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

@Walter Hinteler,

From AP.

Quote:

NRA official: 'Culture war' more than gun rights
By JIM VERTUNO and JUAN A. LOZANO | Associated Press – 1 hr 3 mins
US Gun Lobby Says It's Fighting a 'Culture War'

HOUSTON (AP) — The National Rifle Association kicked off its annual convention Friday with a warning to its members they are engaged in a "culture war" that stretches beyond gun rights, further ramping up emotions surrounding the gun control debate.

"Culture War?" What in hell is that supposed to mean? Can somebody please explain it for me?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes. Liberals seek to distort the libertarian principles
of the Constitution, to replace it with authoritarian
collectivism in American culture.

True Americans DEFEND Original Americanism.
That is Y we vote.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You don't know what you're talking about. This administration isn't doing anything to deny Americans to own guns; only that a background check be performed before anybody can buy a gun.

You also don't understand the position of the SC when it concerns limitations on the ownership of guns.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The administration was DEFEATED in its repression ism
by Real Americans.

Background checks can serve no purpose other than discrimination
against their Constitutional rights.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Baldino didn't support anything, he made up a load of old bollocks based on his hatred of the Koran. There was not one reference to a source.

You really do have double standards.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No, a terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians.

Is that so? And the USA and its allies would never do that, would they.

Your knowledge of history seems to be as deficient as your analysis of current events.
Most people have heard of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
How many countries has the USA bombed since 1945, without declaration of war? No I don't know either, but it's more than twenty, way more.

2 Replies

@McTag,

Oralboy lives in a world of easy answers, black and white. Anything more complicated than that is beyond his understanding. It's easy to class people as good and evil, that way you don't have to move out of your comfort zone.

With the exception of a few twisted individuals, people don't commit terrorist acts because they're evil, but because they're seriously pissed off, and as long as a significant amount of people are seriously pissed off you'll never stop it.

The Provos would still be bombing Manchester if we had taken such a ridiculous attitude.

0 Replies

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

oralloy wrote:
No, a terrorist is someone who deliberately targets civilians.

Is that so?

Yes.

McTag wrote:

And the USA and its allies would never do that, would they.

The US would never do it (at least not within the past 100 years).

We sometimes had to ally with some shady people during the Cold War in order to fight the greater evil of Soviet domination, so possibly some of our allies did.

McTag wrote:

Your knowledge of history seems to be as deficient as your analysis of current events.

If you think you can point out any deficiencies in either, feel free to try.

McTag wrote:

Most people have heard of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

The UK is responsible for the firestorms that destroyed Dresden and Hamburg.

I do not believe they were targeting civilians, though I have not studied the UK's targeting goals in detail.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. No civilians targeted in either instance.

McTag wrote:

How many countries has the USA bombed since 1945, without declaration of war? No I don't know either, but it's more than twenty, way more.

Bombing military targets does not count as targeting civilians.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

As far as morals go even if you accept that killings random people by bombing including children with no military target in sight is a valid means of warfare, something I do no, the younger bomber had taken the oath of citizenship to the US just a year before and the older brother had apply to become a citizen of the US also.

So going to so call war against the US society is not defensible by those two assholes brothers.

0 Replies

I find it interesting that from some of the comments and the vote downs/vote ups here that there seems to be a number of members of this site that at least in theory support the idea that terrorist acts are a valid means of fighting.

With special note of the we hate America sub-group on this website.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

First you express doubt, and then when Baldimo offers support, you respond, Well Christians did it too!

They probably did, but so what?

I just wanted to point at the various aspects of piracy in and around the Mediterranean Sea.
Actually, the -original- Maltese corsairs had had religious reasons in the beginning for their piracy acts: destroying Muslim property, ships etc.

Quote:

The corsairs of Malta and Barbary were a mirror image of maritime predation, two businesslike fleets of plunderers set against each other and against the enemies of their faith, but united in motivation, organisation and customs, these being known generically as 'the custom of the corsairs'.

Source: Peter Earle: The Pirate Wars, St. Martin's Press, 2003.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The administration was DEFEATED in its repression ism
by Real Americans.

Background checks can serve no purpose other than discrimination
against their Constitutional rights.

the only so called real americans were the congress men and women beholden to gun right advocate groups, a very powerful minority.

Quote:

CNN) - Nearly two-thirds of Americans say that the Senate should have passed a bill that would have expanded background checks for gun sales, according to a new national poll.

