Ass Hat
Home
News
Events
Bands
Labels
Venues
Pics
MP3s
Radio Show
Reviews
Releases
Buy$tuff
Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls
  
  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food
  
  New Thread
  New Poll
Miscellaneous
Links
E-mail
Search
End Ass Hat
login

New site? Maybe some day.
Posting Anonymously login: [Forgotten Password]
returntothepit >> discuss >> close to 20 people dead (including children) in CT kindergarten shooting by arilliusbm on Dec 14,2012 1:05pm
Add To All Your Pages!
toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 1:05pm



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 14,2012 1:08pm
fucking hell



toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 14,2012 1:09pm
NBC says at least 27 dead.



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 14,2012 1:11pm
holy shit. that hits a little too close to home.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 1:16pm
26 dead, 18 kids



toggletoggle post by MikeOv at Dec 14,2012 1:24pm
That's fucking dark.



toggletoggle post by DYA is TESCO VEE at Dec 14,2012 1:27pm
Countdown to somebody blaming Doberman starrrts... NOW.



toggletoggle post by DYA is TESCO VEE at Dec 14,2012 1:29pm
DYA%20is%20TESCO%20VEE said[orig][quote]
Countdown to somebody blaming Oberma starrrts... NOW.


GODDAMMIT AUTOCORRECT. Fix'd. (Although seriously, I blame Doberman.)



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 1:29pm
Arnold was mad someone took all of his cookies.
Too soon?

But really, who the FUCK shoots up a kindergarten class?



toggletoggle post by Randy_Marsh at Dec 14,2012 1:30pm
Fucking scumbag whoever did this. Children? ...Really?



toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 14,2012 1:30pm
^This shit is terrible but that still made me LOL.



toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 14,2012 1:31pm
Oof I meant doberman not what Marsh said.



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 14,2012 1:32pm
a similar event just happened in China where a guy went into a kindergarten room and just started stabbing wildly.




toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 1:34pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Arnold was mad someone took all of his cookies.
Too soon?

But really, who the FUCK shoots up a kindergarten class?





toggletoggle post by dreadkill  at Dec 14,2012 1:36pm edited Dec 14,2012 1:37pm
This makes me even more afraid to let my kid leave the house than I already was. I can't understand why someone would kill elementary school kids. At least with high school shootings the motive is pretty clear: get revenge on the kids who picked on you and the teachers you didn't get along with. I feel so bad for that whole community and all the families involved.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 1:38pm
Yea.. the survivors are going to be messed up their whole life. They are finding kids hiding in closets terrified for their life.



toggletoggle post by Jay Clark at Dec 14,2012 1:40pm
DYA%20is%20TESCO%20VEE said[orig][quote]
Countdown to somebody blaming the Coven song "Just Add Violence" starrrts... NOW.




bennyhillifier



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 1:47pm
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Arnold was mad someone took all of his cookies.
Too soon?

But really, who the FUCK shoots up a kindergarten class?




Alternate suspect:



He has a tattoo that says "THE, KIDS, THE" in German.



toggletoggle post by xmikex at Dec 14,2012 1:50pm
Only high school shootings are real.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 14,2012 1:55pm
dreadkill said[orig][quote]
This makes me even more afraid to let my kid leave the house than I already was.
that's a shame.



toggletoggle post by xmikex at Dec 14,2012 2:01pm
I typed this out and went to post it on Facebook, thought about it, sighed, and deleted it. Stupid adult life...

My thoughts and prayers go out to the students of Astoria Elementary School who from now on have no more bathroom.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:16pm
FUCK.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:17pm
I used to go to newton all the time.



toggletoggle post by Thunderstool at Dec 14,2012 2:21pm
NEWTOWN



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:31pm



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:32pm
Thunderstool said[orig][quote]
NEWTOWN
why must you always make fun of me for my pronunciation? you should probably make a thread about it.. oh wait...



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Dec 14,2012 2:39pm
the_reverend said[orig][quote]
Thunderstool said[orig][quote]
NEWTOWN
why must you always make fun of me for my pronunciation? you should probably make a thread about it.. oh wait...
very funny. You can see its not me.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:55pm
The calls coming from inside the house.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 14,2012 2:58pm
stop with all the facebook posts about how people have to stop talking about guncontrol.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 3:06pm
My heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of the victims. Also Im not homosexual.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 14,2012 3:07pm
I gotta say, Im all for killing humans, but this is just fucked. Kill people who deserve to die, theres plenty of em, not just innocent little kids. Its less disturbing because of the loss of life and more just disturbing because of the kind of person youd have to be to do something like this. I mean, murdering someone who wronged you in some way, even if it seems trivial to others,I can understand, but who is so fucked in the head that they kill kids?



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 14,2012 3:07pm
Kid shot up a school with a couple pistols, and Obama's camp immediately starts talking about assault weapon ban.

How do the two relate, again?



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 3:11pm
the_reverend said[orig][quote]
stop with all the facebook posts about how people have to stop talking about guncontrol.



bennyhillifier



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 14,2012 3:18pm
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
I gotta say, Im all for killing humans, but this is just fucked. Kill people who deserve to die, theres plenty of em, not just innocent little kids. Its less disturbing because of the loss of life and more just disturbing because of the kind of person youd have to be to do something like this. I mean, murdering someone who wronged you in some way, even if it seems trivial to others,I can understand, but who is so fucked in the head that they kill kids?


seriously. looks like the shooters were brothers, and their mother was a teacher there. totally fucked.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 14,2012 3:25pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
Kid shot up a school with a couple pistols, and Obama's camp immediately starts talking about assault weapon ban.

How do the two relate, again?


don't make the mistake in assuming that obama supporter = pro gun control. if anything, this is an argument AGAINST gun control because i doubt the shooter got those legally anyway.



toggletoggle post by MikeOv at Dec 14,2012 3:45pm
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
I gotta say, Im all for killing humans, but this is just fucked. Kill people who deserve to die, theres plenty of em, not just innocent little kids.


Part of me wants to use the Keanu Reeves meme and insert a question pertaining to minority report as to whether or not this was a pre-crime killing.

Shooter may have killed a future murderer or child molester.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 3:48pm
Or future astronaut or entrepreneur. Depends on how you look at it.
Regardless, kids are innocent either way you slice it.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 14,2012 3:50pm
MikeOv said[orig][quote]
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
I gotta say, Im all for killing humans, but this is just fucked. Kill people who deserve to die, theres plenty of em, not just innocent little kids.


Part of me wants to use the Keanu Reeves meme and insert a question pertaining to minority report as to whether or not this was a pre-crime killing.

Shooter may have killed a future metalcore fag or dave matthews fan.
ficksed



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 14,2012 3:57pm
Yeti said[orig][quote]

seriously. looks like the shooters were brothers, and their mother was a teacher there. totally fucked.


Single shooter. Killed his brother in NJ at some point, they just found the body. He killed his mother, who worked at the school, and 5 other adults. 20 children shot and killed total, all but two died on scene.




toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 14,2012 3:58pm
barren%20ark said[orig][quote]
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
Kid shot up a school with a couple pistols, and Obama's camp immediately starts talking about assault weapon ban.

How do the two relate, again?


don't make the mistake in assuming that obama supporter = pro gun control.


No, not you. Quite literally, OBAMA's CAMP issued a statement this morning about Obama pursuing his assault weapons ban like it relates to this issue.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 14,2012 4:04pm
Of course they are going to take this opportunity to make it about gun control, although there is no law that could possibly be passed that could prevent this from happening again. Nancy Pelosi just came (ugh).

Though I have few feelings and little heart, this is just a depressing story. Why mow down kids, and little ones at that?



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 4:07pm
MikeOv said[orig][quote]
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
I gotta say, Im all for killing humans, but this is just fucked. Kill people who deserve to die, theres plenty of em, not just innocent little kids.


Part of me wants to use the Keanu Reeves meme and insert a question pertaining to minority report as to whether or not this was a pre-crime killing.

Shooter may have killed a future murderer or child molester.


OR JOHN CONNOR



toggletoggle post by MikeOv at Dec 14,2012 4:07pm
LOL.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 4:08pm
See, Terminator, Kindergarten Cop, it all adds up.



toggletoggle post by Randy_Marsh at Dec 14,2012 4:09pm edited Dec 14,2012 4:11pm



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 14,2012 4:22pm
They found a third gun. A bushmaster.

I guess it is about assault weapons.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 14,2012 4:25pm
Sucks. Unbelievable. Whole kindergarten class or close to it.



toggletoggle post by Headbanging_Man at Dec 14,2012 4:28pm edited Dec 14,2012 4:28pm
From the president: "I offered Gov. Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation."

"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. Each time I learn the news I react not as a president but as anybody else would as a parent.

"That was especially true today.

"I know there's not a parent in America that doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

"The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.

"They had their entire lives ahead of them, birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.

"Among the fallen were also teachers - men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams. Our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these children and the families of the adults we lost.

"Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago - these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

"This evening Michelle and I will do whah every parent in America will do - hug our children a little tighter and tell them that we love them.

"There are families in Connecticut that cannot do that tonight and they need all of us tonight.

"May god bless the memory of the victims and in the words of scripture heal the broken hearted and bind up their wounds.

"Also we are proud to announce that David Gold's mother Esther Gold will be attending the shooting. She will be selling Woods Of Ypres merchandise and will be saying a few words on Saturday night."



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 4:38pm
^^^ FUCKING SLAM DUNK



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 14,2012 5:05pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
Yeti said[orig][quote]

seriously. looks like the shooters were brothers, and their mother was a teacher there. totally fucked.


Single shooter. Killed his brother in NJ at some point, they just found the body. He killed his mother, who worked at the school, and 5 other adults. 20 children shot and killed total, all but two died on scene.



i guess we won't know for a few days, now they are saying one shooter and no body found in NJ.



toggletoggle post by eyeroller at Dec 14,2012 5:27pm
Looking at the FB page, that kids favorite bands are Guns'n'Roses and fuckin Freezepop.

Also hearing conflicting stuff on which kid is which, brother / shooter.

No body found in NJ, but they're saying dad's dead in his home (Newtown), and the kid's girlfriend and her friend current whereabouts unknown. bleh



toggletoggle post by MillenialKingdom  at Dec 14,2012 5:38pm
This has to be the worst shooting in America's history. I'm sick to my stomach over this. Hugging my daughter a little tighter today.



toggletoggle post by BobNOMAAMRooney at Dec 14,2012 5:43pm
Headbanging_Man said[orig][quote]
From the president: "I offered Gov. Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation."

"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. Each time I learn the news I react not as a president but as anybody else would as a parent.

"That was especially true today.

"I know there's not a parent in America that doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

"The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.

"They had their entire lives ahead of them, birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.

"Among the fallen were also teachers - men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams. Our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these children and the families of the adults we lost.

"Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago - these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

"This evening Michelle and I will do whah every parent in America will do - hug our children a little tighter and tell them that we love them.

"There are families in Connecticut that cannot do that tonight and they need all of us tonight.

"May god bless the memory of the victims and in the words of scripture heal the broken hearted and bind up their wounds.

"Also we are proud to announce that David Gold's mother Esther Gold will be attending the shooting. She will be selling Woods Of Ypres merchandise and will be saying a few words on Saturday night."


With mere days left this might have just won /r/ post of 2012



toggletoggle post by eyeroller at Dec 14,2012 6:03pm
Yep, they were saying it was Ryan, but now they're naming his brother Adam as the shooter. Maybe he's a Freezepop fan too. This really sucks.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 14,2012 6:07pm
MillenialKingdom said[orig][quote]
I'm sick to my stomach over this. Hugging my [insert gender of crotchfruit] a little tighter today.


Oh, hi, every fucking person on my facebook feed.



toggletoggle post by nekronaut  at Dec 14,2012 6:07pm
Headbanging_Man said[orig][quote]
From the president: "I offered Gov. Malloy my condolences on behalf of the nation."

"We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. Each time I learn the news I react not as a president but as anybody else would as a parent.

"That was especially true today.

"I know there's not a parent in America that doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do.

"The majority of those who died today were children, beautiful little kids between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.

"They had their entire lives ahead of them, birthdays, graduations, weddings, kids of their own.

"Among the fallen were also teachers - men and women who devoted their lives to helping our children fulfill their dreams. Our hearts are broken today for the parents and grandparents, sisters and brothers of these children and the families of the adults we lost.

"Our hearts are broken for the parents of the survivors as well, for as blessed as they are to have their children home tonight, they know that their children’s innocence has been torn away from them too early, and there are no words that will ease their pain.

"As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago - these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we're going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.

"This evening Michelle and I will do whah every parent in America will do - hug our children a little tighter and tell them that we love them.

"There are families in Connecticut that cannot do that tonight and they need all of us tonight.

"May god bless the memory of the victims and in the words of scripture heal the broken hearted and bind up their wounds.

"Also we are proud to announce that David Gold's mother Esther Gold will be attending the shooting. She will be selling Woods Of Ypres merchandise and will be saying a few words on Saturday night."


STANDING OVATION.



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Dec 14,2012 6:11pm
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
MillenialKingdom said[orig][quote]
I'm sick to my stomach over this. Hugging my [insert gender of crotchfruit] a little tighter today.


Oh, hi, every fucking person on my facebook feed.
I had just said outload "did every asshole not hug their kids yesterday?". Then I read this and LOLed.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 14,2012 6:21pm
It hits a different nerve when you're a parent, that's for sure.



toggletoggle post by i_am_lazy at Dec 14,2012 6:26pm
the_reverend said[orig][quote]
stop with all the facebook posts about how people have to stop talking about guncontrol.


You know you liked my post.



toggletoggle post by Richard Hertz at Dec 14,2012 7:44pm
A fucking plus on the David Gold's mom post.



toggletoggle post by xmikex at Dec 14,2012 8:12pm
Headbanging_Man said[orig][quote]

"Also we are proud to announce that David Gold's mother Esther Gold will be attending the shooting. She will be selling Woods Of Ypres merchandise and will be saying a few words on Saturday night."



niiiiiiiiiiiiiice. loled.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 14,2012 11:27pm
So it gets weirder - mom, the teacher, was dead at home. NOT at the school. So if he already killed her, it means he didn't go to the school to kill his mom. He actually went with the intent on killing a fuckton of little kids.

Chills.



toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 14,2012 11:38pm
^ nice news from 5 PM bro



toggletoggle post by joeyvsdavidlopan  at Dec 15,2012 12:05am
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
My heartfelt sympathies go out to the families of the victims. Also Im not homosexual.


Missed that earlier. Well-played, sir.



toggletoggle post by joeyvsdavidlopan  at Dec 15,2012 12:07am edited Dec 15,2012 12:09am
Also got a hearty laugh from the David Gold's mother bit. How the hell did this and the China stabbings fall together this closely?



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 15,2012 12:21am
Garth%20Algar said[orig][quote]
^ nice news from 5 PM bro


You'll have to excuse me for going out to dinner and smoking a few bowls before perusing the news again this evening. I can't help noting I'm the first to post it here, however.




toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 15,2012 12:28am
Ha I actually like your posts a lot. Just thought I'd Old News out of boredom. I like your perspective. This response'll probably piss you off.



toggletoggle post by Big bag of assorted nigger parts at Dec 15,2012 1:39am
I liked the Old News myself. "Oh hey, did you hearYESIHEARDSHUTUP



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 15,2012 6:03am
Im waiting for my gun license to go through, THIS BETTER NOT AFFECT ANYTHING



toggletoggle post by Richard Hertz at Dec 15,2012 10:55am
Get your guns/ammo/accessories now, they WILL use this as an excuse to pass some useless fucking law(s).



toggletoggle post by duuurp at Dec 15,2012 9:24pm
I guess it is the end of the world...



toggletoggle post by rollercoasters at Dec 15,2012 9:39pm
this is really awful.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 16,2012 9:08pm
Obama just held a speech in Newtown. It is obvious that they're going to vote on gun control. He didn't say it out-right, but it was obvious.



toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 16,2012 9:25pm
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT NO ONE HAS SAY SHIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL EXCEPT ALL THE PEOPLE POSTING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO KILL OUR FIRST AMENDMENTS.

