Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Armed teachers & staff would have prevented most if not all of the innocent souls from being vanquished before their time.

You truly are an idiot and an asswipe.

He made a good point. Shame you couldn't do anything other than engage in childish name-calling.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Arm up, train and be prepared to defend yourself and others because as this democratic downgrade
worsens there will come a time when the government will not be able to help us, we will be on your own.

Another, crapping/pissing in his pants paranoid freak.

0 Replies

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

I see no reason for assault weapons in the hands of any civilian.

Here are three: Self defense, varmint hunting, target shooting.

Sturgis wrote:

Even a handgun in the hand of the average citizen is senseless.

Wrong. They are the best way to carry a firearm when an American exercises their Constitutional right to carry guns when they go about in public.

Sturgis wrote:

What reason does the average person have for owning a gun

Hunting. Self defense. Target shooting. Gun collecting.

Sturgis wrote:

The laws must change and bring in not only restrictions and bans, but, punishments which will be enforced upon those individuals found to be breaking the law.

Constitution says otherwise.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

@ All

The constitution not only does not prohibit a ban on assault rifles, the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate firearms. The Supreme Court recognized this in The United States versus Miller (1939) when they upheld the National Firearms Act, commenting that they had no knowledge that Congress had designated shotguns with a barrel of less than 18"to be an arm of the militia. You waste your time, Kids, and feed the troll when you discuss these matters with Oralloy, who knows little about the constitution, and the cases based upon it, and is deeply delusional on the subject. This is his typical hysteria.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The main group who will fight any attempts at better control, or limitation of certain weapons, will be the gun manufacturers.

Nope. The gun manufacturers have always been indifferent to assault weapons bans.

The manufacturers only pay lip service to opposing it, because we'll boycott them into bankruptcy if they don't.

firefly wrote:

as recent polls have indicated, the NRA is out of sync with most of their membership on the issue.

Wishful thinking.

firefly wrote:

The NRA is really a front for the gun manufacturers.

Not in the real world.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are far from sticking to the truth, Oralloy...

Given the fact that I provided you with proof in my previous message, greater truthfulness and accuracy will come from altering the manor in which I respond to you.

You trash shouldn't run around falsely accusing your betters of your own dishonesty.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The constitution not only does not prohibit a ban on assault rifles,

Wrong again. There is no legitimate reason for banning pistol grips and flash suppressors, therefore banning them is a violation of Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of even sterner standards of scrutiny that the courts might choose to apply).

Setanta wrote:

the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate firearms.

Even if that was actually true, it would have no bearing on my position, as I was not making a Tenth Amendment case.

Setanta wrote:

Oralloy, who knows little about the constitution, and the cases based upon it, and is deeply delusional on the subject.

Says the guy who can't show a single flaw in any of my arguments.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

@ All

You can tell when Oralloy is running out of arguments, and has become desperate and more hysterical, because he starts calling people trash and describing himself as their "betters."

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

I am not against the constitution

That's strange. What about all your recent calls to blatantly violate the Constitution?

Sturgis wrote:

Further, if you think that the constitution is the reason why a person should own a gun then I would suspect you are the one who is against the constitution.

The Constitution isn't the reason people choose to own guns.

It just protects their right to do so after they make that choice.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Arm up, train and be prepared to defend yourself and others because as this democratic downgrade
worsens there will come a time when the government will not be able to help us, we will be on your own.

That had already occur in local situations such as in South Miami-Dade county after hurricane Andrew in 1992.

The police and the national guard was not up and running for some time and neighbors needed to patrol their neighborhoods with such weapons as shotguns to protect from looters and the post offices workers in the area with no protection broke Federal law and came to work arm and so on.

An of course you can find similar situations covering most of this country history where for one reason or the other the normal law enforcement had broken down and armed citizens had step up and maintain order until the situation had improved.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I've shown the flaws in your arguments again and again. I referred to The United States versus Miller and the Court's comment about weapons designated as weapons of the militia, and you began babbling about the commerce clause. Now you're babbling about the tenth amendment. Both of those are strew man arguments. As i've said more than once, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, among other powers. You just sidestep that because you don't in fact have an argument for it. All you have is straw men, and when your hysteria gets too much for you, calling the other members here names and describing yourself as their "better." That's a laugh.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

There is plenty of valid research on the negative effects of very violent video games,

Junk science is junk science and those studies seems as valid as the studies in the 1950s aim at comic books.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

@ All

OK, OK . . . i'll stop feeding the troll, too.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You can tell when Oralloy is running out of arguments, and has become desperate and more hysterical, because he starts calling people trash and describing himself as their "betters."

Nope. I only do that when some scumbag is falsely accusing me of his own shortcomings.

In the case you are referring to above, the poster just proved himself to be highly dishonest, therefore I gave an appropriate response to his false accusation that I was not telling the truth.

And no desperation or hysteria here. I have the Constitution and the NRA and the Supreme Court on my side. Cool

And even better, my opponents are willfully sabotaging their own legislation. Mr. Green

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I've shown the flaws in your arguments again and again.

No you haven't.

Setanta wrote:

I referred to The United States versus Miller and the Court's comment about weapons designated as weapons of the militia, and you began babbling about the commerce clause.

Nope. You merely referenced Miller and the basis they used for saying Congress had the power to regulate guns.

