... remind me never to call on you to defuse an emotionally charged situation, JZL... Dirty, disrespectful, and humor over an act of torture. It's like a perfect trifecta of inappropriate humor...
M-K I can chuckle a bit at that one. Anyone see bloomburg use this to further his anti-gun agenda? What a leech fuck. Scott Pelly's interview was entertaining, he really pushed bloomturd's buttons.
You all forget, you god is the biggest mass murder of all time. http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html [QUOTE]Ina previous post, I've listed and counted God's killings in the Bible. But I only included those that said exactly how many were killed by God. I came up with2,476,633. But that didn't include some of God's most impressive slaughters. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? The Bible doesn't say, so there's no way to know for sure. But it's possible to provide rough estimates in order to get a grand total, and that's what I'm attempting here. Total with estimates:25 million. [/QUOTE] You think this fucker is sick for killing 20 children, your god killed thousands of children.
The syrian guv does it all the time. There is a reason they want assault rifles off the streets though: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d2...al-Trends/id-43fa14698a8e4488b1bba124e8b641e0 How does reporting happen now? look and listen: http://www.ted.com/talks/markham_nolan_how_to_separate_fact_and_fiction_online.html
Again, another tired line I've heard a million times. You can't disprove the electric neon pink dwarf living in my basement isn't real either. And he's just as real as your god. Anyway, not to start up the whole gun control thing again but here we go. An event like this was exactly what the Obama administration has been waiting for: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/politics/gun-control-lawmakers/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Then there's the guy just shooting into the air at the mall on saturday. That wreaked of propaganda to me. This is what I've been talking about throughout this thread. The present congress and the media are using this shit for everything it's worth. And people are eating it up. Bloomturd is really on his war wagon. it's really no wonder that they want to take away assault rifles. They certainly don't want them around when taxes go sky high and people get really pissed off at all the auterity measures headed our way. Sure, you can vilify guns. But that doesn't solve a damn thing and sure doesn't do anything to solve the real issues that lead to public violence and unhappyness. Picture this: assault rifles are no longer allowed in the hands of the public. What is going to stop the ones that will have them? namely: The guv and the outlaws. http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d2...Companies/id-6ca3cefc13e64150bc9874c7588f8796 I wonder how many more Wacos will happen when they try to disarm so many people. That's another thing. Where was all the media uproar when the ATF and FBI burnt all theose women and children up?
Britain went through this back in 1996, and the net impact of the gun ban has been almost zilch. In fact their worst gun rampage took place in 2010.
Australia did a complete ban in the 90's after a shooter killed 35 people and they have had zero incidents since then.
Which kind of makes the point that it's not a gun issue so much as a cultural/societal problem. Banning guns is a knee jerk reaction that does nothing about the deeper issues. All it does is make us a nation of victims.
It's definitely social. At this point you can't ban guns in America. That ship sailed centuries ago. You can however work to prevent tragedies like this from happening and mitigate damage inflicted when they do occur.
I personally would like to see more background and mental health checks. Another assault weapons ban isn't going to do anything, pre-ban weapons are still gonna be out there, and you can bet your ass company's are running 24/7 production right now. If we had proper mental health checks, arizona, colorado, virginia tech probably wouldn't have happened.
Now that the hysteria is starting to die down, people are realizing that this mass shooter shit is a complex problem. But now the anti gun movement has already gotten what they wanted out of it. I don't know which is worse: the sick fucks that go out and slaughter, or the guv that takes total advantage of the situation to promote what it is they are aiming to do in the first place. The way it looks to me, is that this all starts with the disintegration of the family unit and ends with a mental/medical system that puts profit way above national health and a government that got itself in a pickle and has to slash spending on important things like mental health issues.
Exactly. We're not Britain, and we're not Australia either. Our nation was founded on guns, and frankly, violence too. And can you imagine what the reaction will be if they try to outright ban rifles and handguns? It'll be bloody.
It'd be about the same as if they totally ban alcohol because drunk drivers kill other people on or near the public roads. Or banning cell phones because they cause traffic accidents.
If your point is that banning guns doesn't reduce murders then you are wrong. If your point is that banning guns doesn't address the root issue then I'd say you are right. The difference between banning alcohol and guns is that after we banned alcohol and realized the issues we adopted more sensible alcohol laws, we can't even have sensible discussions about guns let alone come up with sensible laws. As far as being a gun culture, I'd disagree and say we are a fear based culture. The only arguments I hear that are for pro guns, besides having them for sport/hunting, are all based on unlikely hypotheticals.