Obama's speech was the best one he's given (minus the god).



toggletoggle post by Garth Algar at Dec 17,2012 1:20am
^^^^^^ I agree for once.



toggletoggle post by AUTOPSY_666   at Dec 17,2012 1:35am
Bath School 1927, google it.



toggletoggle post by Alx_Casket  at Dec 17,2012 8:55am
joeyvsdavidlopan said[orig][quote]
Also got a hearty laugh from the David Gold's mother bit. How the hell did this and the China stabbings fall together this closely?


terrists.

And predictably, I woke up to this news:
http://medford.patch.com/articles/police-w...d-schools-following-newtown-tragedy

Similar temporary security blanket situations are likely occurring in schools across the country. Cops will be stationed in schools as long as it takes for America to forget how affected we all felt last Friday.



toggletoggle post by Richard Hertz at Dec 17,2012 8:56am
the_reverend said[orig][quote]
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT NO ONE HAS SAY SHIT ABOUT GUN CONTROL EXCEPT ALL THE PEOPLE POSTING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO KILL OUR FIRST AMENDMENTS.

Obama's speech was the best one he's given (minus the god).



Uh no- the gun grabbers are out in hoards: http://m.newser.com/story/159398/feinstein...g-assault-weapon-ban-to-senate.html



toggletoggle post by Richard Hertz at Dec 17,2012 8:59am
And another one. Like Bushmaster is the only company that makes an AR-15:

http://m.newser.com/story/159423/bushmaste...-in-newtown-has-lethal-history.html



toggletoggle post by AndrewBastard  at Dec 17,2012 9:10am



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 17,2012 10:47am
AUTOPSY_666 said[orig][quote]
Bath School 1927, google it.


i don't really get the point of this. does the fact that more children were killed in 1927 lessen this tragedy?



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 17,2012 12:24pm
The point behind Bath School is that more kids were killed and it was done with bombs not guns.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 17,2012 12:30pm edited Dec 17,2012 12:31pm
The thing is, there are so many people these days and we DONT LIVE IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. Psychopaths have always existed, but the chances of horrible events like this are exponentially increased with more humans around.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 17,2012 12:39pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The thing is, there are so many people these days and we DONT LIVE IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. Psychopaths have always existed, but the chances of horrible events like this are exponentially increased with more humans around.


Translation: this is a self-correcting problem. (When you keep too many chickens in one pen, they thin their own numbers out.)



toggletoggle post by Alx_Casket  at Dec 17,2012 12:45pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The thing is, there are so many people these days and we DONT LIVE IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. Psychopaths have always existed, but the chances of horrible events like this are exponentially increased with more humans around.


Wow. You're explaining that this happened not because of mental illness, but because some 20 year old dude thought his mom's kindergarten student:teacher ratio was too large?



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 17,2012 12:54pm
Not at all.



toggletoggle post by Alx_Casket  at Dec 17,2012 12:55pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Not at all.


Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.



toggletoggle post by shutup fagget at Dec 17,2012 1:04pm
Alx_Casket said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Not at all.


Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
shutup fagget



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 17,2012 1:09pm
Sandy Hook in the Dark Knight Rises:


Far left



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 17,2012 1:11pm
STAR AND FLAG!!!1



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 17,2012 1:14pm
Yeti said[orig][quote]
STAR AND FLAG!!!1


lol. youre owning me today.



toggletoggle post by Hoser at Dec 17,2012 2:23pm
This Country was founded on God. You move away from him, he'll move away from you. Enjoy your eternity in Hell.....go ahead and snicker, you'll see.



toggletoggle post by Richard Hertz at Dec 17,2012 2:26pm
Wtf?



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 17,2012 2:31pm
LOL @ Trollser. I mean, ::snicker::



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 17,2012 3:15pm
Hoser said[orig][quote]
This Country was founded on God. You move away from him, he'll move away from you. Enjoy your eternity in Hell.....go ahead and snicker, you'll see.


tell me this is real and not just a move to try and get everyone riled up.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 3:25pm
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The thing is, there are so many people these days and we DONT LIVE IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. Psychopaths have always existed, but the chances of horrible events like this are exponentially increased with more humans around.


Translation: this is a self-correcting problem. (When you keep too many chickens in one pen, they thin their own numbers out.)
So what youre saying is that James Holmes should have dressed up as Raz Al Ghul instead of Bane? WE SACKED ROME



toggletoggle post by Randy_Marsh at Dec 17,2012 3:36pm
da land of da free, yo



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 17,2012 4:28pm
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
The thing is, there are so many people these days and we DONT LIVE IN A UTOPIAN SOCIETY. Psychopaths have always existed, but the chances of horrible events like this are exponentially increased with more humans around.


Translation: this is a self-correcting problem. (When you keep too many chickens in one pen, they thin their own numbers out.)
So what youre saying is that James Holmes should have dressed up as Raz Al Ghul instead of Bane? WE SACKED ROME


Or at least in an Uma Thurman Poison Ivy costume with head-boobs.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 4:28pm
My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck.

If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None.

We don't each have a nuclear bomb or a bazooka under the second Amendment, even though they're arms, so why semi-assault rifles? This is one area where being a strict constructionalist really makes sense, as the second amendment was conceived about muskets when you couldn't shoot more than one person every thirty seconds.

40% of gun deaths in American come from guns legally owned by friends and family, like in Sandy Hook, but sadly many people think having high-powered guns in your house and taking your kids to the shooting range is still the solution and not the problem, like this shooter's mother did - and she unwittingly ended up helping him practice his target shooting for twenty first graders. For those who want to make the case that more guns are the answer to preventing future shootings, all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it.

My child's life is worth more than expanding your gun rights beyond the muskets the second amendment was written around.

The true libertarian position at this point is the correct one: people have the freedom to hurt themselves, but NOT infringe to on each others' freedoms: it's time to take all police resources directed towards drugs and free up law enforcement to focus on eliminating guns that can be used for multiple shootings; the idea that to this day a person could walk into my daughter's elementary school and kill children with a legally purchased military-style weapon but would be ingesting illegal drugs in an overdose had he chosen to only harm himself shows exactly what is wrong with our country, and why the twenty dead children will not be the last unless we reverse that mentality. You want to kill yourself, go right the fuck ahead, drugs and no guns mean you go out alone. Instead we have legal military style weapons and illegal heroin, the implication shoot the kids as long as you don't shoot up. Who favors that policy? Anyone?

Thing is, though, we will probably see this kind of mass shooting of children happen at least another five or ten times before we actually change - hundreds more children WILL die due to the power of gun enthusiasts like the shooter's mom to resist these changes in law from happening. And with every shooter, the question is raised: how many children's lives are worth the cost of not being able to reload your clay pigeon shooting fast enough? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? And eventually the number will get big enough - but the real answer is one child. Your child. Any child.

In regards to bomb comparison, it's a pretty good because it makes the point bombs are illegal as these guns should be, and having government surveillance/pre-emptive techniques on bombing attempts used with the same efforts on preventing mass shooting sounds good, too. When it comes to the argument of how CT had relatively tight gun controls to other states, the murder weapon was in fact LEGAL here, clearly showing how low the bar is for reasonable controls in any state; what little gun control we do have in our state is why this shooter was twice denied guns when he tried to purchase them himself, due to his unwillingness to go through a background check and waiting period.

For the record, I have never before posted anything on the topic of gun control, nor was I in favor of legalizing all drugs, just pot - but this tragedy has changed my mind and convinced me we've got it all wrong in terms of liberty when it comes to these things. Be free unless it infringes on the freedoms of others. Drugs, on their own, don't when taken by people. Guns capable of mass shootings do. And every dead child in that school shouldn't have had their rights to live freely at all put BEHIND the rights of others to weaponize freely.

Liberty and justice for all.



toggletoggle post by shutup hippie fagget at Dec 17,2012 4:30pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck.

If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None.

We don't each have a nuclear bomb or a bazooka under the second Amendment, even though they're arms, so why semi-assault rifles? This is one area where being a strict constructionalist really makes sense, as the second amendment was conceived about muskets when you couldn't shoot more than one person every thirty seconds.

40% of gun deaths in American come from guns legally owned by friends and family, like in Sandy Hook, but sadly many people think having high-powered guns in your house and taking your kids to the shooting range is still the solution and not the problem, like this shooter's mother did - and she unwittingly ended up helping him practice his target shooting for twenty first graders. For those who want to make the case that more guns are the answer to preventing future shootings, all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it.

My child's life is worth more than expanding your gun rights beyond the muskets the second amendment was written around.

The true libertarian position at this point is the correct one: people have the freedom to hurt themselves, but NOT infringe to on each others' freedoms: it's time to take all police resources directed towards drugs and free up law enforcement to focus on eliminating guns that can be used for multiple shootings; the idea that to this day a person could walk into my daughter's elementary school and kill children with a legally purchased military-style weapon but would be ingesting illegal drugs in an overdose had he chosen to only harm himself shows exactly what is wrong with our country, and why the twenty dead children will not be the last unless we reverse that mentality. You want to kill yourself, go right the fuck ahead, drugs and no guns mean you go out alone. Instead we have legal military style weapons and illegal heroin, the implication shoot the kids as long as you don't shoot up. Who favors that policy? Anyone?

Thing is, though, we will probably see this kind of mass shooting of children happen at least another five or ten times before we actually change - hundreds more children WILL die due to the power of gun enthusiasts like the shooter's mom to resist these changes in law from happening. And with every shooter, the question is raised: how many children's lives are worth the cost of not being able to reload your clay pigeon shooting fast enough? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? And eventually the number will get big enough - but the real answer is one child. Your child. Any child.

In regards to bomb comparison, it's a pretty good because it makes the point bombs are illegal as these guns should be, and having government surveillance/pre-emptive techniques on bombing attempts used with the same efforts on preventing mass shooting sounds good, too. When it comes to the argument of how CT had relatively tight gun controls to other states, the murder weapon was in fact LEGAL here, clearly showing how low the bar is for reasonable controls in any state; what little gun control we do have in our state is why this shooter was twice denied guns when he tried to purchase them himself, due to his unwillingness to go through a background check and waiting period.

For the record, I have never before posted anything on the topic of gun control, nor was I in favor of legalizing all drugs, just pot - but this tragedy has changed my mind and convinced me we've got it all wrong in terms of liberty when it comes to these things. Be free unless it infringes on the freedoms of others. Drugs, on their own, don't when taken by people. Guns capable of mass shootings do. And every dead child in that school shouldn't have had their rights to live freely at all put BEHIND the rights of others to weaponize freely.

Liberty and justice for all.
shutup hippie fagget



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 17,2012 4:33pm
Other acceptable DC villains would have been Captain Nazi, Crazy Quilt, or Psycho Pirate.

http://spider-bob.com/teams/dc/SecretSocietySuperVillains.htm



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 4:35pm
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
Other acceptable DC villains would have been Captain Nazi, Crazy Quilt, or Psycho Pirate.

http://spider-bob.com/teams/dc/SecretSocietySuperVillains.htm


I just said Raz Al Ghul because of the whole taking-down-a-society-when-it-gets-too-big-and-out-of-control thing.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 17,2012 4:46pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck.

If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None.

We don't each have a nuclear bomb or a bazooka under the second Amendment, even though they're arms, so why semi-assault rifles? This is one area where being a strict constructionalist really makes sense, as the second amendment was conceived about muskets when you couldn't shoot more than one person every thirty seconds.

40% of gun deaths in American come from guns legally owned by friends and family, like in Sandy Hook, but sadly many people think having high-powered guns in your house and taking your kids to the shooting range is still the solution and not the problem, like this shooter's mother did - and she unwittingly ended up helping him practice his target shooting for twenty first graders. For those who want to make the case that more guns are the answer to preventing future shootings, all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it.

My child's life is worth more than expanding your gun rights beyond the muskets the second amendment was written around.

The true libertarian position at this point is the correct one: people have the freedom to hurt themselves, but NOT infringe to on each others' freedoms: it's time to take all police resources directed towards drugs and free up law enforcement to focus on eliminating guns that can be used for multiple shootings; the idea that to this day a person could walk into my daughter's elementary school and kill children with a legally purchased military-style weapon but would be ingesting illegal drugs in an overdose had he chosen to only harm himself shows exactly what is wrong with our country, and why the twenty dead children will not be the last unless we reverse that mentality. You want to kill yourself, go right the fuck ahead, drugs and no guns mean you go out alone. Instead we have legal military style weapons and illegal heroin, the implication shoot the kids as long as you don't shoot up. Who favors that policy? Anyone?

Thing is, though, we will probably see this kind of mass shooting of children happen at least another five or ten times before we actually change - hundreds more children WILL die due to the power of gun enthusiasts like the shooter's mom to resist these changes in law from happening. And with every shooter, the question is raised: how many children's lives are worth the cost of not being able to reload your clay pigeon shooting fast enough? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? And eventually the number will get big enough - but the real answer is one child. Your child. Any child.

In regards to bomb comparison, it's a pretty good because it makes the point bombs are illegal as these guns should be, and having government surveillance/pre-emptive techniques on bombing attempts used with the same efforts on preventing mass shooting sounds good, too. When it comes to the argument of how CT had relatively tight gun controls to other states, the murder weapon was in fact LEGAL here, clearly showing how low the bar is for reasonable controls in any state; what little gun control we do have in our state is why this shooter was twice denied guns when he tried to purchase them himself, due to his unwillingness to go through a background check and waiting period.

For the record, I have never before posted anything on the topic of gun control, nor was I in favor of legalizing all drugs, just pot - but this tragedy has changed my mind and convinced me we've got it all wrong in terms of liberty when it comes to these things. Be free unless it infringes on the freedoms of others. Drugs, on their own, don't when taken by people. Guns capable of mass shootings do. And every dead child in that school shouldn't have had their rights to live freely at all put BEHIND the rights of others to weaponize freely.

Liberty and justice for all.


So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future?

You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember?

So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines?

All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 4:46pm
shutup%20hippie%20fagget said[orig][quote]
Shadowsd said


all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it.


shutup hippie fagget


You must know a lot of pissed off hippies to draw that impression. Did a hippie steal your virginity?

He took you by the hand
Made love in his Chevy Van
And that's alright with you



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 4:50pm
Limiting freedom because of fear is the opposite of American. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes every year. We should probably make cars illegal too, that way we can save 40,000 lives a year!



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 4:54pm
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future?

You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember?

So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines?

All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you.


His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets.

At the end of the day, there might have to be incentives to help the turnover process, but I have faith that the majority of law-abiding gun owners would continue to be just that - law-abiding - at least more faith than I do in their ability to keep their guns away from mass shooters, since they keep failing at it, and twenty children more were just killed because of that failure.

My point is there's no reason to have any more faith in the Nancy Lanza approach to guns and safety and passing on the same values to one's family, she was just as confident in all these things until reality shot her in the face.



toggletoggle post by shutup fagget at Dec 17,2012 4:59pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future?

You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember?

So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines?

All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you.


His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets.