Since the Miller Court based that on the Commerce Clause, I naturally assumed that was what you were referring to.

How was I to know that you are completely ignorant about the Miller Ruling, and do not know the first thing about what they based their ruling on?

Setanta wrote:

Now you're babbling about the tenth amendment.

Well, yes. That is because your point, even if you had actually gotten it right, would only challenge my position if I were basing it on the Tenth Amendment.

Setanta wrote:

Both of those are strew man arguments.

Nope. Your ignorance of the Miller Ruling and your ignorance of the US Constitution does not mean it is a straw man argument when I refer to what those documents actually say.

Setanta wrote:

As i've said more than once, Article One, Section Eight gives Congress the power to provide for arming the militia, among other powers. You just sidestep that because you don't in fact have an argument for it.

No. I sidestep it because your statement would only challenge my position if I were making a Tenth Amendment argument.

Since I am not making a Tenth Amendment argument, your statement has very little relevance to the position I am defending.

Setanta wrote:

All you have is straw men,

Not at all. I have the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I had yet to see anyone on the other side explain how so call assault rifles are more deadly then similar rifles without the pistol grip and flash suppressor.

Or if instead of a so call assault rifle he had just used the two handguns he had with him to killed those children and adults in the same manner as the Virginia Polytechnic Institute shooter did with a deaths toll of 32 using two handguns.

Of course Cho went through 17 magazines to do it...................but that did not seems to interfere with his ability to do that mass killings.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

What about all your recent calls to blatantly violate the Constitution?

You must have missed this, Oralboy. I guess your propaganda screen made it invisible to you.

I wondered why no one had made this argument before. There are many examples where the konstee2shun has been twisted to suit certain purposes. It's actually just there to help a small segment of the population **** over the majority of the population.

But you always get your share of smegma, you ole slurper you.

Quote:

Is the Second Amendment Absolute?
By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

...

Even if you believe the Second Amendment grants each American an individual right to own a gun, which remains a matter of some debate, it does not follow logically, legally or constitutionally that this right is absolute. No right granted by the Constitution is totally exempt from limitations.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I had yet to see anyone on the other side explain how so call assault rifles are more deadly then similar rifles without the pistol grip and flash suppressor.

The end result will be that even if they manage to get it past the NRA, the courts will just strike it down. Then come election time the NRA voters will descend on the Democrats like demon locusts from Hell.

And if they inextricably link their magazine ban to to the unconstitutional ban on assault weapons, that'll get struck down too.

I actually think it's kind of nice having your opponents insist on sabotaging their own legislation.

If you think about it, Firefly is doing more to block the magazine ban than we are.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

I can now picture you with an oversized salt shaker and a 50 gallon barrel of liquid transfat. You walking around your local restaurant district voluntarily shaking salt and pouring a cup of transfats onto everyone's meals as you wail out, "Dang malicious government's trying to take salt and transfats from your diet. I'm here to save you all from the monstrous evils of big government intervention." And if someone protests they don't want that added onto their food, you scream back how you're here to save everyone from the tyranny of healthmongers!

Your figurative insult comedy to BillRM is kinda vague isn't it?
Are you suggesting that one should not heed any attention government control, and just accept it as a gullible child should accept cany from a stranger?
Are you hinting that "salt" and "transfats" to be concealed weapons and pose danger to a human in the long term? Not carrying a gun is healthier, somehow?
I don't know your context because I'm not you, so I did the gracious thing and thought that the whole vague rejoinder to BillRM was relative to the "we need more gun control" that was discussed.

On that thought, I think if you were clearer as you've done as below, I wouldn't have responded initially.

tsarstepan wrote:

This critique of BillRM and his progun agenda is for his usual all government regulations are the essence of dictatorship yet he proposes an entirely new armed security force for the nation's school system. Oddly conflicting viewpoints. Fair enough that you don't know these details but clearly you are also not to bright as to read all of that crap in your response as being at all relevant to what I believe in here and stated thusly in this and other threads at a2k.

And I don't see a conflicting viewpoint. More government regulation to you is setting up armed guards in the school premises? In today's public high school, it's not unusual to have three of four cops assigned to each high school in the disctrict. In no way do I see it as "more" government regulation, as it does not infringe on any citizens rights, nor do I see it as a government regulation that resembles a dictatorship.

Quote:

How is any of this relevant to anything I've said here or elsewhere in a2k? It isn't as you're just throwing out a random piss poor argument at a random thread post thinking its going to stick. Aim your attacks at people who are making arguments that conflict against what you're saying.

I took you to be an antigun liberal, so just wanted to point out that more government control is not the fix all end all solution... ban on assault rifles won't be that affective being that assault rifles are defined by its cosmetic features...in the right hands, a handgun can be just as dangerous as a semiautomatic rifle...and this whole "more gov. regulation schtick" is quite silly.
On that note, I'll aim my attacks however I want, to whomever I want, and whenever I want.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

What works? Your intuition? So, what action will you be taking against those parents you believe are not good parents?

I will take no action against bad parenting, as it is not my business to interfere with a parent as to how to raise their child, however, when such children grow up to be monsters, I'll address the victims in its path with the tip of the hat, and the parent(s) who had the most potential to neutralize the monster, with the wag of the finger.

1 Reply

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know