But the survey, released Monday by Gallup, indicates a partisan divide, with Democrats and independent voters not seeing eye-to-eye with Republicans.

Two weeks ago, the Senate voted on a number of gun control proposals in the wake of last December's Newtown, Connecticut elementary school massacre that left 20 children and six adults killed. One of the provisions, the one thought most likely to get passed, was a bipartisan compromise that would expand the background check system to include private sales at gun shows and online.

In a 54-46 vote, the Senate came short of the 60 votes needed to move ahead with the legislation.

According to the poll, 65% of Americans say that the Senate should have passed the background checks bill, with just under one in three saying the Senate should not have passed the measure.

A Washington Post/Pew Research Center survey released last week indicated that 47% of the public described themselves as "angry" or "disappointed" with the Senate vote, with 39% saying they were "relieved" or "happy" about the vote.

Prior to the Senate's failure to pass the proposal, most national polling indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans supported expanded background checks for gun sales.

The Gallup survey, like the Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll, points to a partisan divide. Eighty-five percent of Democrats and 64% of independents questioned said the Senate should have passed the proposal. Republicans were divided, with 45% saying the Senate should have advanced the measure and 50% disagreeing.

One of the authors of the bipartisan bill, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, said Sunday that the measure can still be revised and approved in the chamber. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided to shelve the amendment on background checks, vowing to bring it back to the Senate floor once they feel confident that it could get more support.

President Barack Obama, who strongly pushed action on gun control, condemned the Senate's action, saying it marked a "shameful day in Washington." Speaking from the White House Rose Garden shortly after the amendment failed, the president vowed that this is only "Round One" of the fight for tougher gun laws.

The Gallup poll was conducted April 22-25, with 1,043 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points.

source

It should not have to take 60 votes to pass a simple background check bill, but its the problem in a nutshell of why nothing can get done inWashington. If I was a republican I would be worried about the demographics of the way almost all the issues break down in favor of democrats or at least moderates in both democrat and republican parties. On this issue, the few democrats in conservative districts were worried about their seats in the next election, but I think they hedged their bets in the wrong direction and will get a backlash from it. Time will tell.

2 Replies

@revelette,

I agree; all we've had in Washington is gridlock based on the requirement for 60 votes rather than just the majority. The minority has all the power in congress, and they get nothing done that needs to get done for the American people. All politicians do today is play politics - forgetting that they are working for the people of this country - and not the gun lobby.

0 Replies

No matter how hard and how many times the left tries to rewrite and reinterpret our constitution our elected congress men & women are beholden to uphold the US Constitution as it is written. The many failures of the left is testimony to just how spot on the brave men that wrote and signed the constitution were.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Show us where liberals are trying

Quote:

to rewrite and reinterpret our constitution?

I'm not supposed to feeding the troll. Mr. Green

0 Replies

The troll is ceci.

Don't feed the troll!

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets. No civilians targeted in either instance.

Somebody should tell the survivors. They've been misinformed up to now.

2 Replies

@McTag,

oralboy rarely has anything right~! He doesn't know how to shut up when he's mostly wrong. LOL Mr. Green

You would think oralboy would learn early on that his misinformation is always challenged - to make him look ignorant. Drunk

Quote:

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

When America nuked the two Japanese cities they killed 140,000+ innocent people. Another 2 million died in the nest 5 years because of radiation and millions have died since because of cancer linked to radiation.

These are the kind of people who start wars without knowing how many innocent people will get killed. GW Bush still thinks he did the right thing in Iraq that killed tens of thousands of innocent people. No conscience.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Troll...

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

These are the kind of people who start wars without knowing how many innocent people will get killed. GW Bush still thinks he did the right thing in Iraq that killed tens of thousands of innocent people. No conscience.

As the then government of Iraq was killing more people then 10,000 in an ongoing civil war with the north ever year the Iraqians seems to had come out ahead of the game.

We started WW2 you have to rewrite history a great deal to made that claim.

Quote:

Quote:
When America nuked the two Japanese cities they killed 140,000+ innocent people

Now the figures given to President Truman was we could have lost somewhere around a million soldiers in an invasion of the home islands and the Japanese would had lost over ten times to twenty times that number.

Those atom bombs save one hell of a lot more lives US and Japaneses then they took by ending the war without a full scale invasion needing to be done

As far an innocent people not only did we warned them to leave the cities before the attacks given that the Japanese government was training even children to attacks US troops with bombs on their backs the word innocent as in non-combat civilians have some question marks behind it.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know