At the end of the day, there might have to be incentives to help the turnover process, but I have faith that the majority of law-abiding gun owners would continue to be just that - law-abiding - at least more faith than I do in their ability to keep their guns away from mass shooters, since they keep failing at it, and twenty children more were just killed because of that failure.

My point is there's no reason to have any more faith in the Nancy Lanza approach to guns and safety and passing on the same values to one's family, she was just as confident in all these things until reality shot her in the face.


shutup fagget



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 5:01pm
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
Limiting freedom because of fear is the opposite of American. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes every year. We should probably make cars illegal too, that way we can save 40,000 lives a year!


Should we all have bazookas and A-Bombs in order not to limit freedom? That would make me feel pretty damn free. Not too safe though.

And if we shouldn't have those, then why semi-assault weapons?

After all, if there's a line, why isn't it before twenty kids dying and instead after?

Also, semi-assault weapons can't drive you to work, or take shooting victims to the hospital.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 5:04pm
I'd take getting blown away by an a-bomb over Big Brother breathing down my neck any day.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 17,2012 5:04pm
I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 5:10pm edited Dec 17,2012 5:16pm
Gun culture has always been a part of American culture, therefore there are A LOT of guns all over America. They ARE NOT going away. Comparing the banning of guns in a country where there are millions of guns around to the banning of guns in America is completely unrealistic.

Also, America has always had a di
fferent outlook on 'freedom' than the rest of the world. American freedom is based on liberty/individual freedoms and not ease of life/safety. Ie: (traditionally) in America it is far more important to maintain individual rights and liberties (ie: the right to bear arms/self defense) than it is to deny these freedoms in favor of theoretical safety. This is also apparent in our traditional disdain for socialism as well; we do not place a large value on comfort/ease of life if it involves hand holding. That is a topic for another time; but it's all related.

NOW I am not saying which is superior to the other; just that perhaps you can step back and view things from an 'American' viewpoint sometimes. We are a very, very different country than the rest. Some of us love it that way; some of us want to move more towards a European sense of safety/freedom balance. It's up to the individual's opinion of course.

And of course there is always the point that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting; it's a form of checks/balances on our own Government. I understand that it is very, very far-fetched that we will ever have to have an 'uprising' against our own government; but it is not impossible and the 2nd Amendment has been used in this way during 'modern' times ( examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 ).

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"The land of the free, the home of the brave."



We aren't addicted to guns, we are addicted to liberty. Guns, being as controversial and 'extreme' as they are are a PERFECT example of what sets us apart from literally EVERYONE else. Lovers of liberty cling to their guns because they are a symbol of just how free we are; we are allowed to have something that is considered so controversial, so 'deadly', so 'wrong', so 'scary', etc. etc by the rest of the world. And we have been allowed to do so by our own Constitution since the founding of our beautiful country; and no one is going to change that.

Firearms are the perfect symbol of freedom. It's easy to grant people certain freedoms; granting them the freedom of essentially rebellion is not easy.


It really comes down to this:

Anti-gun people want to make America a safer place; this being their idea of freedom.

Pro-gun people don't want to sacrifice certain liberties in order to make America (maybe) a bit safer (and most of them don't think it will do that anyways, myself included).

So no one will ever agree.

It comes down to this, as a pro-gun sort of fellow:

If you were a magical wizard from the land of Oz that could somehow ACTUALLY guarantee that there would be 100% less violence in America if we banned all guns; I would still tell you I don't want that. Freedom is more important.

Anti-gun arguments are the same as Christian arguments that are based in the Bible ("It's in the bible; therefore it is correct.") if I don't BELIEVE in the Bible in the first place; the argument is useless. If I don't BELIEVE in safety-above-all; your arguments are useless to me as far as gun-control goes.





inb4 "Huurrr durrrr edgy fucking comments about America/the flag/whatever." You are so QUIRKY and EDGY, rttp.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 5:11pm
QUICK SOMEBODY TAKE THAT MARINES' RIFLES AWAY BEFORE SOMEONE BREAKS INTO HIS APARTMENT AND SHOOTS UP A NURSERY



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 5:12pm edited Dec 17,2012 5:14pm
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't.


In a few years if nothing happens and the number of dead children is in the hundreds every year, you might not necessarily feel the same way. There is, I think, a price too high, a line that represents that in everyone's mind; a point where you'd say I'd give up the ability to fire multiple rounds if it could have brought those kids back.

Is it 100? Is it 1000? I don't know.

But it's there. And we're on our way much higher numbers without changes in law, faster than anyone realizes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...gun-arrest-20121217,0,1967249.story





toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 5:18pm edited Dec 17,2012 5:21pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't.


In a few years if nothing happens and the number of dead children is in the hundreds every year, you might not necessarily feel the same way. There is, I think, a price too high, a line that represents that in everyone's mind; a point where you'd say I'd give up the ability to fire multiple rounds if it could have brought those kids back.

Is it 100? Is it 1000? I don't know.

But it's there. And we're on our way much higher numbers without changes in law, faster than anyone realizes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...gun-arrest-20121217,0,1967249.story





How many terrorist have to be created via propaganda and religion and blow themselves up in crowded bazaars before you start eroding the 1st Amendment?

Everyone always says 'The 1st Amendment isn't there for when people say nice things.'

IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT FOR THE 1ST AMENDMENT; the 2nd Amendment is a TRUE TEST of liberty, it isn't easy.




Every person dies; freedom only dies when you deliberately kill it.

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."
- Eisenhower



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 5:21pm



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 17,2012 5:22pm
all i know is that you can't stop a psycho from being psychotic. we'll ban assault rifles, they'll use shotguns. we'll ban shotguns, they'll use handguns. we'll ban guns altogether, they'll use bombs. the underlying issue is, why are so many people psychotic?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 5:26pm edited Dec 17,2012 5:27pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]


His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets.


There is still an 'Assault Weapons' (not a real thing, by the way. Made up term.) ban active in CT.

And you are talking about magazines, not clips.

If you are going to be a fascist, at least do some research. Don't use made up words and incorrect terms.

Yes, 'I mad'.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 6:53pm edited Dec 17,2012 7:03pm
Wow, I'm a fascist now for thinking people have the freedom to hurt themselves but not to infringe on each others' freedoms.

I think when you read what I said, my argument was based on liberty entirely.

Those kids had a right to liberty, too. Not to total security. As Yeti correctly pointed out, attackers can just as well use a shotgun or a handgun or a knife. If they did, I and most people in the country right now wouldn't be pissed at the government about this. The difference with a semi-automatic is 0 or 1 or 2 deaths verses 27.

No there is no such thing as total security. That's why I think turning schools into airports post 9-11 as a response to this tragedy like I've heard some people (not here) say would be insanity, and what happens when you get overly defensive instead of taking care of dismantling the offense. I don't want metal detectors, or cops, or armed security guards at my daughter's school every day, I'm talking to the principal this week to voice my opinion of that very thing, no one let alone kids should live under a cloak of paranoia.

I also oppose national ID cards, support legalizing pot, and I now support the legalization of all drugs. But because I don't want my kid shot by legal military style weapons for civilians, I'm a fascist. Got it.

Someone still has yet to answer me why you don't feel your freedom is under assault from not being able to use bazookas or nukes. I'm still waiting on that one.

I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent.

I'm just saying we follow the Founders in both deed and not just word on this. Liberty of children to be free from mass shootings like they were in the days of the Founders > liberty of grown men to fire weaponry the Founders never conceived or considered.



toggletoggle post by shutup fagget at Dec 17,2012 7:04pm
shutup faggets..............shit happens, bad things happen, tragedy happens.
shutup faggets.
SHUTUP FAGGETS!
SHUTUP FAGGETS!



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 7:08pm
I'll quote someone else instead of the founding fathers:

"The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill!"

-Zardoz



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:09pm edited Dec 17,2012 7:10pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
Wow, I'm a fascist now for thinking people have the freedom to hurt themselves but not to infringe on each others' freedoms.

I think when you read what I said, my argument was based on liberty entirely.

Those kids had a right to liberty, too. Not to total security. As Yeti correctly pointed out, attackers can just as well use a shotgun or a handgun or a knife. If they did, I and most people in the country right now wouldn't be pissed at the government about this. The difference with a semi-automatic is 0 or 1 or 2 deaths verses 27.

No there is no such thing as total security. That's why I think turning schools into airports post 9-11 as a response to this tragedy like I've heard some people (not here) say would be insanity, and what happens when you get overly defensive instead of taking care of dismantling the offense. I don't want metal detectors, or cops, or armed security guards at my daughter's school every day, I'm talking to the principal this week to voice my opinion of that very thing, no one let alone kids should live under a cloak of paranoia.

I also oppose national ID cards, support legalizing pot, and I now support the legalization of all drugs. But because I don't want my kid shot by legal military style weapons for civilians, I'm a fascist. Got it.

Someone still has yet to answer me why you don't feel your freedom is under assault from not being able to use bazookas or nukes. I'm still waiting on that one.

I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent.

I'm just saying we follow the Founders in both deed and not just word on this. Liberty of children to be free from mass shootings like they were in the days of the Founders > liberty of grown men to fire weaponry the Founders never conceived or considered.



You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate.


Your arguments are completely fucking invalid as long as you keep stating completely made up things like 'military style weapons'. Why should I believe or take note of ANYTHING you say if you can't even get simple facts right?


Also American civilians can own 'bazookas'/RPGs/Grenades/.203 grenade launchers/etc. Again, do your research.

Nuclear weapons are debatable.






toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 7:10pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
And you are talking about magazines, not clips.


I was just repeating the wording one person used describing the legislation on Meet The Press, who probably thought you could get away with saying clip instead of magazine.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:13pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent.


Please support ANY OF THIS with a single cited fact.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 7:16pm edited Dec 17,2012 7:17pm
Boozegod said[orig][quote]
Nuclear weapons are debatable.

Boozegod said[orig][quote]
You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate.




FIXED



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:20pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
Boozegod said[orig][quote]
Nuclear weapons are debatable.

Boozegod said[orig][quote]
You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate.




FIXED



Well, they are. They are constitutionally debatable. I am not the one making up stuff here. You are just making things up out of the blue/expressing opinion as fact/using made up terms ("assault weapon", "military style rifle", etc).



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 7:29pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent.


Please support ANY OF THIS with a single cited fact.


You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be quite educated about weapons. Is it your assertion they had Uzis? Not sure what point you're making there. They had muskets, they wrote laws with those muskets in mind. Not rocket science.

The only other thing I said in that quote was the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that.

Maybe you're referring to what I said about the usage of the gun, which true enough, also could make reloading faster for target shooting on a range - but I was talking about having one in the house, which is the right being described. If SWAT's after you, doesn't matter if you have a handgun or a semi-automatic they'll take you down, so the whole insurance policy against government intrusion doesn't really work as a justification for needing stronger weapons than the ones used in our early history; having one in the house just means killing more people before you die, not withstanding or thwarting the government intrusion.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 7:32pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
Well, they are. They are constitutionally debatable. I am not the one making up stuff here. You are just making things up out of the blue/expressing opinion as fact/using made up terms ("assault weapon", "military style rifle", etc).



I'm just repeating commonly used terms in the analysis of this tragedy, I'm not making any of them up. If you have an issue with the terms, that's fair, but I can tell you I don't go around inventing words.

And if nukes are Constitutionally debatable but currently aren't allowed, why aren't semi-automatic weapons in the same category?



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 7:35pm
I liked when you said "... to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. "

Plenty of people hunt with those things, ya know... Not children though, just bucks, elk, stuff like that mostly.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:40pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be quite educated about weapons. Is it your assertion they had Uzis? Not sure what point you're making there. They had muskets, they wrote laws with those muskets in mind. Not rocket science.


This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next.


The only other thing I said in that quote was the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that.


Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

( http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html )

Maybe you're referring to what I said about the usage of the gun, which true enough, also could make reloading faster for target shooting on a range - but I was talking about having one in the house, which is the right being described. If SWAT's after you, doesn't matter if you have a handgun or a semi-automatic they'll take you down, so the whole insurance policy against government intrusion doesn't really work as a justification for needing stronger weapons than the ones used in our early history; having one in the house just means killing more people before you die, not withstanding or thwarting the government intrusion.


Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight.

Also, the 2nd Amendment has already been used in that fashion in 'modern' times (a few of which I've already cited, but will again):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens




toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:43pm edited Dec 17,2012 7:44pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

I'm just repeating commonly used terms in the analysis of this tragedy, I'm not making any of them up. If you have an issue with the terms, that's fair, but I can tell you I don't go around inventing words.


Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is?


And if nukes are Constitutionally debatable but currently aren't allowed, why aren't semi-automatic weapons in the same category?


My research has shown that Nuclear Weapons contradict certain other parts of the constitution. But since I don't have any of that research on hand right now I'm unable to argue that point.

Also, the idea that the ingredients required to create a nuclear weapon can be federally regulated without disturbing the constitution.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 7:51pm
Shadow, you say 'legalize all drugs' yet if I were you I would be much more worried about the likelihood of impressionable young kids easily getting their hands on substances they have no respect for and dying. Something like 5000 people die each year in the US from overdosing, yet you say legalize it all and make it MORE accessible, and 27 people die from bullets and they should be illegal? It's much more likely your kid will run into some scumfuck drug dealer who will convince him to ruin his life with coke or whatever than it is that they get shot by a mass murderer. I mean no disrespect to your kids, just saying.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 17,2012 7:54pm
eh I didnt word that last post very well, but I think you get the jist (gist?)



toggletoggle post by Headbanging_Man at Dec 17,2012 7:57pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is?


Complains about inaccurate use of weaponry terms; flagrantly misuses civil legal terminology.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 17,2012 7:59pm
T
Headbanging_Man said[orig][quote]
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is?


Complains about inaccurate use of weaponry terms; flagrantly misuses civil legal terminology.


slan·der (slndr)
n.
1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.


I thought it could be applied to an object/slanderous to the owners of said weapons in this situation; if I'm wrong I stand corrected.

See how easy it is to be an adult and admit when you are wrong? Amazing, really.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 11:26pm edited Dec 17,2012 11:27pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that?


This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next.


I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted?


Boozegood said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that.


Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right?



Boozegood said[orig][quote]
Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight.


Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles, 2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain.

That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 11:38pm edited Dec 18,2012 12:10am
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
Shadow, you say 'legalize all drugs' yet if I were you I would be much more worried about the likelihood of impressionable young kids easily getting their hands on substances they have no respect for and dying. Something like 5000 people die each year in the US from overdosing, yet you say legalize it all and make it MORE accessible, and 27 people die from bullets and they should be illegal?


I'm not saying open up hard drug dispensaries and make them more accessible, but there is something to said about the argument addicts shouldn't be in prison, they should be in treatment; my real point here is take that police manpower directed towards drug busts and possession charges and focus it on the weapons, not the drugs. End the DEA and focus those agents on guns. Any scumbag that's pushing drugs like you mention still has to convince a kid to start using who is already open to that idea, whereas with the gun, well it does the convincing automatically, doesn't it? That's the issue here. Every person has a choice to start using or not, you have that freedom, you have that liberty, you have none when you become a mass shooting victim.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 17,2012 11:52pm edited Dec 17,2012 11:56pm
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
Plenty of people hunt with those things, ya know... Not children though, just bucks, elk, stuff like that mostly.


The idea someone NEEDS the freedom to use a semi-automatic with over ten bullets in particular in order to hunt an elk suggests they're such a crappy shot they should be nowhere near a gun. Most of this country's history, people hunted animals without that technology. In another century, are we so overkill for the sake of lazy that hunters will be launching drone strikes on elk from their computers in their bedrooms? Or maybe tactical nukes...

