Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

bollucks

I think the word you were searching for was "bollocks". Bullocks are young castrated bulls in a dairy herd. They are a"steer".
Youve been sniffing
"Dairy Air" again

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

You,

Quote:

I tested out your logic, and sorry, it seems to be broken.

It "seems" to be broken to you, because you don't understand the concept of logic.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
LaPierre, whose remarks were interrupted twice by pro-gun control protesters, disdained the notion that stricter gun laws could have prevented "monsters" like Adam Lanza from committing mass shootings, and wondered why schools, unlike banks, don't have the protection of armed forces.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said.

Absolutely idiotic. Really, we have to live in an armed camp?

Yes.

IRFRANK wrote:

The only thing stopping a bad guy with an assualt rifle is to not sell them in the first place.

The Constitution says you don't get to do that. There is no legitimate reason for banning harmless cosmetic features, therefore doing so would violate Rational Basis Review. Sorry.

IRFRANK wrote:

The overwhelming portion of Americans do not agree with selling assault rifles as easily as they are today.

Shame about that Constitution thing.....

IRFRANK wrote:

Will there be a 'National Nuclear Weapons' association some day? Proposing that everyone needs one of those?

No. That would be silly.

0 Replies

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

If you look at the rest of the civilized world that has not been the case. Australia is a good example. Banning these weapons has had a very significant effect.

Not really. The main impact has been loss of freedom.

There was also a five-year armed robbery spree after the ban.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Then let the American people decide. I don't think your prediction will hold up. Most Americans are fed up with this nonsense.

The Constitution takes precedence. Sorry.

But if you think about it, there is really no reason to ban harmless cosmetic features in the first place, so little harm will come from adhering to the Constitution.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

It has been said that cicerone imposter molests Collies.

You see ci. That's the sort of thing I was too polite to respond with to all your made-up assertions about me. I hope you don't think I'm incapable of it. I can do miles better than that.

And I explained to you a few times that the usage of such a method grants permission, nay, invites, reciprocation. Or recoil might be a better word.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

No, your logic is broken. Make the next step, and you'll see why that logic is broken, relative to the discussion at hand. Your idea of banning objects based on such logic is clearly broken thinking, infantile thinking, thinking of a gullible propaganda fed baby. I thought you were more mature than that.

If you are consistent with your logic, why aren't you starting a movement to ban alcohol, motor vehicles, fire, water, baseball bats, bicycles, barstools, batteries, etc.?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

@ALL

Since we all seem to agree that it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of people with questionable sanity...

...how many of you think that denying guns to some of the pro-gun posters on A2K would be a good place to start?

You forget we have the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court, and the NRA at our backs.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Speaking for myself (although I'm sure a great number of my compatriots agree with me), I am firmly convinced that taking away guns would only have a miniscule impact on homicide rates.

Oh for goodness sake.
And I suppose taking away toothbrushes would have only a minuscule effect on teeth brushing.

2 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Quote:

Furthermore, if a highly stict ban is ensued, it'll be a failure like the alcohol prohibition.

Blimey!! Are you saying that needing a gun is the same order of need as wanting a drink.

But I must say that if I lived where you said you lived I would be well tooled up.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

But, even if someone proved that banning guns would save lives, our freedom would still take precedence over everything else.

You are one sick ****.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Since you won't pay to keep your guns, then I propose we take them away.

Courts won't allow you to do that. Sorry.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Speaking for myself (although I'm sure a great number of my compatriots agree with me), I am firmly convinced that taking away guns would only have a miniscule impact on homicide rates.

Oh for goodness sake.
And I suppose taking away toothbrushes would have only a minuscule effect on teeth brushing.

You forget that killers would just kill using different weapons.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
But, even if someone proved that banning guns would save lives, our freedom would still take precedence over everything else.

You are one sick ****.

No, I just value America's freedom.

0 Replies

@Region Philbis,

Region Philbis wrote:

my christmas wish is for the gov't to raid waterbuoy's house and take away all his guns...

Luckily for him, we have these institutions called "courts", and Americans have these things called "rights".

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

You missed out dressing gown cords. I bet they are more often a weapon of choice than barstools.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You don't have SCOTUS. Again, look at Scalia's recent interviews. The Court is far from being the absolutists that you seem to think they are. They've been ducking having to define the limits they said exist in Heller, and the NRA completely ignores, but Richard Posner stuck them in the ass and the appellate courts are divided, so they're going to have to. And Scalia is talking about the standards that people would have applied to firearms in the 18th century. And assault weapons are pretty much something they would have thought of as the 18th century equivalent of a terror weapon. Probably semiautomatic weapons too, for that matter. When the cases get to the court, you're probably going to see the NRA get smacked down. You too. And more than about time.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The gun manufacturers know what will happen to them if they cross us. It's hard for them to forget because they have nightmares about it every night.

Why would they have nightmares about something that isn't going to happen because it's unconstitutional.

1 Reply

@McTag,

There was an ana analogy which I heard today that compared the lowering of the speed limit on US highways from 70 to 55 mph. Doing so saved a surprising amount of lives.

So if we assume that statistic is relevant and accuate parallel to this somewhat recent high-tech assault rifle proliferation issue: why is it so hard for some people to understand that it would save a few lives if you have a ban on guns who now can spray a maximum amount of bullets/per minute, that it's worthwhile?

Statistics are showing there's a correlation between the increase in sales of such guns as this Bushmaster model and such tragedies. Coincidence? I, for one, think not!

Lower the speed limit, in a manner of speaking with availability of such guns unless you have a need as a police force, bank security, or a military need.

These multi-shot capacity guns (and the banana clip ammo) are not needed for hunters, target shooters or varmint killers and are basically designed for max people kills ...eee Brinks security...military security ONLY.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Not really. The main impact has been loss of freedom.

There was also a five-year armed robbery spree after the ban.

I don't know about an armed robbery spree as I wasn't living in Australia at the time - I'd be interested in what references you have for that.
I would say the main impact of gun control is that we haven't had any more mass shootings. I don't think you would find many Australians who feel a loss of freedom. Quite the contrary - I feel very free living in Australia. I have no more fear of being involved in gun violence than I do of a meteor falling on my head. When my children were little I didn't have to fear that if they went to stay at a friend's house there was a chance of them finding a loaded gun in an unlocked case - because none of our friends are hunters or have any other good reason to have a gun in their home.
Rather than lamenting their lack of freedom to own an assault weapon I would say that probably all the Australian I've spoken to about this issue are glad to live in a country where they feel safe - and don't understand the American obsession with guns at all.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know