom Hater could pack so many outright falsehoods into a single sentence.

You are using too many assertions oralloy.

Well, look at all the idiotic claims that the kook made within one single sentence.

He started off with the assumption that this was all about gun manufacturers and not about individual freedom. No one who had any clue on this issue would think something so idiotic.

Plus, contrary to his claim, the fact that individuals have the right to own assault weapons means that companies do in fact have the right to manufacture them.

Then, having firmly established himself as a clueless idiot, he goes on to refer to assault weapons as "military style". More idiocy.

After that, looking frantically for a way to top his previous heights of idiocy, he finds one, and refers to assault weapons as "high caliber".

Assault weapons could be in any caliber really, but they tend to mostly be very low caliber weapons.

Then he apparently ran out of ways to reach new heights of idiocy, because he went back to his previous level of idiocy by referring to assault weapons as "combat" weapons.

And throughout his long winding proclamation of his absolute ignorance, he wove a straw man about a supposed "unrestrained right" to "sell to anyone".

The only kind of person who would ever make any of those claims (much less all of them intertwined in a single sentence) is someone who has always been a freedom hater from the very beginning.

Had that kook ever really been pro-freedom, he would have known that everything he said in that sentence was lies piled on lies.

Clear now?

spendius wrote:

I'm saying that you are lying when you claim you are a supporter of freedom.

Don't be silly. Look at all the grief that I cause to people who oppose freedom when I point out facts and reality.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

If the following info is true (seems well documented to me), it may not change a thing that occurred or bring the dead back to life. However, understanding what could have gone wrong with some alleged prescribed meds might shed light on future prescribing of certain types of those particular meds.

If this info proves to be true then it can be the impetus to put pressure on the medical profession to tighten up controls (as has been done in UK) so this sort of mayhem is less likely to happen ever again.

I found this rather revealing about the psychotic break it appears that Adam may have experienced. This alleged psyschotic break may have been related to poorly administered prescriptions. Perhaps even a criminal case can ensue re medications Adam was on as prescribed by his shrink:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/lanza-60-minutes.html

Read further down the page. One contributor made the following statement which I find of interest:

"This horrific shooting event has nothing to Asperger's, and everything to do with the SSRIs or SNRIs this young man was prescribed. "

I feel that once an autopsy of Adam's body is done it might determine whether or not he was on certain meds that could have affected such hallucinations so as to contribute heavily to a possible psychotic break.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There should be a national referendum on guns in this country. The timing couldn't be more pervasive as now. The NRA wouldn't have a chance to overturn anything so important to most parents.

Sound like having a national referendum on slavery in 1860 as you would provoke one hell of a civil war and as in the first civil war not all the military is likely to line up with the government.

Twenty deaths would be as nothing in that event.

Quote:

Owning guns is not safe: children "accidentally" kill and/or maim family members of gun owners. Adam Lanza killed his mother with her own gun.

Odd I and likely the majority of people in this country was raised in households with firearms.

Quote:

What's so sacrosanct about gun ownership that supersedes our children's safety?

Sound like you wish to have a complete dictatorship with one freedom after another being taken away under the excuse that it for the safety of the children.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

So let me get this straight. Restrictions on guns would result in a civil war? We should just ignore the fact that we currently have restrictions on guns and have never had a civil war over the issue before.

But go ahead and attack Harper's Ferry Bill. I'm sure it will have a happier result when you do it.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

There should be a national referendum on guns in this country.

That whole "Constitution" thing just sort of eludes you doesn't it?

cicerone imposter wrote:

The NRA wouldn't have a chance to overturn anything so important to most parents.

Wrong.

And even if your assault on American freedom ever did get past the NRA, it wouldn't get past the Supreme Court.

cicerone imposter wrote:

FACT: China outlaws the ownership of guns. One crazy man stabbed 22 children, and they all survived.

Interesting trivia, but hardly relevant to anything. No one has ever said that knives were ideal spree weapons.

They are plenty lethal in a one-to-one encounter though, as untold numbers of knife fatalities will attest to.

cicerone imposter wrote:

FACT: It's not necessary to have a 100 bullet magazine for sports shooting.

Has anyone ever claimed otherwise?

