Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

I would like to ask you some other questions as well....It is a bit off topic...But I am interested....But you do not have to answer this question if you are not interested....Do you have a faith of any kind? If you do, would you mind sharing what view you have? And if you are an atheist, or agnostic...that is cool too....

Do you mind sharing what religion or lack of religion you may be?

I am just curious....

Agnostic catholic.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Can you just briefly explain (in your own opinions) why you think that whatever God you embrace would want you to have guns?

I don't think that whatever God is out there has any objection to me having guns.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Your childish insults are a poor substitute for a well-thought-out argument based on facts.

My insults, deliberately childish because of their intended target, are to keep you on your mettle and to point out to you and your fellow dinosaurs the ridiculousness of your position.

No, your insults are childish because you are childish.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Now theres another insane conspiracy story that is asserting that the school shooting was a "false flag" operation to move gun control ahead .

Someone tell the parents and the spouses of the dead kids and the dead teachers about the conspiracy. We have a world full of batshit crazy people, some dont use guns

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

oralloy wrote:
spendius wrote:
Let's hear it oralloy--Are you in favour of gun ownership being dependent on providing a DNA sample?

No. Unconstitutional.

Surely such a technique is no more than an improved background check?

No. A background check deals with things that people have actually done.

spendius wrote:

The renewal of funding for the CDC, which the NRA had reduced to peanuts for obvious reasons, is likely heading in that direction.

Not really.

spendius wrote:

If the requirement of a DNA sample is unconstitutional then why are not all background checks?

Because background checks deal with things that people have actually done.

spendius wrote:

Is science unconstitutional?

No.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The purpose of a Christmas tree has nothing to do with killing.

Does that make the victims any less dead?

parados wrote:

The purpose of a gun is to kill.

How many deaths occurred during the Olympic shooting competitions? Did the gold medal winners use their guns properly?

I guess the police don't have guns for the purpose of defending against people who attack them? The real purpose of their guns is so the police can carry out summary executions?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Frank Apisa wrote:

But the fact is that statistics show that it is much more likely that a homeowner with a gun will kill a family member than an intruder.

If Frank Apisa ever told the truth the world would end.

Laughing

0 Replies

oralloy says:

Quote:

If Frank Apisa ever told the truth the world would end

If oralloy ever accepted the truth the world would end.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Those were law abiding gun owners Frank.
Surely the bullets couldn't travel that far. We've been told how weak AK-47s are.

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but rifle rounds tend to have pretty high velocity.

As for weakness, that's a matter of perspective. They are more powerful than the average varmint round (such as the rounds used by the M-16 family). They are probably in the general class of a deer rifle.

I think the typical military rounds are a bit light for deer (not to mention that they don't "expand" because of the geneva conventions), but I could see see how a decent deer round could be made for the AK-47.

But compared to something like the .270 Winchester, or larger rifles like the .375 Holland and Holland, yes, it's pretty weak.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5230419)
Quote:
Show up at a gun fight with a knife sometime, Bill...and we can talk about it afterwards.

At five or so feet you might find your intestine are on the floor and that your had been gutted like a fish before you can used that gun.

But then guns are magical after all.

Yup, it is possible. But tell me, if a guy attacked you with a knife...and you had a gun, would you still think you only had a 50/50 chance?

And who says anyone with a gun is going to fight a guy with a knife from a distance of 5 or 6 feet. Our point is that guns have a marked advantage as a killing instrument over a knife.

Apparently you agree...but just cannot work up the character to acknowledge that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Now theres another insane conspiracy story that is asserting that the school shooting was a "false flag" operation to move gun control ahead .

The "joy" that the news media jumped on this sad event along with the anti-gun crowd that up to this point where unhappy with Obama is what tend to promote such false flags theories.

The story was surely not driven by the sadness of young lives cut way too short as I do not think that anyone here or else where think that if it was not for the gun tie in that this would had been anything but a few days sad national story.

If they had died in a school fire or a tornado or a school bus accident for example.

For the record I do not give a moment of credit to the false flag theory but I can understand where and why such thinking had come into being.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Yup, it is possible. But tell me, if a guy attacked you with a knife...and you had a gun, would you still think you only had a 50/50 chance?