I think hunting and eating what you kill are part of life and part of this country. But if you can't do it with a simple firearm let alone a bow and arrow or a knife, and you need to fire off dozens of shots with a semi, nature has already kicked your ass, and it's time to ditch the Rambo meets Bambi charade and order your sorry ass a pizza.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 18,2012 2:54am
Yeah, absolutely Shadow. (SM 10): Let's go back to muskets. When the government comes for you (nooooooo that could never happen heeeeeeeeere) let's see how happy you are with your faggot musket. Also, how long did you study constitutional law as you seem so adept at interpreting the amendment (albeit only to cater to your opinion).



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 18,2012 3:06am
I also need to note that I didn't read the whole thread. Good on ya for the massive blocks of text but if there was really "no way to extrapolate the point. None" then your point would be simple and concise, which it isn't. Not at all.

I think if your daughter overdosed on heroin, you'd have a totally different take on the matter, btw. Stick to marijuana, you have a much stronger argument there.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 18,2012 6:10am
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck.

If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None.


Correction: If they saw those weapons in the hands of the police and other government forces, and the citizenry not keeping up, they'd be disgusted.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 7:08am edited Dec 18,2012 7:10am
In all new guns purchased after January 1st, 2013, insert a microchip that disables gun on school grounds; if microchip is removed you face up to 15 years in prison. If gun is old, then well, I dunno.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 7:12am
Then again that's a horrible idea because if someone possessed the emitter technology that disables the guns then all hell would break loose. NEED COFFEE.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 7:15am edited Dec 18,2012 7:17am
Oh and BTW, just your average coincidence between the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings.
http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scan...-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 18,2012 7:39am
guns, drugs, dicks and abortions for all!



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 18,2012 7:46am
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
In all new guns purchased after January 1st, 2013, insert a microchip that disables gun on school grounds; if microchip is removed you face up to 15 years in prison. If gun is old, then well, I dunno.


Yeah but then the ultimate weapon becomes THE CARDBOARD BOX.



toggletoggle post by AndrewBastard  at Dec 18,2012 8:43am
trioxin245 said[orig][quote]
Im waiting for my gun license to go through, THIS BETTER NOT AFFECT ANYTHING


seriously?




toggletoggle post by AndrewBastard  at Dec 18,2012 8:44am
meant to OK BOBBY that



toggletoggle post by halfway to hobo at Dec 18,2012 8:51am
I lost my cardboard box, and still haven't figured out the box shelter thing-a-ma-jiggy yet, no worries though, these jeans be skinny!



toggletoggle post by movealong-nothing to see here at Dec 18,2012 11:23am
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
Oh and BTW, just your average coincidence between the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings.
http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scandal-grows-as-the-fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify


this.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 18,2012 11:33am
Burnsy said[orig][quote]
Yeah, absolutely Shadow. (SM 10): Let's go back to muskets. When the government comes for you (nooooooo that could never happen heeeeeeeeere) let's see how happy you are with your faggot musket.


About as happy and dead as I'd be with any gun against the whole US Armed Services and intelligence forces, and just as quickly. So would you, so would anyone. To assume otherwise is a jerk-off Die Hard fantasy - a fantasy that has no comparison to real, dead kids, especially those who happened to die from a jerk-off Die Hard fantasy in the mind of an insane killer.


Also, how long did you study constitutional law as you seem so adept at interpreting the amendment (albeit only to cater to your opinion).


It's the amendment as it was written with the intent it was written, regardless of my opinion. That was the weaponry, those were the rights enshrined about them. Don't blame me for it, that's what happened.

There's a crowd out there (not saying you're one of them) that claims it's all about original interpretation of amendments in the Constitution, but say that about the second amendment, and you're a faggot-armed reinterpretist.


Burnsy said[orig][quote]
Stick to marijuana, you have a much stronger argument there.


You're right, it is a stronger argument, and that's why I was only for legalizing pot before - but in a context where semi-automatics remain legal on the basis of arguments in favor of liberty, it's pretty insane to have the government jail you for hurting yourself with drugs, that's the point I'm really making here. It's so hypocritical and illogical especially in the wake of this shooting that it's maddening: the shooter's gun was legally bought by his mother but heroin he could have bought to overdose instead would be illegally bought. Not sane policy - and certainly not in favor of anyone's liberty.


Burnsy said[orig][quote]
I think if your daughter overdosed on heroin, you'd have a totally different take on the matter, btw.


If anyone here's child was shot in this sort of thing, they would certainly have a different take on the matter as well.

The only difference is, drugs require you to consent taking them, you have that freedom to choose. With being shot, you don't have that liberty. Drug suicides only have a death toll of one; you don't want people heavily armed when they decided they truly want to kill themselves, because when you're at that stage, you don't give a fuck about anybody. The results from that combination are obvious and inevitable.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 18,2012 11:35am
^Clear connection and totally creepy, but the article talks about the fact that this connection between the shooters' fathers establishes a motive. A motive to distract from the Libor case? I'm not seeing it.



toggletoggle post by slar you stupid at Dec 18,2012 11:35am
Ah, yes. Let's be morons and fall for another conspiracy theory.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 18,2012 11:37am
I was talking about the article that Aril posted.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 18,2012 11:42am edited Dec 18,2012 11:44am
DestroyYouAlot said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None.


Correction: If they saw those weapons in the hands of the police and other government forces, and the citizenry not keeping up, they'd be disgusted.


Yes. I don't think it's either-or, they'd be disgusted by both.

Technological breakthroughs in weaponry since the days of the Founders have raised real problems on both sides of that coin, such as the fact we couldn't stand up to our government right now no matter how powerful our guns, like I mentioned; since the early 80's at least that has been a joke of an idea given the strength of our national defenses and intelligence. We the citizenry can't keep up. It IS disgusting. But it is also reality either way, a scary reality that we can either sit here and be in denial of or look straight in the face - and since that battle has long been lost, it's time not to surrender other liberties for the sake of one we sadly already have.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 11:42am
slar%20you%20stupid said[orig][quote]
Ah, yes. Let's be morons and fall for another conspiracy theory.


All I said was it's a coincidence. Take what you want from it. I always think it's funny how quick people are to write off anything the MSM doesn't spew.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 18,2012 12:02pm
Let me also raise the point that the shooter only stopped killing more kids because he saw the government coming for him, and even that dumb fuck knew despite the semi-automatic weapon in his possession that a gunfight attempting to overcome the government in this day and age had a 100% chance of ending in his death and 0% chance of succeeding, so he blew his own head off first rather than take the risk. The idea that sane smart people here are debating and doubting a fact that was obvious enough to an insane deranged person - then using that very doubt as the justification for keeping his style of murder weapon legal - is making my head spin.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 18,2012 12:08pm
Yeah, government sure did a great job in saving lives that day. Good point. (SM:10)



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 18,2012 12:13pm
MAKE MORE LAWS! PLEASE! WE ARE SO UNSAFE FROM OURSELVES, PLEASE SAVE US FROM ALL THE DANGER, OH MIGHTY AND ALL-KNOWING DEMOCRACY, FOR WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES!



toggletoggle post by Joe Bonanno at Dec 18,2012 12:25pm
Government chill.



toggletoggle post by move along-nothing to see here at Dec 18,2012 12:29pm
they should only take away the right to own automatic weapons then government standing armies also lose that right.



... faggots.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 12:29pm
There is no scapegoat, nothing to blame for what happened here except the shooter. Debate it to death but there is nobody to blame here.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 18,2012 3:32pm
^correct answer



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 3:33pm
WHAT DO YOU MEAN, IT WAS BUSHMASTERS FAULT



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 18,2012 3:34pm edited Dec 18,2012 3:39pm

I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted?


Sorry for misquoting you, replace what I put in-between '' with what you actually said and it still stands.

I don't know on what planet this:


Is "not much more powerful" than this:



though.



Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right?


No, you said "[...] the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment[...]" which in the context of your whole argument means just what you said. Unless it doesn't; in which case it goes against your entire argument so I assume you mean what you say.


Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles


You mean like this:





And this:





2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain.


Revolutionary War, Balkans, Vietnam, etc. etc. would show you are wrong.


That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us.


If you think you are actually correct on this; I commend you. Many, many peer-reviewed Generals, strategists, etc. that have been published in Journals would completely disagree, though. Feel free to submit your theory to their critique.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/

http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fsst20/current

http://afs.sagepub.com/

http://www.pmsaronline.org/

http://www.jmss.org/jmss/index.php/jmss

http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh/jmh.html


If you succeed in convincing people that your point of view is correct I will commend you; as you have just revolutionized military/strategic thinking.

I suggest you start with this bibliography:

http://www.academicroom.com/bibliography/counterinsurgency-bibliography

(I also suggest anyone interested in COIN warfare/military history/strategy/etc. in general check out that bibliography).




toggletoggle post by Steve Mazzagatti at Dec 18,2012 3:56pm
why dont the both of you quit your bitching, and fight already.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 18,2012 4:02pm
Those are some good links you provided, but you're never going to convince this kid of anything. He's too caught up in the emotion of the situation to think clearly on the subject.

I think the NRA has been smart to keep silent in the aftermath -- there's too many screaming, emotional liberals looking to cast blame for any NRA argument to do any good.

And LOL at thinking I would hand over my guns to anyone.



toggletoggle post by Steve Mazzagatti at Dec 18,2012 4:02pm
YOU LADIES HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP FOR 2 DYA'S NOW, FIGHT ABOUT IT OR FIX YOUR PANTIES AND MOVE ON.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 4:03pm
I disagree with Shadow about the insurgents. The terrain is just a nice backdrop -- wars are lost against insurgents because by nature you kill one and two more fill his shoes. especially when those shoes have stayed the same for 10,000 years (Vietnam, Balkans, Afghans) the game was rigged from the start for native New-Worlders so they don't count.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 18,2012 4:09pm edited Dec 18,2012 4:12pm
barren%20ark said[orig][quote]
the game was rigged from the start for native New-Worlders so they don't count.


Not only that but the idea of peace-loving homogenous Native Americans is some completely made-up nowadays view on the subject. Tribes were brutally killing each other long before we showed up; we were just another tribe that got thrown in the mix; albeit we were a supremely strong tribe. Thus there wasn't really a native 'insurgency' since some tribes sided with new-comers, some didn't, etc. etc. to further their own agendas.

(I'm speaking about North America by the way, South American Natives are a whole other ballgame).


Oh, and I am agreeing with you, in case it sounds like I'm trying to correct you or something.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 4:13pm
yeah, within tribes was a heavy early socialism but tribes were not at all homogenous and were not on a sustainable path (stampeding bisons off cliffs comes to mind)




toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 4:16pm



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 18,2012 4:20pm
Steve%20Mazzagatti said[orig][quote]
YOU LADIES HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT THIS CRAP FOR 2 DYA'S NOW, FIGHT ABOUT IT OR FIX YOUR PANTIES AND MOVE ON.


If there are 2 DYA's, I want the other one dead. DEAD, you hear me?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 18,2012 4:20pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]
http://money.cnn.com/m/#!/2012/12/18/news/companies/gun-sales-massacre.json?category=Latest%20News


That dude needs some trigger discipline, though I am mirin' gainz.


I should have bought more than a few lower receivers, bah. Sold out everywhere now and they are going to be like gold if there is another AWB (I know this to be true because I have to pay pre-ban prices here in MA already).



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 4:22pm
My left-libertarian spirit is screaming in my ear that all the gun restrictions and laws will not prevent access to contraband weapons and will not inhibit the manufacture of them.

It's funny that Jim just posted that, I was going to say that the way the gun market works, is that every time a Democrat talks about gun legislation, MORE GUNS ENTER THE MARKET AND GET INTO PEOPLE'S HANDS.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 18,2012 4:22pm
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
He's too caught up in the emotion of the situation to think clearly on the subject.


This pretty much sums up my feelings towards the whole thing for the most part.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 4:22pm
GUN FUTURES MARKET, GET YOURS YESTERDAY



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 18,2012 4:25pm edited Dec 18,2012 4:25pm
barren%20ark said[orig][quote]
My left-libertarian spirit is screaming in my ear that all the gun restrictions and laws will not prevent access to contraband weapons and will not inhibit the manufacture of them.

It's funny that Jim just posted that, I was going to say that the way the gun market works, is that every time a Democrat talks about gun legislation, MORE GUNS ENTER THE MARKET AND GET INTO PEOPLE'S HANDS.


Yea and then the fucking-idiots on my side of the political spectrum whine about prices.

THAT'S CAPITALISM, YA KNOW, THE SHIT WE SUPPORT SO VOCALLY ALL THE TIME.



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 18,2012 4:25pm
lol



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 4:29pm
What's funny is that if they FLAT OUT BAN GUN SALES FOR CIVILIANS (hypothetically), it would create a black market of homemade guns, which is quite easy. And you don't need no gun powder.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 18,2012 5:20pm
In the Revolutionary War, Britain knew the terrain less than the colonists, and were certainly the foreigners in that sense.

In Vietnam, again, we were the foreigners dealing with insurgents, despite having some local allies.

The Balkans were more of a civil war type situation than a pure government vs. insurgency scenario.

Reading through the links and still looking for the argument a single man or a few men can defeat the US government in its current state, no matter what the firepower of the rebels. I'll keep looking.

I also think I've tried to be pretty rational in most of the substance of the arguments I've posted (here's another one: no one ever mows down a bunch of schoolkids with a cannon), but I admit there's been a very strong undercurrent of emotion through all of it, too, I'm guilty as charged on that one. On either level, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with having someone advocating for the liberties of the children who were killed for once, not just on behalf of the ownership of the guns that killed them. Doesn't seem irrational to me.

When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them.

For instance one Marine vet mom who has used guns for protection all her life, guarded her children with a gun close to her every night while they grew up, and once saw her father and brother killed in separate incidents by gun violence, said after this shooting she was no longer going to be a gun owner because a firearm is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder, and because packing a gun didn't save her murdered relatives from not having a chance to react in time (she was on the news this past weekend on Chris Hayes' show); certainly, that observation and that statistic were available to her before, but the emotional impact of this shooting ironically made her more rational about accepting that data.

Certainly not saying anyone else should come to the same conclusion as her, we all have the right to own a gun in our home; just pointing out how having kids, even if you've supported gun rights all your life, has caused this tragedy to change a lot of minds that never would have otherwise.

I'll stop posting anything else on this issue in this thread, I've made my point. You guys made your points very well, too. This is a hard subject for anyone to change someone else's mind in a debate either way.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 18,2012 5:27pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them.



We're aware of that, but not every American has or wants kids. Some of us just want our freedom.



toggletoggle post by BSV at Dec 18,2012 5:30pm
Still can't find a connection with both father's testifying against LIBOR and how they brainwashed their sons to kill people in order for the 2nd Amendment to be revoked. That examiner link is just another link for a blog that re-blogged a rumor from Friday, same old boring theory with no details or critical thinking.
There are also people trying to connect some guy in China who stabbed and slashed 22 children on the same day to these shootings as well...right, like they're connected. The clear difference in China is that it takes alot of fucking effort to kill someone with a knife, therefore he only injured the victims, unlike Lanza shooting fish in a barrel.
At this point I feel it's more logical that the NRA could potentially be responsible for misinforming our country with the intention to stimulate sales out of fear, but fuck that. People treat the gov like god in the sense they just blame anything and everything they don't understand on it.
Everyone is an expert researcher in our 8 second generation but no one will ever have all the answers. More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun and will never have the balls to join a militia. The weak shall be crushed. Only nihilistic antagonism is real.



toggletoggle post by BSV at Dec 18,2012 5:41pm
and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit before guns as a direct result of these events.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 18,2012 5:44pm
BSV said[orig][quote]
More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun




bennyhillifier



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 18,2012 5:52pm edited Dec 18,2012 5:57pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
In the Revolutionary War, Britain knew the terrain less than the colonists, and were certainly the foreigners in that sense.