No, the 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyrany. And yes, I'm stating that guns aren't the sole issue. That there are more troubling deeper underlying conditions that need to be addressed or nothing will change other than things getting worse. You're dead right about the fear mongerings. the media and the government is using fear to persuade public opinion right now. At least 50% of all advertising is for a product or service that contributes/eases fear based aspects of modern living. Without fear our elected and economy would be obsolete. If you'd read my posts without a gun control chip on the shoulder, you'd realize i have not advocated guns. More like have pointed out the shit politics and methods that are being employed on the road to totally banning weapons in the hands of citizens. Who has the most to gain from disarming citizens? another point I've addressed is that banning guns only affects law abiding citizens. A criminal, by definition, could give two shitz if they are abiding by the law. Another thing to concider, is that if the real problem isn't addressed, there are many more lethal tactics that whack-jobs will employ to cause the destruction. Then what will be the banned material object?
And then there's that whole thing about gun rights being written in the Constitution. Minor detail. The extra funny/ironic thing to me is that the folks who just applauded marijuana legalization because "people are going to do it anyway" think that gun laws are going to work any better (see: Mexico). There are enough guns already in circulation now that a ban on sales won't have much affect on this type of tragedy. And should they attempt to seize the existing guns you better buckle up!
Crazy people are crazy, they will kill with anything they've got. Whether it's a Suburban driving through a shopping mall parking lot or some homemade bomb in an office building. Still, a gun is going to make it a whole lot easier for some jackass to kill a bunch of people period. That's because it's designed to do it and requires no McGuyver skills or planning to happen. That's why when someone freaks out with a knife or drives into a crowd, a couple people might die and not 30. I don't know the answers to our problems and don't have a clue what we should change about the laws here. But talking about Mexico -- I just heard on the radio from a Mexican govt security agent, he said that by far most of the illegal guns in Mexico come across the US borders, especially from Texas where they are legal US guns. If we didn't have guns, they probably wouldn't either. I'm not going to try to analyze this versus historical or social reasons, but that's a big ass difference and we should understand why the delta is so big if it's not due to gun bans. As for the issue about the US being founded on guns, being part of the constitution yet few people talk about how technology has changed things over the past 200 years. Okay, I understand that and your rights shouldn't be infringed. But remember when those laws were written guns looked like this: Guns in 2012 look like this: That's not a hunting rifle, it's a weapon of war made for killing humans. Like me driving a tank to work, it's just asking for problems if every crazy mom can pick one up legally and her kid can then take it "illegally". Either way, its existence certainly seems to enable catastrophes like this, legal or not. Would that kid have killed all those people with an assault rifle if his mom didn't have one? Probably not, I doubt a random 20 year old American has ties with the guns black market, but seeing it in his living room every day for years probably gives him a pretty good idea where to find one if he goes crazy enough to need it. I'm reading people say to arm the teachers and school staff. My mom was a 2nd grade teacher most of her life, my sister as well. I've known SO many young teachers through her over the years.. Never have I met a principal or elementary school teacher that I think would fire back with an assault rifle at a student that's on a shooting spree. They'd run and cry and hide or who knows. They aren't soldiers, they babysit 6-10 year olds. Schools aren't a place for guns, adding more to random trained individuals would probably result in more accidental deaths. Totally agree with this. I can only imagine how crazy things would get if this happened.
Our 2nd amendment right is to protect us from tyranny. The technology argument works both ways. The tyrants have these... along with a slew other other machines and bombs that no civilian has. Including the ATOM bomb...think our fore fathers ever thought we would have had to protect ourselves against something like that? ...and they would love it if all we had were these... ...technology has advance a lot more for the tyrants than us normal citizens. My semi automatic gun is nothing to be ashamed of.
All bars should be forced to have a 2 drink maximum, no more shots of booze either. There's just no need for stuff like Jaeger and Cuervo because those are only made for one thing. Stores should only be allowed to sell 2 packs of beer. Drunk drivers aren't to blame, the alcohol apparently is so, we must work to minimize the amount that citizens are legally able to consume.
The tyranny argument is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the only pro gun arguments are fear based and 86mcss pointed out exactly why it's such a rediculous argument. Btw I'm not advocating banning guns, I'm simply pointing out that no real discussion is being had, by both sides of the spectrum.
Okay fair- I'm naive perhaps in that I think I'm a lot more likely to be killed by a gun wielding maniac than a tyrant with a bomb. It's either naive or the other side of that coin (paranoid that tyrants would drop bombs). There's somewhere in between that we probably agree on, there's no solution for everyone but the current rules aren't the problem IMO. The radio is ablaze with gun control talk. What a joke though- neither background checks or waiting periods could've prevented this.
A citizenry armed with semi-automatic rifles and shotguns is absolutely something that a tyrannical government or foreign power would worry about, it's not ridiculous at all.. Just ask Bashar al-Asaad.
Holy shit, buy your guns and ammo now because prices are going up and supply is shrinking. Its like 2008 all over again (when Obama got elected).