At very close ranges I might prefer a knife and the only reason I might not go with a knife is that I personally am not train in the killing use of a combat knife.

In crowds or a subway car and such where the average distant between people are small and the clear firing lanes are not there the firearm had lost most of it advantages.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Personally when I am carrying a firearm I go far more out of my way to not enter any form of a conflict no matter how mild a conflict compare to when I am not armed.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

When a gun rights supporter has to post a 23 year old story about someone being killed with a golf ball, because he can't acknowledge the current problem of gun violence in our country, it's clear that he, and the other "gun rights" extremists posting here, are not part of any meaningful discussion of the topic.

The only extremists here are people who call for banning pistol grips for no reason.

And this supposed "meaningful conversation" exists only in your imagination. Obama overreached with his desire to violate the Constitution in every way possible, and now he isn't even going to get limits on magazine size.

You've been defeated, and there is nothing you can do about it.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

You are aware that we live in a country of laws, aren't you.

Laws like the Second Amendment, for example.

firefly wrote:

And sensible gun control measures, such as the President's proposals, do not threaten Second Amendment rights.

There is nothing sensible about Obama's desire to violate our rights.

And his deliberate attempts to violate our rights are indeed a threat to those rights.

firefly wrote:

And, since you feel there are no proposed legal remedies which should be tried to help curb the problem with gun violence, a problem you continue to deny, or minimize, or try to distract from, you are removing yourself from a rational discussion of the issue.

There is no discussion going on. You are too extreme to talk to.

The only option is to defeat you, and that is what has been done.

firefly wrote:

Those who do recognize the problem, which now includes a majority of Americans, and gun owners, are now letting their elected representatives know that they want to see stricter gun control measures. And, if such measures are not discussed and acted on, these office holders may find themselves booted out.

The office holders have already rejected your unconstitutional ban on assault weapons, and have also decided not to limit magazine sizes.

And no. They will not be voted out of office for it.

firefly wrote:

While there are no perfect solutions, or perfect laws, to confront the gun violence problem in our country, passivity in the face of it is no longer an acceptable option for most people.

Feel free to join Obama in whining piteously about how horrible it is that you've been prevented from violating our rights.

firefly wrote:

You are simply not part of the search for solutions, you're not even a part of the discussion.

Hard to join a discussion that is happening only in your imagination.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

BillRM wrote:
So a knife Firefly would not work for some reason only a gun?

That's completely irrelevant to the issue of gun violence, and how to curb it.

Wrong. That gun availability has little impact on homicide rates, is entirely relevant.

0 Replies

By and large, the states with high gun ownership have high violence rates. Massachusetts, thankfully, is not among them. I sleep better at night as a result.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

BillRM wrote:
parados wrote:
BillRM wrote:
parados wrote:
Since harsh criminal penalties won't solve the problem Bill, what do you suggest?

It seems the only solution if laws won't work is to simply ban all guns.

You did hear on this thread about the constitution 2 amendment not to mention the idea of turning over a 150 millions of us into criminals might cause a little problem.

No, it doesn't turn every gun owner into a criminal. It only turns those that refuse to comply with the law into a criminal.

The comment was banning all guns and any US government that try that is an illegal government on it face however any lesser action can likely wait for the courts and the voters to deal with.

And no one in the government has proposed banning all guns. But don't let that stop you from being paranoid, I guess.

Maybe not, but you raised the possibility yourself.

And Obama's registration plot does make it clear that he wants to ban all the guns (as does McChrystal's call to ban all hunting rifles, and New York state's ban on duck hunting guns).

0 Replies

Right. Even dead level is a slippery slope, isn't it, oralloy?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Perhaps, Bill, you should change your username to Macumazahn,

It was the name given by the African natives to Alan Quatermain in King Solomon's Mines.

It means he who sleeps with one eye open.

And I can watch O'Reilly with both eyes ****. O'Reilly is another manifestation of the Alex Jones theatricalities.

Possibly due to not understanding Clint Eastwood movies. Eastwood was taking the piss.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know