What does necessity have to do with anything?

cicerone imposter wrote:

FACT: Owning guns is not safe:

Liar.

cicerone imposter wrote:

children "accidentally" kill and/or maim family members of gun owners.

Children crash cars, too, from time to time.

cicerone imposter wrote:

What's so sacrosanct about gun ownership that supersedes our children's safety?

Well first, gun ownership does not in any way harm the safety of children.

And second, why don't you go find a children's book about the Bill of Rights. It might help you understand the answer to your question.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

We should just ignore the fact that we currently have restrictions on guns and have never had a civil war over the issue before.

Whether or not it will lead to a civil war I can't say, but you might want to distinguish between "proposals that are blatant violations of our Constitutional rights" and "proposals that do not blatantly violate our Constitutional rights".

Just because one is acceptable, that does not mean the other is.

EDIT: And note also that CI's language had a whiff of "outright ban on all guns" to it.

The fact that some restrictions are tolerated, does not mean that an outright ban on all guns would be at all tolerated.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

After that, looking frantically for a way to top his previous heights of idiocy, he finds one, and refers to assault weapons as "high caliber".

Assault weapons could be in any caliber really, but they tend to mostly be very low caliber weapons.

Yes it is interesting that most of these fools do not understand that most civilian rifles have more killing power and far longer range then military rifles. The design for the military rifle to be light and have rounds that are also light so far more rounds can be carry around on a battlefield by a soldier.

That why sniper rifles are taken for the most part from civilian hunting rifles models.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So let me get this straight. Restrictions on guns would result in a civil war? We should just ignore the fact that we currently have restrictions on guns and have never had a civil war over the issue before.

People here are talking about the complete dearming of the population and the seizing of all 300 millions plus guns that in private hands not the size of the clips or the looks of a rifle.

Going from home to home in this country with a list of guns to sieze and that would be the majroity of households in the nation.

An yes I think that would start a civil war.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Come on Joe. Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

People here are talking about the complete dearming of the population

Who is doing that? I think you have a problem in that you think all restrictions mean dearming[sic]. I don't think we can disarm everyone. I don't see any reason to try. I certainly haven't suggested we seize 300 million guns. Given time and limited availability of new guns of a certain type, those guns that are restricted will eventually become rare or hard to obtain. That means they won't be purchased by thugs on the street corner or by people planning a massacre.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The mental midget that murdered all of these people halted his attack only when he realized a gun was pointed at him.
This piece of **** whack-job committed suicide right there. End.

Teachers are good people and deserve to retain their constitutional right of self protection.

Teachers should be outraged! They need to petition their unions for the right to bear arms!

Candidates would receive serious training from their local law enforcement officials. Qualified candidates would then get themselves armed so that they can better protect themselves and the children tax paying Americans put in their immediate care.

If I had a son, he could look like Trayvon, but there is no way in hell my son would attend a government school. End.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

I have a question for you. How will we know when anyone is lacking the proper meds that may potentially end up in killings?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There should be a national referendum on guns in this country. The timing couldn't be more pervasive as now. The NRA wouldn't have a chance to overturn anything so important to most parents.

Here is the result of one raid to seize weapons that had gone wrong and you could multiple that by a few millions under your plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Mountcarmelfire04-19-93-l.jpg/300px-Mountcarmelfire04-19-93-l.jpg

Date February 28 – April 19, 1993
Location Mount Carmel Center, Waco, Texas, USA

Causes Belief that federal firearms laws had been violated.[1]

Goals ATF attempted to serve a search warrant; FBI attempted to end ensuing siege.

Result On February 28, 1993 76 ATF agents, accompanied by three helicopters, attempted to conduct a surprise raid on the Branch Davidians' home and church. Davidians, who armed after hearing there would be a "raid" and possible "shooting", engaged in a gun battle with agents. Fifty-one day siege ensued followed by April 19, 1993 FBI attack, during which or sometime after, the building caught fire and burned down.[2]

0 Replies

@Ragman,

I have had some experience with mental illness and the idea that there are simple answers to this question is as stupid as the arguements put forward by the gun nuts. Just because a doctor prescribes a medicine dosent mean a patient will take it. And health care in most states is the first thing a legislature cuts in bad finacial times. There are no simple answers but maybe a combination of them by intelligent people might help. So that means leaving the politicians out of it.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know