Interesting theories but all research I've done and real world experience I have had does not support your idea. Those aren't the reasons that COIN is so difficult.



In Vietnam, again, we were the foreigners dealing with insurgents, despite having some local allies.


Ours was not the only conflict going on there.


The Balkans were more of a civil war type situation than a pure government vs. insurgency scenario.

Which conflict?


Reading through the links and still looking for the argument a single man or a few men can defeat the US government in its current state, no matter what the firepower of the rebels. I'll keep looking.


http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/full-...%80%9Cvision%E2%80%9D-of-the-future

An interesting article in Small Wars Journal in that to me it in-itself supports the ideas I've been saying (about COIN being exceptionally difficult) while trying to outline a way to conduct a COIN war in America.




I also think I've tried to be pretty rational in most of the substance of the arguments I've posted (here's another one: no one ever mows down a bunch of schoolkids with a cannon)


Okay? That's not the point of the example though; the point of the example is that the founding fathers did in fact have very advanced/heavy/destructive weapons during their time and never once specifically stated 'citizens can't have these; only a musket. In their house.'

I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard for people on your side of the spectrum to just admit they want to change the Constitution of the United States of America.


, but I admit there's been a very strong undercurrent of emotion through all of it, too, I'm guilty as charged on that one. On either level, though, I don't think there's anything wrong with having someone advocating for the liberties of the children who were killed for once, not just on behalf of the ownership of the guns that killed them. Doesn't seem irrational to me.

When it comes to why I've been emotional, I think this hits you way harder if you have kids in a way you don't know (and I didn't know) until you have them.

For instance one Marine vet mom who has used guns for protection all her life, guarded her children with a gun close to her every night while they grew up, and once saw her father and brother killed in separate incidents by gun violence, said after this shooting she was no longer going to be a gun owner because a firearm is more likely to kill someone who lives in the home than an intruder, and because packing a gun didn't save her murdered relatives from not having a chance to react in time (she was on the news this past weekend on Chris Hayes' show); certainly, that observation and that statistic were available to her before, but the emotional impact of this shooting ironically made her more rational about accepting that data.

Certainly not saying anyone else should come to the same conclusion as her, we all have the right to own a gun in our home; just pointing out how having kids, even if you've supported gun rights all your life, has caused this tragedy to change a lot of minds that never would have otherwise.

I'll stop posting anything else on this issue in this thread, I've made my point. You guys made your points very well, too. This is a hard subject for anyone to change someone else's mind in a debate either way.


Not much to say about this part.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 18,2012 5:53pm
BSV said[orig][quote]
and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit


Yup, I can't stand that whiny shit about banning entertainment; censorship accomplishes nothing, and a violent video game is particularly meaningless when someone already has real-life training.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 6:06pm edited Dec 18,2012 6:08pm
BSV said[orig][quote]
Still can't find a connection with both father's testifying against LIBOR and how they brainwashed their sons to kill people in order for the 2nd Amendment to be revoked. That examiner link is just another link for a blog that re-blogged a rumor from Friday, same old boring theory with no details or critical thinking.
There are also people trying to connect some guy in China who stabbed and slashed 22 children on the same day to these shootings as well...right, like they're connected. The clear difference in China is that it takes alot of fucking effort to kill someone with a knife, therefore he only injured the victims, unlike Lanza shooting fish in a barrel.
At this point I feel it's more logical that the NRA could potentially be responsible for misinforming our country with the intention to stimulate sales out of fear, but fuck that. People treat the gov like god in the sense they just blame anything and everything they don't understand on it.
Everyone is an expert researcher in our 8 second generation but no one will ever have all the answers. More than half the people bitching about guns being removed don't even own a gun and will never have the balls to join a militia. The weak shall be crushed. Only nihilistic antagonism is real.


I havent really looked into it more than that article that Rich sent me so I havent done any research. it's interesting if true, but I think it's more of the Manchurian candidate type thing, rather than the father's doing it. it appears the allusion is they were brainwashed by the governmen, kind of like Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma City. I dont really buy into it though, I think this was some jealous kid that felt his mom loved her students more than him. Either way it's sliced, it's still fucked up. It's funny though because conspiracy whacks like Alex Jones have been talking about this shit for months, and now it looks like the government will really do something about it.



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 18,2012 6:12pm



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 6:21pm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/berg...al-security/index.html?c=homepage-t

THIS ARTICLE AND REASONING IS AWFUL. FUCK YOU CNN.

the msm is the propaganda of the country, so you know something will halpen soon.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 18,2012 6:32pm
Obnoxious article, but then again CNN is the liberal answer to Fox News. Both suck.



toggletoggle post by Randy_Marsh at Dec 18,2012 6:35pm
only cbs news crimesider is real



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 18,2012 6:36pm
I'd say MSNBC is more the left's answer to fox news. CNN isn't far behind though.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 18,2012 6:37pm
Oh, you mean Rupert Murdoch vs Ted Turner?



toggletoggle post by Randy_Marsh at Dec 18,2012 6:37pm
huff post can get pretty bad too, i like the way their site navigates though



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 19,2012 9:11am



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 19,2012 9:26am edited Dec 19,2012 9:46am
I think I'm sticking to my vow in not arguing anymore w/people about the second amendment in this thread to just say I completely agree that article is really awful. Where he really loses it, and the worst line: "Today, we are not likely to need to organize local militias for our defense now we have something called the Pentagon." Has the guy heard of Thomas Jefferson and the need of each generation to have the right to define its own destiny? It's one thing to acknowledge the history of the second amendment as an insurance policy against government intrusion but argue we realistically *couldn't* overcome the Pentagon's intelligence, manpower, and firepower today, and entirely another for this guy to suggest that even if we could overcome it, we're 100% sure we'd never need to someday in the future; in doing so, his article pretends what the Founders were saying about the second amendment as a counterbalance to tyranny never existed, and actually diminishes his own arguments against rapid fire weapons. The guy may as well have titled his article How Not To Write An Argument For My Own Side Of The Debate: 1. raise the topic of the second amendment by talking about local militias for defense while not even acknowledging the counterbalance to tyranny and the history of that - and then in the same fucking article, 2. make a case to take guns on *national security* grounds without a clue as to the chilling impression the combination of those two factors leaves. FAIL



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 19,2012 9:57am
Thomas Jefferson wrote that as a means of control to gain support for his cause. The "need of each generation to have the right to define his own destiny" were the words of a republican tyrant slandering a royal tyrant.

"[King George] has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions." - TJ, Declaration of Independence. Strong words for a champion of liberty and justice.

Anyway, second amendment will not go away and each state will interpret it as it pleases.




toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 19,2012 10:04am edited Dec 19,2012 10:04am
Imma amend your amendment to aphend and surrend your right to fight like a knight out of fright, nilla WAT

WAY TOO MUCH COFFEE THIS MORNING



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 19,2012 10:10am
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
BSV said[orig][quote]
and furthermore, I think there's a way better chance that video games will take a hit


Yup, I can't stand that whiny shit about banning entertainment; censorship accomplishes nothing, and a violent video game is particularly meaningless when someone already has real-life training.



I think the age of video game censorship has passed. Games are so ubiquitous now and so many more people know what they're about that the negative perspective toward them is sort of mitigated now. We went through this a thousand times since the 80's.

Even Rush Limbaugh said the other day "I don't know much about video games but I'm sure they weren't the cause of the shooting" or something like that.

Mainstream media might try to spin it around again, but hopefully people will realize that MSM sensationalizes violence for ratings as much as the most gratuitous video game does (but they probably won't)



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 19,2012 11:56am
True, maybe we're finally beyond the days we grew up in where videogame censorship was brought up in politics, the PMRC reigned, and there were civil trials for Judas Priest and Ozzy lyrics. If so, that's def progress.



toggletoggle post by Theguywhopostsok at Dec 19,2012 6:35pm
Here we go again.

It's funny. In South Korea, they have thousands of people going to stadiums to watch people play call Of duty with no problems whatsoever. Fucking reactionary pussified country we are..............



toggletoggle post by Burnsy at Dec 19,2012 6:37pm
Fuckin' dummies. It's Marilyn Manson.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 19,2012 6:57pm
Reality simulation. Been saying this for years.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 19,2012 7:44pm
"I have two boys, age 9, that want 'Call of Duty,' " said a CNN commenter using the screen name goldeneagle78, referring to the popular military-shooter game series. "They will NOT be getting it, or any other game that is rated above their age level."


Hey, wow I guess I shouldn't buy them the cigarettes and porn they wanted, either. LOL @ crying out for legislation when people don't even pay attention to the voluntary ratings.



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 20,2012 7:45am
i remember when the 90's had a huge epidemic of kids shooting ice and ripping each others heads and spines out, and curling up into a ball to generate electricity because of the horrors of games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 20,2012 8:46am
For a while it wasnt safe to walk near a boat because of the risk of getting hit by a man wearing red pajamas flying through the air with his leg out like a helicopter blade.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 20,2012 8:56am
yea man I remeber when some asshole in a blue suit would jump WITH HIS MOUTH OPEN, shooting eggs at everything. Guy was a total douche. Luckily, a dwarf in green with a giant axe who drank at the local tavern saved the world with his stellar defense.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Dec 20,2012 9:45am
dude remember that one time when that fat asshole when around turning all the animals into robots? What a dick. Thank fuck for that anthropomorphic blue hedgehog. Almost as bad as those aliens that showed up that one time. If it werent for that blue dude and his red twin we wouldve been fucked.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 20,2012 9:53am



toggletoggle post by KEVORD  at Dec 20,2012 10:06am
Remember in the 80s when kids started biting the heads off bats everywhere? Then we ran out bats and everyone got rabies. So they all started worshiping satan and fucking like a beast. I'm glad they invented slap bracelets near the end of that decade to kill these creatures.



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 20,2012 10:15am
^^^ tragedy redeemed



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 20,2012 10:35am
LOL Slap bracelets



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 20,2012 12:05pm



toggletoggle post by barren ark at Dec 20,2012 12:55pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
This is also apparent in our traditional disdain for socialism as well; we do not place a large value on comfort/ease of life if it involves hand holding.


This just jumped out at me. This assumes that socialism is actually == hand holding, because it is a sliding scale, and we live in a hybrid social democracy. Progressives over US history would like a word with you over that apparent traditional disdain. The true American luxury is that we have both. Be careful how you use the word, and imagine if the USA had absolutely no socialist economic policies (which there are no examples of in a "pure" democracy or the warped American version of it - it would have to be something more authoritarian)

Anyway I completely agree that guns and what they symbolize are a cultural pillar and will not go away. State's rights should have the right of way.

Now, the second amendment is all well and good, but while the public argues about that, Bush, Obama, and congress have been chipping away at the 5th amendment quietly.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 4:16pm
Yeti said[orig][quote]
i remember when the 90's had a huge epidemic of kids shooting ice and ripping each others heads and spines out, and curling up into a ball to generate electricity because of the horrors of games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter.


Those were the days when a kid couldn't pass by a Chinese market full of chickens without being kicked in the face by a girl in lingerie. Dark times.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 4:49pm
arilliusbm said[orig][quote]


This reminds me of the epidemic of kids launching Magitek armies and poisoning Japanese castles while laughing inappropriately.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 20,2012 4:56pm
Was going to jump into this one, but realized there'd be no room for debate with all theexplaining and education needed for some people making points here.

Shadow - I like you man, but you really ought to learn a little more about what you're discussing. And make short, simple points. The length of your posts shows you're talking in circles because you don't know what you're saying. If you could make a simple point, correcting you would be quite easy.

For instance - you know NOTHING about guns. From auto, semi-auto, "assault" weapons, magazines (guns haven't used clips in ages), current and past law, or even the fact that the two worst school massacres in US history were committed using a pair of pistols for one, and farm supplies for the other. Both higher victim counts than in Sandy Hook.

But we get it - you're scared of guns.





toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 5:19pm edited Dec 20,2012 5:20pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]

For instance - you know NOTHING about guns. From auto, semi-auto, "assault" weapons, magazines (guns haven't used clips in ages), current and past law, or even the fact that the two worst school massacres in US history were committed using a pair of pistols for one, and farm supplies for the other. Both higher victim counts than in Sandy Hook.

But we get it - you're scared of guns.


This times infinity. Why is it that this is the only debate were ignorance is for some reason an acceptable thing.

ShadowSD: Imagine if someone was arguing about gay people, drugs, evolution, etc. the same way you are about guns. They would sound like a complete idiot to you (I hope). You would most likely (and rightfully) disregard the majority of what they have to say.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 6:26pm edited Dec 20,2012 7:00pm
All I'm trying to say is I didn't see anyone here a week or month ago raising a stink about how automatic weapons are illegal, so why be scared now about having semi-automatic guns be illegal when they long had been anyway?

After all, semi-automatics are the only type of gun even being *talked* about as far as any gun control legislation; no one's talking about taking all guns away or changing the second amendment or anything awful like that. That will never happen, nor should it.

The death toll from mass shootings over the last few years compared to before has spiked, and as a result of large magazines. You have a chance to run from a pistol at least, those kids on Friday had no chance.

As far as the idea of me being scared, I was actually the one insisting to my wife my daughter go back to school on Monday, and that's what happened. To my wife (and most people really) the world seems more dangerous after something like this. The fact is it is no more so; it only revealed that their perceived sense of 100% security was always a fallacy. If anything the law of averages suggests the next school shooting will not be in CT again, so my daughter is actually safer now than before. That's how I react to this kind of stuff; I'm not scared by tragedies or even surprised by them in the least bit, not 9/11 (PaganMegan if she's lurking can vouch for how completely unshocked I was), and not any of the mass shootings, including this one. Tragedies happen. Guns exist. Killer exist.

But, even though I wasn't surprised or scared by it, this one still hurts a lot in a way no other has. If all it takes is going back to treating semi-automatics like automatics to prevent that high of a kill rate per minute, I'd be a shitty parent not to advocate for it.

I also don't think you guys are getting the same constant local news broadcasts of several funerals every day, and people in the town tearfully begging for reinstatement of reasonable restrictions against rapid fire weapons.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 6:28pm edited Dec 20,2012 6:29pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
All I'm trying to say is I didn't see anyone here a week or month ago raising a stink about how automatic weapons are illegal, so why be scared now about having semi-automatic guns be illegal when they long had been anyway?

After all, semi-automatics are the only type of gun even being *talked* about as far as any gun control legislation; no one's talking about taking all guns away or changing the second amendment or anything awful like that. That will never happen, nor should it.

The death toll from mass shootings over the last few years compared to before has spiked, and as a result of large magazines. You have a chance to run from a pistol at least, those kids on Friday had no chance.

As far as the idea of me being scared, I was actually the one insisting to my wife my daughter go back to school on Monday, and that's what happened. To my wife (and most people really) the world seems more dangerous after something like this. The fact is it is no more so; it only revealed that their perceived sense of 100% security was always a fallacy. If anything the law of averages suggests the next school shooting will not be in CT again, so my daughter is actually safer now than before. That's how I react to this kind of stuff; I'm not scared by tragedies or even surprised by them in the least bit, not 9/11 (PaganMegan if she's lurking can vouch for how completely unshocked I was), and not any of the mass shootings, including this one. Tragedies happen. Guns exist. Killer exist.

