14
   

Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night?

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 07:16 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I just want airtight background checks,


If you guys want background checks, you'll have to stop misusing them to block law-abiding people from buying guns. And you'll have to stop trying to slip an illicit gun registration plot into the background check system.

If you guys ignore the way you're abusing the background check system and just try to pass the same load of crap again, you'll suffer the same legislative defeat all over again.



Although, let's get real. Obama just blew all of his political capital in this futile assault against the NRA, and now he's got nothing left to do anything at all with his second term. The only reason he's even got a hope of immigration reform is because the Republicans want it more than he does.

And after four years of an ineffective do-nothing presidency, the voters are going to put a Republican in the White House in 2016.

It's going to be a very long time before anyone tries nonsense like this again.



edgarblythe wrote:
small ammo clips


"Small" is somewhat vague. If magazines are limited so much that self-defense is impeded, that's unconstitutional.

And if the limits do not impede self defense, then police and law enforcement should be required to abide by the same restrictions. After all, if a gun is good enough for self defense, it is also good enough for police work.

I suspect that even if you kept the magazine sizes viable for self defense, and you required police and law enforcement to abide by them, the NRA would still say no. But without first including both of those things in your measure, its chances of passing are less than zero.



edgarblythe wrote:
and outlawing assault weapons.


In other words, you want to violate people's civil rights, and for no reason other than the joy you get from violating their rights.

Sorry. You don't get to do that.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 07:32 am
@H2O MAN,
We have a dedicated professional police force that did an amazing job. That was more than enough.
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 07:54 am
Quote:
The reason I don't own a gun, it seemed more dangerous, not less, having one. It seemed necessary to take it out and confront situations on occasion, though I never actually shot at anybody. Not having a gun, these occasions have not once presented themselves to me and I actually feel safer.


Edgar gets it.
I was talking with a cop out in Oklahoma several years ago, he said he was always glad to know that particular households did not have any guns. Why? I said. He said it was like this: If you give a hammer to some people, they start looking around for something to hammer.

People with guns have a tendency to shoot people with those guns instead of working things out.
(We could study that more closely but the NRA has blocked research into the psychology of gun ownership. )

Joe(ask any cop)Nation
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 08:01 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
We have a dedicated professional police force that did an amazing job. That was more than enough.


It was more than enough only because you were lucky.

These guys robbed a 7/11 and then laid in wait to gun down the first police officer that they saw.

If these guys had decided to break into a house and massacre the occupants, and if the occupants had been defenseless like you advocate, the occupants would all have been killed.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 08:58 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

These guys robbed a 7/11 and then laid in wait to gun down the first police officer that they saw.


I'll let you figure out the flaw in your logic there on your own.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 09:04 am
@maxdancona,
That's impossible! Trust me.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 09:06 am
@maxdancona,
Not only the dedicated police force, but the general public at large that assisted the police with information. Those that provided information to the police didn't need any guns.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 11:24 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The reason I don't own a gun, it seemed more dangerous, not less, having one.

The statistics actually support this conclusion. (By a large margin.)
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 11:33 am
@DrewDad,
This URL answers the question of gun ownership and violence in the home.
http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/

From the article.
Quote:
First, when you buy a gun, the chance killing someone you love, like a family member, dramatically increases. Americans die every year because of misuse – such as a child finding a gun and playing with it, or someone accidentally firing it when they didn’t know it was loaded. And obviously gun usage is not something inherently wrong with Americans. One Canadian, 40-year-old Dale Whitmell, was in the news recently when he accidentally shot himself in the face while trying to kill a mouse (don’t ask). He’s now going to court; not because Mickey is suing for attempted murder, but because he was careless with a deadly weapon.

According to statistics gathered from 2005, there were around 800 unintended deaths from guns. Intended deaths reached over 9000 in 2009. Ultimately, the only positive thing to report about America’s gun-violence rates is that the number is gradually lowering.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:05 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
oralloy wrote:
These guys robbed a 7/11 and then laid in wait to gun down the first police officer that they saw.


I'll let you figure out the flaw in your logic there on your own.


There is no flaw. I merely pointed out what those two did, to demonstrate how ruthless they were.

If they had decided to break into a home and massacre the people therein, those people would have been doomed without a means to defend themselves.

Anyway, it won't be too much longer before the federal courts start striking down Massachusetts' unconstitutional gun laws. You'll still be free to be defenseless if you like, but pretty soon you won't be able to impose defenselessness on anyone else.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:06 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
The reason I don't own a gun, it seemed more dangerous, not less, having one.


The statistics actually support this conclusion. (By a large margin.)


No they don't.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:29 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
There is no flaw. I merely pointed out what those two did, to demonstrate how ruthless they were.


There sure is that good ole American hypocrisy, Oralboy. How you even have the gall to open your mouths is truly amazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg

If no picture shows, see,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:My_Lai_massacre.jpg

Quote:
Americas Third World War

How 6 Million People Were Killed In CIA Secret Wars Against Third World Countries

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:33 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
No they don't.


A dandy example of those renowned American debating skills.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:42 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
oralloy wrote:
No they don't.


A dandy example of those renowned American debating skills.


That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:48 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


That certainly is you in a nutshell, OralBoy.
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 01:58 pm
@oralloy,
According to Boston PD, they did NOT rob the 7-11, but they were there.
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 02:21 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
That certainly is you in a nutshell, OralBoy.


Was Amanda Knox involved in Boston? I say she's guilty.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 02:34 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
Was Amanda Knox involved in Boston? I say she's guilty.


It's certainly not certain one way or the other, C. If she is, I guess that she will have to live with her own demons. If she isn't, then she has already suffered much much too much.
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 02:36 pm
I meant certainly guilty of being involved in Boston. She is quite dark, after all, and her hair looks kind of "trying to be nonchalant". No need for a trial. Just deport her to Italy.

JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Apr, 2013 02:48 pm
@contrex,
I see.

From the sublime to the ridiculous.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2018 at 06:51:21