But, even though I wasn't surprised or scared by it, this one still hurts a lot in a way no other has. If all it takes is going back to treating semi-automatics like automatics to prevent that high of a kill rate per minute, I'd be a shitty parent not to advocate for it.

I also don't think you guys are getting the same constant local news broadcasts of several funeral every day, and people in the town tearfully begging for reinstatement of reasonable restrictions against rapid fire weapons.



You are just repeating all of the points that make it glaringly obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.


If you aren't going to learn anything about guns than at least stick with "I don't like guns, they hurt people, let's get rid of them" as your argument.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 20,2012 6:33pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

The death toll from mass shootings over the last few years compared to before has spiked, and as a result of large magazines. You have a chance to run from a pistol at least, those kids on Friday had no chance.


Why would you have more chance running from a pistol versus a rifle?






toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 20,2012 6:50pm
Pistol bullets travel at like 2mph, duh.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 7:03pm
Also this 'clip' (magazine) capacity thing is so ridiculous. How long do you think it takes to reload? I know this isn't helping my case I guess, but still.


bennyhillifier




toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 7:16pm edited Dec 20,2012 7:20pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
stick with "I don't like guns, they hurt people, let's get rid of them" as your argument.


Why should I say something that broad if I don't believe that? I would oppose that. Every American has a right to own a gun, it's only the rapid fire aspect that anyone has a problem with.

(Am I not permitted to say rapid fire or is that term acceptable? If not, let's say guns that shoot quickly and reload quickly, something muskets and cannons can't do but some weapons created over the last century can)

Hopefully I am getting my point across with at least that terminology, and I'm happy to correct my wording if I'm still using one term when I should be using another - just point it out and I'll correct the mistake and use the right word every time after that - just like I did in the top half of the thread when was pointed out I should have said magazine instead of clip, and I haven't repeated that error since. I'd rather correct myself than get bogged down on terminology instead of judged on substance.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 7:18pm edited Dec 20,2012 7:19pm
So you guys are arguing that a pistol could fire off as many accurate deadly shots in as short of a time as a Bushmaster?




toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 20,2012 7:20pm
Yes. How do you feel one semi auto is different from another? Pull the trigger, shoot a bullet.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 20,2012 7:24pm
Well, then my error is clear, not realizing the pistol fell into the semi-auto category as well; since it is, you're right, it would have the same kill capacity, but it would also be addressed by the same legislation one would think. (I got thrown because I thought the pistol was being cited as a non semi-auto that nonetheless did damage, not sure why the example was raised then).



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 7:25pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
So you guys are arguing that a pistol could fire off as many accurate deadly shots in as short of a time as a Bushmaster?



Yes, because it's a fact.

Stop saying 'Bushmaster' when you are referring to a type of rifle (the type you are referring to as-to-be-determined as far as I can tell, though...) as well.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 7:26pm edited Dec 20,2012 7:35pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
Well, then my error is clear, not realizing the pistol fell into the semi-auto category as well; since it is, you're right, it would have the same kill capacity, but it would also be addressed by the same legislation one would think. (I got thrown because I thought the pistol was being cited as a non semi-auto that nonetheless did damage, not sure why the example was raised then).


Okay than what about bolt action? Do you think they fire at a some sort of snails pace as well?


bennyhillifier


Or how about pump action?


bennyhillifier


Or lever action?


bennyhillifier

Or a single action revolver?


bennyhillifier

None of those are semi-automatic.


This is an example of an automatic-weapon:


bennyhillifier

It's also me . (I didn't pick the music).



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 20,2012 7:27pm
Off topic, but I must commend you guys for having an intelligent, non-bashing, conversation for once. It's a breath of fresh air. Carry on.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 20,2012 7:37pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
So you guys are arguing that a pistol could fire off as many accurate deadly shots in as short of a time as a Bushmaster?



Yes, because it's a fact.

Stop saying 'Bushmaster' when you are referring to a type of rifle (the type you are referring to as-to-be-determined as far as I can tell, though...) as well.


Haha, there's so many companies right now that make a .223 on an AR platform. I like how the liberal media just picked up on "Bushmaster " and ran with it. Retards.




toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 20,2012 7:46pm
Also that SAW looks way fucking awesome and I want one.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 20,2012 7:46pm
Shadow, do you think semi auto means it fires more than one bullet at a time?




toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 20,2012 7:57pm edited Dec 20,2012 8:10pm
EDIT: In light of the subject matter of this thread and the good discussions it's creating, I think I won't go off topic. But yes I think the MK249 is a very solid weapon.




toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 20,2012 9:56pm
Indeed.



toggletoggle post by ernie   at Dec 21,2012 5:12am
I like loud noises



toggletoggle post by Yeti at Dec 21,2012 7:38am
SAW = awesome
Disturbed = not so much



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 8:23am
OK, so then I'm better off using the term "rapid fire" like I did in my most recent post, instead of just saying semi-automatics, since as you correctly pointed out, there are rapid fire guns that aren't semi-automatics.

Good point, thank you for bringing it to my attention. That's something I honestly didn't know and should have.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 8:34am
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
Shadow, do you think semi auto means it fires more than one bullet at a time?


Nah, I just had incorrectly assumed all rapid fire weapons fall in either the semi-automatic category or fully automatic category. I now get that they do not.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 8:39am edited Dec 21,2012 8:52am
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
Haha, there's so many companies right now that make a .223 on an AR platform. I like how the liberal media just picked up on "Bushmaster " and ran with it. Retards.


I thought the police recovered a Bushmaster .223 from the crime scene, no? Thought I read that in several different places.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/bushma...ting-a-lightning-rod-in-gun-debate/

If there's no evidence that was the gun used and it's just speculation by the media, that's incredibly irresponsible. Do you have any proof that might be the case?

(Also, I just have to point out in response to "stop saying Bushmaster", I said it a total of one time before your post. The first person to introduce the term in this thread was Arrowhead, and it was used twice more after that before I said it, each time by the anti-gun control side of the argument.)



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 21,2012 8:53am
You missed both of our points completely.

Bushmaster = company
.223 = caliber
AR-15 = style of rifle

Rapid fire? No such term. Boozegod's point was that a trained shooter could do just as much damage with a pump action shotgun, a lever action rifle, or even a revolver as the firearms that the liberals have coined assault weapons.

Hope that helps.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 9:02am edited Dec 21,2012 9:11am
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
Rapid fire? No such term. Boozegod's point


That's interesting, because most of the videos Boozegod cited to make his point say "Rapid Fire" in the title. At the very least, you can see how that might be a bit confusing.


largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
was that a trained shooter could do just as much damage with a pump action shotgun, a lever action rifle, or even a revolver as the firearms that the liberals have coined assault weapons.


That's a valid point. I get it. The ability to fire and reload quickly is what causes the destruction, not just semi-automatics specifically.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 21,2012 10:05am
"Rapid fire" refers to something you are doing, not referring to the mechanical action of a firearm.

But yeah, that's why it makes no sense to ban semi-auto rifles, handguns, and shotguns: with some skill and creativity, other types of firearms can do just as much damage.

Did I mention my favorite waterfowl gun is a Benelli Super Black Eagle II? That's a semi-auto shotgun by the way.



toggletoggle post by a duck at Dec 21,2012 10:11am
::quack:: BAN SEMI-AUTO SHOTGUNS ::quack quack::



toggletoggle post by ark at Dec 21,2012 10:15am
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
firearms that the liberals have coined assault weapons.
NOT THIS LIBERAL KHED



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Dec 21,2012 10:18am
PLEASE


BAN CALL OF DUTY



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 21,2012 10:19am
Lol @ the duck



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 21,2012 10:28am
I look forward to a duck's contributions to our community.



toggletoggle post by a duck at Dec 21,2012 10:36am
did you hear what adam lanzas psychologist said about him? Apparently he was a real QUACK.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 21,2012 10:37am
ark said[orig][quote]
largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
firearms that the liberals have coined assault weapons.
NOT THIS LIBERAL KHED


Sorry, all gun-grabbers are liberal, but not all liberals are gun-grabbers. My bad.



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 21,2012 10:37am
ITT: a duck delivers



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 21,2012 10:41am
Clearly all this tragic violence is due to these new-fangled flintlock weapons. Civilians should be restricted to matchlocks, for the good of the Empire. The arquebus is sufficient for the colonials. [/Outraged 17th century British twit]





toggletoggle post by Samantha at Dec 21,2012 11:07am edited Dec 21,2012 11:16am
Every time I read this thread, it feels like I'm repeatedly banging my head against a wall. This is in no way an offense to anyone as I've definitely seen some intelligent discussion here.

Here is my take on things: There are always going to be dangerous people in the world. Guns aren't the problem. The more we regulate the ability of average people to defend themselves, the more helpless people will become, and the more power government and police will have over society. (Nazi Germany, anyone?)

Do you ever wonder why people who live out in the country own shotguns? Because the police can't get to their house in time, and they need to be able to fend for themselves. Now, think about how many good rural folks would be the victims of crime if the powers that be took away their means of defense.

Granted, my view is that of someone who grew up in Vermont and never realized until nearly reaching adulthood that, if someone breaks into your house, and you shoot them, fight them, or defend yourself in any way, that is illegal in some states (Massachusetts for example). You can go to jail like a common criminal just for defending yourself. How ridiculous is that?

What happened at Sandy Brook was a horrible tragedy, but don't let those emotions sway you enough to allow the government to take away your freedoms. Soon enough, the laws could become so invasive that people may demand a revolution, but they will have no way to fight for it... because the government already tugged at our heart strings enough to take away our 2nd amendment rights.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 1:57pm edited Dec 21,2012 2:07pm
No one is talking about taking away all shotguns (let alone in rural areas where first response time is shit), I've never heard anybody say that in this thread or anywhere in the national political discussion about this; as many people in this thread have correctly pointed out, some guns that aren't semi-automatic can still be used to fire rapidly including some shotguns - but that doesn't mean EVERY gun falls into that category and would be subject to gun control. That's way too broad an extrapolation.


largefreakatzero said[orig][quote]
Sorry, all gun-grabbers are liberal


A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy, it's not breaking down along the usual lines. However, like I said above, I think it will take a few shootings in a short time involving many small caskets - not just one such shooting - for the politics to shift to where Congress isn't owned by the NRA lobby, and could pass something meaningful anyway.



toggletoggle post by Samantha at Dec 21,2012 2:16pm
Criminals aren't the only people with semi-automatic or rapid firing weapons, but if they're made illegal, the only people who will have them will be exactly that... criminals. The problem with gun legislation is that criminals don't follow gun laws. They can obtain weapons by illegal means, and that leaves all of the good law abiding people out of luck.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 2:37pm
But that begs the question: is the fact fully automatic weapons like machine guns have been banned since 1934 a bad thing thing in your eyes? If not, then isn't it an example of how reasonable controls can work in a country with the second amendment, and have for nearly a century?




toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 2:40pm
An evidence-based counterargument that more guns overall helps the criminals and doesn't hurt them:

In Australia, in 1996, a man killed 35 people in the course of an afternoon rampage. Australia soon went from having relaxed gun laws to having tough gun laws, including such common-sense measures as character witnesses for people who want to own a gun, and the purchase of a safebolted to the wall or floor. There are still plenty of hunters in Australia, but it hasn’t had a mass killing since.

South Africa may be an even better example. For many years, South Africa was a country every bit as gun-soaked as America. I have a friend, Greg Frank, a hedge fund manager in Charlottesville, Va., who lived in Johannesburg during a time when it had become so crime-ridden that people felt the need to own guns to protect themselves. He, too, owned a gun as a young man: “I made the excuse that I needed it for self-protection.”

The guns didn’t make anybody safer. People who were held up while waiting at a red light rarely had time to pull out their guns. And the fact that so many homes had guns became an incentive for criminals, who would break in, hold the family hostage, and then order that the safe with the guns be opened. “Everyone knew someone who had family or friends who had experienced gun violence,” he said.

Finally, he says, people got fed up. In 2004, the laws changed, requiring annual relicensing, character witnesses and other measure to keep guns out of the wrong hands. There was also an appeal to voluntarily surrender guns.

“I took my gun to the police station,” recalls Frank. “The cop receiving it wrote down the serial number, took my ID, and I was gone. It felt transformational, like a huge weight off my shoulders.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/...=1355872230-sWzc4J+DpSSC0Nitt1ewcg&



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 2:47pm
I had a long response typed out...

But let's keep it short: Shadow, you're clueless about guns. Admittedly. Maybe
read a LOT about guns (not just googling articles and laws that support your
opinion) and defensive shooting, and then come back and tell us all we should have
access to is a gun meant for hunting BIRDS.

The entire point of a defensive weapon is to shoot a person. That involves, often, multiple rounds fired in quick succession. You believe we should have this ability taken away?

Food for thought:

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., just 4 days before the school shooting in Conn., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance ...




toggletoggle post by old lady at Dec 21,2012 2:50pm
this guy arrow is a fucking tool



toggletoggle post by ark at Dec 21,2012 2:54pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy
dude...it's because they need votes the next election.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 2:56pm
old%20lady said[orig][quote]
this guy arrow is a fucking tool


Terrible new troll, go away. Come back as aril next time.




toggletoggle post by ark at Dec 21,2012 2:57pm
if a mass shooting changes somebody's mind about gun control then they were never well-informed, live willfully in their confirmation bias bubble, or a reactionary politician.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 3:05pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
An evidence-based counterargument that more guns overall helps the criminals and doesn't hurt them:

In Australia,

South Africa may be an even better example.



Unlike America, neither of these countries started out with over 300,000,000 firearms already in circulation. Wouldn't work here.




toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 3:07pm
ark said[orig][quote]
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
A lot of elected leaders with high lifetime ratings from the NRA have changed their minds on this issue after this tragedy
dude...it's because they need votes the next election.


Oh no question, that's my point, they've shifted some because the voters in their district have shifted some; the question was whether things had gone beyond the usual ideological lines of this debate among voters or not, and that's what I was addressing.




toggletoggle post by BSV at Dec 21,2012 3:21pm



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 3:28pm edited Dec 21,2012 3:32pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
(not just googling articles and laws that support your
opinion)


That's not true at all,. I clicked on the link for that article from realclearpolitics.com, a digest site with articles from different points of view but a conservative editorial staff, where I read articles at least as many columns by conservatives as by liberals, if not more. I disagreed with the pro-gun control article CNN wrote. I immediately read the COIN article Boozegod posted, and I accepted you guys' corrections on gun terminology. After all that, I don't think it's fair to say I only listen to viewpoints that re-enforce my own, if so why would I have raised this topic of all topics in this forum of all places?


Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
The entire point of a defensive weapon is to shoot a person. That involves, often, multiple rounds fired in quick succession. You believe we should have this ability taken away?


Multiple rounds fired in quick succession didn't exist in the days of the writing of the second amendment so often cited to justify that ability. Is this really an insignificant point?

Your best point is the stats about gun violence being stopped by gun owners, that's a pretty compelling argument - although, I wonder what the comparison would be gun violence stopped by gun owners with guns that have the ability to fire and reload quickly versus not, and *particularly* I'd want to know of examples where having a gun without the ability to fire and reload quickly FAILED to stop gun violence because it was inadequate firepower to do. I think enough examples like that would make your case more convincing, because if there are more deaths from that specific circumstance of not having sufficient firing and reloading speed than there are from mass shootings caused by weapons that do, that would actually convince me that I have it wrong on this; as it stands, with these broader statistics, it's more of going back to the old standby of defending the virtues of all guns in general as if anyone's talking about banning them all, which they aren't.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 3:46pm edited Dec 21,2012 3:55pm
Another example of how I don't google only friendly sources... the 1934 date of when machine guns were banned that I mentioned to Samantha is a fact I found on guncite.com, which is a pro-gun-rights site. Some other facts they posted, and from a book by a pro gun-rights author:

in Targeting Guns, Kleck writes, four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere. Kleck cites several examples:

- Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.

- A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.

- 16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html



It appears that criminals didn't find illegal guns much easier to get than civilians after all.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 3:54pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]



Multiple rounds fired in quick succession didn't exist in the days of the writing of the second amendment so often cited to justify that ability. Is this really an insignificant point?


Insignificant? Yes.

The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours.

Pretty sure the amendment had zero to do with hunting, or home robbery. In fact, when the constitution was written, did people even lock their doors against their neighbors? No. They didn't.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 4:14pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government


Yes, and trying to apply that to today brings us back to nukes. Should we each have one to match the government? The government has them and we don't. Also, again, what about machine guns? The government has them and we don't.

Doesn't this all suggest the ship sailed on "the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government" a long time ago? Is there any other conclusion? If so, what is it?



toggletoggle post by Samantha at Dec 21,2012 4:19pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]


The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours.



Yes. This.

It's also worth pointing out that we would have never won the revolutionary war if it hadn't been for average people who had stockpiles of weapons.

One could easily use the same logic that people are using today (regarding the increased technological advances of guns) by asking why a farmer in the 1700s would need a cannon. They needed it to defend themselves against a corrupt government, that's what!



toggletoggle post by Spence at Dec 21,2012 4:23pm edited Dec 21,2012 4:24pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours.






toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 4:27pm edited Dec 21,2012 4:29pm
Samantha said[orig][quote]
One could easily use the same logic that people are using today (regarding the increased technological advances of guns) by asking why a farmer in the 1700s would need a cannon. They needed it to defend themselves against a corrupt government, that's what!



No way. What civilians in a potential mass shooting would stand around waiting for a cannon to keep reloading and firing? The need of people to not be gunned down en masse like fish in a barrel is the specific logic I'm using, so it wouldn't work for a cannon at all. The government also had no nukes or machine guns or other weapons far stronger than the citizenry, as they do today, so the comparison does not work.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 4:38pm edited Dec 21,2012 4:41pm
Spence said[orig][quote]
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
The intent behind the constitutional amendment was the ability to arm ourselves equally to our government or any invading nation. As their guns got more powerful, so do ours.






You guys aren't hearing me, I agree with that principle 100%, but explain how we haven't already fallen short of that principle by being outgunned by our government with their nukes and machine guns and our inability as citizens to possess them.



toggletoggle post by Samantha at Dec 21,2012 4:43pm



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 4:56pm edited Dec 21,2012 5:06pm
I just want people to be consistent, that's all. If the case you guys are making is that the legislation being suggested would make us for the first time less armed than the government, that simply isn't true, we have been so for a long time.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 5:37pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
I just want people to be consistent, that's all. If the case you guys are making is that the legislation being suggested would make us for the first time less armed than the government, that simply isn't true, we have been so for a long time.


Give an example of a government nuking it's citizens in a civil war.

As far as battlefield weapons, they're great for battlefields. Not so good for suburban combat. A well armed militia of semi-auto rifles and handguns has a fighting chance against such weaponry. With what you propose, we'd be giving that up completely.

You're the guy that says "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" every time there's a police shooting in the news, aren't you? It seems your knowledge and impression of firearms comes from movies and T.V., where nothing is realistic at all.






toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 6:53pm
Never said "why didn't they shoot them in the leg" once, not sure where you're getting that. Leg's damn hard to hit. Aside from that, lots of credit to you for actually addressing my question.

Interesting point about nukes (although it does kind of go in the face of not letting the government be better armed than us - an argument that says trust them for historical reasons). One wonders, if government truly became tyrannical though, what still stops them from using some sort of weapon of mass destruction, perhaps chemical or biological if you don't believe nuclear? Syria's Assad nearly used chemical weapons on his own people several weeks ago, and only pulled back under threat of massive retaliation from other countries; if the US government became tyrannical, it's hard to see any other nations being in a position to have the kind of influence to stop that kind of attack. I find it hard to wager everything that a tyranny powerful enough to overcome over two centuries of democracy would be filled examples of great sympathy; trying to keep that faith in decency of the government alongside the inherent distrust of government at the same time just seems too much a contradiction to me. That's such a narrow if not completely implausible intersection of possibilities.

Interesting point about machine guns, although I wonder if machine guns are so poor for suburban combat why they were so popular with organized crime and why anyone bothered banning them in suburban streets. Would be interested in your thoughts on this.

I also wonder how a militia would overcome government's vast intelligence capabilities, classified weapons technology of which we are not even aware, and the number of trained armed services personnel in terms of how well-trained and how many well-trained soldiers there are, something which has really changed in recent decades. I'm still combing through Boozegod's links that were provided trying to find a case for that being realistic. Anyone has a direct link to this argument anywhere, I'd like to read it.

A couple of my closest friends who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'm going to be seeing over the next few days; one was in the Army, the other the Army Reserves, I'm interested to hear their opinions on this. I wonder if they think a militia could resist the US military and intelligence as it stands today.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 7:21pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

Interesting point about machine guns, although I wonder if machine guns are so poor for suburban combat why they were so popular with organized crime and why anyone bothered banning them in suburban streets.


It's not a subject I'm incredibly familiar with, but I'd assume the mafia loved the tommy guns for the same reason they likes many ruthless and brutal methods - intimidation. And banning them, again, I'd assume likewise. People were intimidated by the raw firepower.

Regarding warfare, however, that firepower has tradeoffs. One is accuracy. The other is how fast you deplete your ammo. You'll note in most tactical suburban situations, from Iraqi footage to even your favorite C.O.D. game, the more portable and accurate weapons are greatly preferred when you're on the move.


I also wonder how a militia would overcome government's vast intelligence capabilities,


Are you talking about the vast intelligence capabilities from the Gene Hackman/Will Smith movie? Or the vast intelligence capabilities from the Shea Lebouf movie? Or maybe the intelligence that led the Bush administration to invade a Iraq under false pretense, or took nearly a decade to locate a single terrorist?

Warfare isn't as complex as you think it is. Again, just look at any number of the suburban conflicts going on worldwide. All the intelligence in the world isn't all that helpful when the enemy is rooted deeply, and well armed.




toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 21,2012 7:25pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]

A couple of my closest friends who served in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars I'm going to be seeing over the next few days; one was in the Army, the other the Army Reserves, I'm interested to hear their opinions on this. I wonder if they think a militia could resist the US military and intelligence as it stands today.


LOL, if they spent time in Afghanistan and Iraq, they should be freakin EXPERTS on militia resisting US military and intelligence. They were dealing with it daily, and a dozen years later we STILL can't get them under control.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 21,2012 7:58pm
Foreign occupations are always ultimately self-defeating, though.

Intelligence is why we've killed most of the top terrorist leaders we have now that the government isn't cooking the books on intelligence, so I wouldn't understate it TOO much based only on an intelligence fraud perpetrated by the previous administration to start a war against Iraq they planned on from the beginning. In the last few years the intelligence community has had lots of successes that can't be dismissed just based on the previous admin.

I honestly haven't seen either of the movies you're talking about to be able to comment on them, and I haven't gotten to play COD either. Recommend any of them?



toggletoggle post by Nigstitutional Scholar at Dec 21,2012 8:09pm
At the time of its writing, the second amendment only applied to 1 in 5 Americans.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 22,2012 1:19pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
But that begs the question: is the fact fully automatic weapons like machine guns have been banned since 1934 a bad thing thing in your eyes?



Come on man, yet again do your research.

An American civilian can own a machine gun, rocket launcher, grenade launcher, tank, etc. legally. They are not banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

And here is the link to the 1934 'ban' you are speaking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act


These are civilian owned weapons:


bennyhillifier

Again this probably isn't helping my cause; but education is more important anyways. In the end everyone just wants your side of the argument to admit what you really think; from there maybe we can work something out. Stop pretending you are only trying to ban this-or-that-or-the-other while 'fully supporting the 2nd amendment'. It's just not reality and this whole argument would be much easier if you would admit as such.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Dec 22,2012 10:28pm
OK, well, according to guncite.com, they were banned in 1934 with very few exceptions, and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details.

If your point is that guncite has their facts wrong on this, I'm willing to accept that - but this was a pro-gun rights site I got this information from so I did do some research and certainly not from a source that agrees with me.

After all, with everything that's been said in this thread especially, I figured you'd be more sympathetic to the arguments of a pro-gun rights source, whereas wikipedia has been called not conservative enough by so many conservatives (to the point where they invented conservapedia) that I thought anything I got there would be deemed by you guys as liberal echo chamber tripe.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 22,2012 10:38pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
OK, well, according to guncite.com, they were banned in 1934 with very few exceptions, and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details.

If your point is that guncite has their facts wrong on this, I'm willing to accept that



In this case, unless Boozegood can correct me, you are actually correct. Without military or police authority you cannot own them.

In fact, the Blackwater company got in a shitload of trouble trying to skirt these laws by keeping their guns with the local sherrif when they were in the states.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 22,2012 11:07pm edited Dec 22,2012 11:52pm
You are both incorrect. As proof I am sure there are more than one person on this board alone that have been to Manchester Firing Lines for example and shot machine guns.

They are Class 3 weapons.

Gun-Cite says nothing about them being banned ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html )

And as far as the Blackwater example goes, you are also incorrect. I am a PMC myself so I have experience with that.

The incident you are referring to was not an issue of automatic-weapons (though the weapons in question were select-fire): http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/267607.php



I would do a LOT of research into PMCs before you start talkng about them as well or else you will sound like the un-deducated gun-controll folks we are talking about in this thread.






toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 22,2012 11:32pm edited Dec 22,2012 11:44pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
and in 1986 they were banned completely; I posted the link above with the details.


Ah, I see the confusion. Being banned in 1986 means that all Machine-Guns manufactored after 1986 cannot be sold. It's similar to the 'Assault-Weapons' Ban, ie. the AWB is still active in Massachusetts but if you have a lower-reciever witha serial number that dates pre-1994 (the year of the AWB) you can build whatever sort of rifle you would like around it.


This is a lower reciever, for reference purposes:





If the parts of the Machine-Gun that are considered the 'gun' are manufactured before 1986; it is still legal for civilians to own it.



For example here is a civilian owned grenade launcher attached to a civilian owned automatic weapon:


bennyhillifier



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 22,2012 11:59pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]

I would do a LOT of research into PMCs before you start talkng about them as well or else you will sound like the undeducated gun-controll folks we are taliing about in this thread.


I assure you, I'm very well deducated. Whatever that means.

From what I've read, Blackwater was storing weapons they were not legally allowed to possess on US soil, and were using the Sherrif's storage to skirt the issue. Quite a few sites present it this way as well. And further, quite a few PMC (private military contractors, as acronyms are for faggots and most here won't know what you're saying) have long been in the practice of purchasing and arming themselves outside the country to skirt similar rules.

So while you may have a point that somehow some machine guns are legal to own, I'm sure you know exactly how much that argument exists on technicality and loopholes. Or, could you explain how I could go get MYSELF a fully automatic rifle? Last I looked even your class 3 weapons are illegal in a third of the country.

It's like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because you saw one at an auto show.

I am not really on the other side of the argument from you. We agree, mostly. But you're trying way to hard to give the impression that a machine gun can be purchased and owned by the average FID carrier, which is bullshit.






toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 23,2012 12:39am edited Dec 23,2012 12:50am
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]

I assure you, I'm very well deducated. Whatever that means.

Posting from my phone.

From what I've read, Blackwater was storing weapons they were not legally allowed to possess on US soil, and were using the Sherrif's storage to skirt the issue. Quite a few sites present it this way as well.

You read wrong, than. Did you read the link I posted? That was not the issue at all. Also; the weapons were being stored on the BW compound, the Sherrif's department did not have an armory.

And further, quite a few PMC (private military contractors, as acronyms are for faggots and most here won't know what you're saying) have long been in the practice of purchasing and arming themselves outside the country to skirt similar rules.

That's not how it works at all ("skirting rules"), but okay. For instance all the weapons I use are furnished by the US Department of State when we are in country.

So while you may have a point that somehow some machine guns are legal to own, I'm sure you know exactly how much that argument exists on technicality and loopholes. Or, could you explain how I could go get MYSELF a fully automatic rifle? Last I looked even your class 3 weapons are illegal in a third of the country.

There are no technicalities or loopholes, they are NFA firearms.


And sure, if you really want one:

http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/nfaFAQ.html


It's like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because you saw one at an auto show.

No, it would be like saying a 1957 Chevy is street legal because I have driven one legally on the street myself multiple times.

I am not really on the other side of the argument from you. We agree, mostly. But you're trying way to hard to give the impression that a machine gun can be purchased and owned by the average FID carrier, which is bullshit.


No I'm not. I've said they aren't easy to possess more then once in this thread in fact. I'm saying that they are legal for civilians to own. That's all. I'm stating facts to correct conjecture by the gun-control advocates in this thread who are under the impression that it is illegal for civilians to own automatic weapons, grenade launchers, tanks, artillery, etc.

I'm not arguing or insulting anyone or at least I'm trying not to. I'm stating facts; that's all.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 1:24am
You're stating facts, but you're confusing the issue beyond belief. Shadow was confused about "rapid fire". Instead of clarifying, your tangent has made things confusing enough that even I, someone who fired their first gun over 30 years ago, have no idea what you're trying to prove about machine guns.

My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing.

And in states where class 3 weapons are legal to own, ownership is NOT granted through local authorities like a firearm permit. You may feel you said it already, but again I'm on your side and I sure didn't catch it.

No offense man, but you make our side of the issue look a little scary when you emphasize the facts that get blown out of proportion by the anti-gun groups.









toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 23,2012 2:06am edited Dec 23,2012 2:10am
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
You're stating facts, but you're confusing the issue beyond belief. Shadow was confused about "rapid fire". Instead of clarifying, your tangent has made things confusing enough that even I, someone who fired their first gun over 30 years ago, have no idea what you're trying to prove about machine guns.


There is nothing confusing about it. Machine-guns are legal.



My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing.

I'm from Massachusetts


And in states where class 3 weapons are legal to own, ownership is NOT granted through local authorities like a firearm permit. You may feel you said it already, but again I'm on your side and I sure didn't catch it.


All I did was say they are legal.

No offense man, but you make our side of the issue look a little scary when you emphasize the facts that get blown out of proportion by the anti-gun groups.



I don't care if facts are scary or not; just that they are facts.



The reason it is important to state the facts as they are is because gun-control advocates often say things like 'well a civilians can't own artillery so why should they own a ____', or 'a civilian can't own a machine-gun so why should they own a ____', etc. (it's been said in this thread).


It's unimportant whether this frightens them or not; they have already made up their mind. I just want them to admit what it actually is because they seem to sugar-coat the fact that they do in fact want to ban the majority of firearms.

This is the same reason I posted the rapid-fire videos; some will say 'okay than we need to ban ___ and ___' until all we have is single shot Derringers we can't take out of our house; which they will still claim is 'supporting the 2nd amendment'.


I've already admitted it is self-defeating in a way but it is still important.




They DO NOT 'support the 2nd amendment' (as they often like to say they do), they support the idea that Americans should be able to have some sort of gun. There is a huge difference.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 2:10pm
It IS self defeating, and it is the type of argument that will (very easily) get turned against gun owners.

If you're going to make your points, I just feel the emphasis needs to be on making sure to mention the additional vetting required, and the differentiation between concealed carry/FID and the additional vetting required to get approval from the ATF to purchase or transfer a class 3 weapon.




toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 2:13pm
Boozegood said[orig][quote]


My point about buying an auto, for the record, is because I live in one of the states where it is NOT legal. You're spoiled by NH, I'm guessing.

I'm from Massachusetts




You'll definitely need to further educate us then, because so am I and I'm pretty sure class 3 weapons are not legal to own in massachussets, or at the least I'm positive they're not allowed at any of the gun ranges I've been to in the last 25 years.




toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 23,2012 3:45pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]
It IS self defeating, and it is the type of argument that will (very easily) get turned against gun owners.


If the gun-control folks want to use facts against me in an argument, I welcome it. It would be a nice change of pace. I am prepared to to debate; I have no reason not to educate people that are in support of gun-control but are not knowledgeable about guns or gun laws.

If you're going to make your points, I just feel the emphasis needs to be on making sure to mention the additional vetting required, and the differentiation between concealed carry/FID and the additional vetting required to get approval from the ATF to purchase or transfer a class 3 weapon.


Why?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Dec 23,2012 3:46pm edited Dec 23,2012 4:17pm
Arrow%20NLI said[orig][quote]

You'll definitely need to further educate us then, because so am I and I'm pretty sure class 3 weapons are not legal to own in massachussets, or at the least I'm positive they're not allowed at any of the gun ranges I've been to in the last 25 years.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts#Machine_gun_license

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin...e-get-a-Machine-Gun-license-in-mass



From your previous posts it sounds as if you have an FID/LTC. The form to get a FID/LTC is the same form used to get a Machine-Gun license. You checked the FID/LTC portion which is in the same section as the Machine-Gun licensing option.

Here is a screenshot I took underlining the above:





toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 4:55pm
My FID lapsed over 10+ years ago. I don't want a firearm where I live now, as it's more likely to be stolen than to save my life.

Once I get a house, I'll have an FID again.




toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 4:55pm
RE: forms - one goes to the ATF, the other is approved by local law enforcement. BIG difference.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 4:57pm
Stupid that I have to log in to edit - how would I troll then?

Anyhoo - I could be completely wrong. Last time I was issued a carry permit I filled out the form and the C.O.P. in Plymouth issued my card. I also was there with my dad, who's still an avid shooter and treasurer of the local gun range.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI at Dec 23,2012 4:59pm
Looking at your image, there was DEFINITELY nothing about machine guns on the forms I've filled out. I would have wanted one right away if I had seen that.




toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Dec 25,2012 4:38pm
Good thing it was against the law for this guy to own guns: http://m.newser.com/story/159859/ny-shoote...-i-like-best-is-killing-people.html

Oh wait...



toggletoggle post by dreadkill  at Dec 25,2012 7:12pm
But he used a bushmaster 223 like Adam Lanza. This gun is intentionally going around killing people. Ban bushmaster 223s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



toggletoggle post by DestroyYouAlot  at Dec 26,2012 6:33am edited Dec 26,2012 6:36am
I can't find the section where you apply to own an Phobos pattern boltgun. My local police chief has not been overly helpful in this.






toggletoggle post by the_reverend   at Dec 26,2012 8:29am
dreadkill said[orig][quote]
But he used a bushmaster 223 like Adam Lanza. This gun is intentionally going around killing people. Ban bushmaster 223s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and the award for the most racist sounding gun goes to... Seriously gun sounds racist.



toggletoggle post by xmikex at Dec 26,2012 8:55am
Went home for Christmas. Found out my brother was literally filling out paperwork to buy an AR when he found out about the school shooting.



toggletoggle post by Hoser at Dec 26,2012 10:24am
Wow....I'm glad I stayed out of this one. I already have an AK and an M4. I've watched the thread develop and giggled at the anti-gunners. If the shit ever hit the fan, these pussies will be running for the safety of their armed friends.

Also, I like Boozegod. Something tells me that he was a Marine as well?



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 1,2013 6:50pm
No rifle was used in the CT shooting by the way. Good job again world media.



toggletoggle post by arilliusbm  at Jan 1,2013 7:35pm
I thought it was strange when this first happened that it took a solid hour and a half for them to say something about rifle being used.. and it was apparently found in a car. Then I hear them saying a rifle was used in the school, then there was onle one rifle.



toggletoggle post by trioxin245  at Jan 2,2013 8:07am
I figured aril bumped this thread to say 'HEIL HYDRA.' I AM DISAPPOINT.



toggletoggle post by Arrow NLI ... on weed? at Jan 2,2013 11:25am
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
No rifle was used in the CT shooting by the way. Good job again world media.


I stopped following the news. When was this claimed? Everything weeks ago said all the shots except his suicide were with the rifle.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 2,2013 1:58pm
Upon researching this, Boozegod is right, search for the NBC Today Show clip with Pete Williams retracting their earlier report.

Turns out the gun that was left in the trunk was actually the rifle, and he used the semi-automatic handguns to kill everyone.

(Which oddly enough, backs up people on both sides in this thread: the anti-gun control side for pointing out the damage done by weapons other than just rifles, and the pro-gun control side response to that saying any bans would have to affect all weapons capable of firing rapidly.)

My take: mistakes like these by the media come from them getting partial information early on, put together with second-hand accounts from witnesses that may not be accurate ("he had a big gun and a little gun" was a quote from a small child that may have added to the misdirection), and the media feeling the demand from the public to report something instead of waiting a couple weeks for investigators to get less tight-lipped; as a result, early reports on details in these sorts of scenarios are always subject to change in the weeks that follow. That sounds a lot less exciting than some alternate conspiracy theory which I'm sure someone somewhere on the interwebz is selling, but it has the benefit of being almost certainly what happened. Chaos leads to a need for answers. Impatience leads to incorrect answers. It's human nature and a story as old as time.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 2,2013 1:58pm
Hoser said[orig][quote]
If the shit ever hit the fan, these pussies will be running for the safety of their armed friends.


PLS SV ME HOSR



toggletoggle post by largefreakatzero at Jan 2,2013 2:04pm
Today's media is the bottom of the barrel. Print media can't sell papers, and hence they hire half-retarded nubiles whose idea of research is the first page in a Google search. TV media has always been a piece of shit and is completely bought and paid for by whatever parent company owns the station.

It's best to believe nothing you watch or read.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 3,2013 9:26am edited Jan 3,2013 9:35am
Boozegood said[orig][quote]
Ah, I see the confusion. Being banned in 1986 means that all Machine-Guns manufactored after 1986 cannot be sold.


Exactly, here's the text from the guncite link I posted above, which I probably should have posted from the start for clarity's sake, because I didn't know all the specifics until I had read it myself:

"It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians."


Considering how few Americans have died from machine guns in the last eighty years, this level of control shows a track record of success, and disproves the argument that controls don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

What I really wonder is, since - as you pointed out - you can get a machine gun as a law-abiding citizen despite these restrictions - why shouldn't this be the model for how all weapons capable of firing rapidly are regulated?

Personally, all I want is what works, not more gun restrictions in every case: for instance, since the 1934 restrictions on machine guns were adequate, I don't see that the extra regulations in 1986 were necessary; I would be for a compromise that dropped the 1986 restrictions and went back to the 1934 standard for machine guns in return for that standard being also applied to all weapons capable of quickly firing and reloading. That way law-abiding citizens have them, and criminals don't.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 14,2013 5:12pm



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 14,2013 5:28pm edited Jan 14,2013 5:41pm
Kent State is just another reason why I wouldn't want armed government security in public schools as a response to Sandy Hook the way the gun lobby in DC is calling for. Good for Ron Paul for standing up to the NRA on that one, unfortunately 51% of Congress gets donations from the NRA and is in their back pocket.


Ron Paul blasts NRA plan for ‘Orwellian surveillance state'

Texas congressman and erstwhile Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is distancing himself from the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s plan calling for massively increased security in schools. According to Politico, the Libertarian Paul said that “government security is just another kind of violence.”

In a statement on his website, Paul railed against the expansion of federal government powers and characterized the NRA’s plan, as put forth Friday in a press conference by the group’s chief lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the pursuit of “unobtainable safety,” and said “School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.”

“Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal,” he wrote, “because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another.”

Paul insisted that calls for stricter regulation on guns are doomed to be ineffective because of “the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.”

However, according to an extensive study released by researchers at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health in October of this year, states like Maryland that restrict access to guns by high-risk populations like drug and alcohol abusers and residents under 21 do enjoy lower rates of gun deaths per year.

A map compiled to show annual gun deaths by state, including “accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes” indicated that, contrary to the NRA’s assertions, rates of mental illness are not at all associated with the prevalence of gun deaths. Regions with high poverty, citizens who largely lack higher education and, most importantly, permissive concealed carry laws that enable minors to carry guns undetected actually feature the highest numbers of gun deaths.

According to the study, “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/24/ron-...n-for-orwellian-surveillance-state/


Ron Paul will really be missed. I didn't agree with him on everything, but he was the only honest voice among the House majority, and he was never in the back pocket of lobbyists like the NRA.

I don't get why the NRA wants to blame video games and advocate government surveillance, it would make more sense for them to take the same pro-liberty approach Paul is taking here for the sake of their own point of view.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 14,2013 5:42pm edited Jan 14,2013 5:45pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
Kent State is just another reason why I wouldn't want armed government security in public schools as a response to Sandy Hook the way the gun lobby in DC is calling for. Good for Ron Paul for standing up to the NRA on that one, unfortunately 51% of Congress gets donations from the NRA and is in their back pocket.


Ron Paul blasts NRA plan for ‘Orwellian surveillance state'

Texas congressman and erstwhile Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is distancing himself from the National Rifle Association (NRA)’s plan calling for massively increased security in schools. According to Politico, the Libertarian Paul said that “government security is just another kind of violence.”

In a statement on his website, Paul railed against the expansion of federal government powers and characterized the NRA’s plan, as put forth Friday in a press conference by the group’s chief lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as the pursuit of “unobtainable safety,” and said “School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America.”

“Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal,” he wrote, “because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. We shouldn’t settle for substituting one type of violence for another.”

Paul insisted that calls for stricter regulation on guns are doomed to be ineffective because of “the self evident truth that criminals don’t obey laws.”

However, according to an extensive study released by researchers at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health in October of this year, states like Maryland that restrict access to guns by high-risk populations like drug and alcohol abusers and residents under 21 do enjoy lower rates of gun deaths per year.

A map compiled to show annual gun deaths by state, including “accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes” indicated that, contrary to the NRA’s assertions, rates of mental illness are not at all associated with the prevalence of gun deaths. Regions with high poverty, citizens who largely lack higher education and, most importantly, permissive concealed carry laws that enable minors to carry guns undetected actually feature the highest numbers of gun deaths.

According to the study, “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/24/ron-...n-for-orwellian-surveillance-state/

Ron Paul will really be missed. I didn't agree with him on everything, but he was the only honest voice among the House majority, and he was never in the back pocket of lobbyists like the NRA.

I don't get why the NRA wants to blame video games and advocate government surveillance, it would make more sense for them to take the same pro-liberty approach Paul is taking here for the sake of their own point of view.



I never understand why people like you (that sounds more judgmental and harsh then I mean it to; I just mean people on your side of the 'fence') always bring up Ron Paul, say you appreciate what he has to say, etc. etc. when he stands for almost the exact opposite of what you stand for.

Ron Paul in no way wants to keep guns out of schools for example; he wants to keep government enforcers out of school. He absolutely does believe that guns should be allowed in schools (and planes, etc. etc.).


Please site the sources on the rest of the article as well because the FBI's own statistics show that non-handguns are behind everything else for homicide-rate.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/weaponstab.cfm


Of course that's an all-around statistic; so I would like to see the examples you posted. Not calling you out, I genuinely would like to have a look.



EDIT: Though I guess it really doesn't matter because like I said before, I really don't care if it lowers crime or not.



toggletoggle post by ShadowSD  at Jan 14,2013 6:40pm
The article I quoted acknowledges that Paul is supportive of gun rights. I also said I don't agree with him on everything, but he's still been an independent voice not owned by lobbyists and so a lot of people respect him for that. I brought up his view on government having guns here because you brought up Kent State.

As far as links, I gave you the article link and included its link to the survey map that was mentioned, I can try to look for the one to the actual survey itself if that's what you're looking for.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 14,2013 6:58pm
ShadowSD said[orig][quote]
The article I quoted acknowledges that Paul is supportive of gun rights. I also said I don't agree with him on everything, but he's still been an independent voice not owned by lobbyists and so a lot of people respect him for that. I brought up his view on government having guns here because you brought up Kent State.

As far as links, I gave you the article link and included its link to the survey map that was mentioned, I can try to look for the one to the actual survey itself if that's what you're looking for.


I'll check 'em out. And I didn't mean to come off as harsh or call you out; it just reminded me of the whole Ron Paul support situation.



toggletoggle post by Headbanging_Man at Jan 14,2013 7:11pm
Has Ron Paul actually said he supports the right to carry guns in schools? I would find that remarkable, if not entirely surprising.

Of course it's eminently possible to agree with a few statements of a politician without agreeing with everything they say. Personally, I find Paul, like most Libertarian Party pols (which he really is, rather than a Republican), to be on point on about 40% of all issues; doesn't mean I'm a supporter, but he is certainly correct about the unrestrained growth of police surveillance power in this country.



toggletoggle post by Boozegood at Jan 14,2013 7:20pm edited Jan 14,2013 7:22pm
Headbanging_Man said[orig][quote]
Has Ron Paul actually said he supports the right to carry guns in schools? I would find that remarkable, if not entirely surprising.


Yes he does; or at least has said so before. It's hard to find quotes at the moment though due to the vast majority of 'gun control' 'guns' etc. 'School' and 'Ron Paul' in search engines gives results related to the previous mentioned statement against the NRA's proposals. I'll get back to you on sources.

Here is a quick one for now:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ron-paul-i...roduces-bill-abolish-gun-free-zones


Of course it's eminently possible to agree with a few statements of a politician without agreeing with everything they say. Personally, I find Paul, like most Libertarian Party pols (which he really is, rather than a Republican), to be on point on about 40% of all issues; doesn't mean I'm a supporter, but he is certainly correct about the unrestrained growth of police surveillance power in this country.


Trying the best to point out the Ron Paul isn't 'actually a Republican' is something else that the 'other side' often does. Ron Paul IS a Republican in the true sense; the others are not (or they are far more left-leaning then what I, and many others, would consider 'Republicans').

Libertarianism and Republicanism are not mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Liberty_Caucus






toggletoggle post by Headbanging_Man at Jan 14,2013 7:54pm
Well, he has run on the LP party ticket for Pres, at least in the 1980's. I think his function in the Republican Party is really just to create the illusion of diverse opinions in the ranks anyways; if ideals were more important than career to him, he would have left the GOP ages ago. I don't know who you mean by the "other side", but there are many Republicans who think Paul is too Libertarian for their party, though I don't think it has anything to do with the right-left spectrum. Historically speaking, I don't really think he would have had much in common with any Republicans since Coolidge.



Enter a Quick Response (advanced response>>)
Username: (enter in a fake name if you want, login, or new user)SPAM Filter: re-type this (values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
Message:  b i u  add: url  image  video(?)show icons
remember:twy again, dis time wid feewing
[default homepage] [print][11:16:42am Oct 17,2021
load time 0.15746 secs/14 queries]
[search][refresh page]