guns

[soberups]

If you are done being hysterical, then tell me who said anything about "grabbing everyone's guns"? There does seem to be a knee jerk defense of guns even when they aren't in the least bit at risk.

"Grabbing guns" was probably a poor choice of words on Baba gounj's part.

It would be accurate to say that the usual gang of shrill, whiny anti-gunners (Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein et al) are capitalizing on the tragedy to regurgitate their demands for useless, feel-good legislation.

 

[The Other Side]

150 million gun owners didnt murder anyone or commit any crimes yesterday.

Who is doing the shooting then???

an average of almost 90K are killed by guns in this country every year, thats an average of 7500 a month or 225 a day.

Are you going to tell us that those are not all legal gun owners doing the killings?

What percentage of those 150 million gun owners are doing the killing then???

Is this an acceptable number of killings in one year for you?? Is this your america? Do you think the founders intended for americans to kill americans for an average of 225 a day??

Please..

I get it, you feel whole with your gun, without it, you feel weak. Youre afraid, but you help to make this an unsafe country with support of lax gun laws that inspire and conspire an individual like James Holmes to commit mass murder.

What will the next mass murder look like in this country? When will it happen?

How many John Waynes will we need just to watch a movie in the future?

Peace

TOS

 

[bbsam]

"Grabbing guns" was probably a poor choice of words on Baba gounj's part.

It would be accurate to say that the usual gang of shrill, whiny anti-gunners (Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein et al) are capitalizing on the tragedy to regurgitate their demands for useless, feel-good legislation.

Again, even with certain politicians posturing, you and Baba and others can't possibly believe that the Second Amendment is under serious assault. There is nothing wrong with discussing legislation and if you can refrain from derogatory name calling, you might make your point better. It's discussion. What is wrong with that? I'm not even anti-gun, but your "shrill, whiny anti-gunners" line is hardly condusive to any progress.

 

[bbsam]

It was that idiot Dem. congresswoman who came out the very next day about it. Bloomberg too & Finestein somewhat.

They said we should start grabbing up everyone's guns? And you think it's gonna happen?

 

[brett636]

Who is doing the shooting then???

an average of almost 90K are killed by guns in this country every year, thats an average of 7500 a month or 225 a day.

Are you going to tell us that those are not all legal gun owners doing the killings?

What percentage of those 150 million gun owners are doing the killing then???

Is this an acceptable number of killings in one year for you?? Is this your america? Do you think the founders intended for americans to kill americans for an average of 225 a day??

Please..

I get it, you feel whole with your gun, without it, you feel weak. Youre afraid, but you help to make this an unsafe country with support of lax gun laws that inspire and conspire an individual like James Holmes to commit mass murder.

What will the next mass murder look like in this country? When will it happen?

How many John Waynes will we need just to watch a movie in the future?

Peace

TOS

Care to cite the numbers highlighted in bold?

 

[brett636]

They said we should start grabbing up everyone's guns? And you think it's gonna happen?

That is how its done everywhere else. Incrementally decreasing gun owners rights slowly overtime, and eventually taking them altogether once the powers that be see its ok to do so. Grabbing guns isn't the initial objective of the gun control advocates, its their end game desire.

 

[soberups]

Sober, have you ever gone through any type of gas mask training? We had to have annual training when I was in the service. We would walk in to the gas chamber with the gas mask on and would be instructed to take the mask off and recite the alphabet before being allowed to leave the chamber. It is very debilitating. Even had there been an armed patron at the theater he/she would not have had a gas mask and would have been at a distinct disadvantage, perhaps causing more harm than good.

On a side note---the shooter was in court yesterday and is obviously going for the insanity plea. His mannerisms, whether genuine or not, are those of someone who clearly does not know where he is or even what day it is. Granted, it was only for 11 minutes, but this is clearly a man not in control of his faculties.

I dont know anything about gas masks. I do know that some reports are claiming that the "gas canisters" used by the lunatic were just 4th of July smoke bombs and not actual tear-gas cannisters (which are not usually available to the public). I have also heard reports that the "body armor" worn by the lunatic was not armor at all, but merely a "tactical vest" bought online for around $100 that is used to store magazines and other gear. There is a great deal of confusing and conflicting information out there about what really happened and what guns and gear were actually worn and used by the shooter.

I have stated numerous times in this thread that an armed theater-goer probably would not have affected the outcome of the massacre. Consider this, however.

Even if the shooter was wearing level III or IIIa armor....a hit to the torso would likely have broken one or more of his ribs and knocked the wind out of him. Body armor...soft armor at least.... does not allow the wearer to just stand there and keep shooting while bullets bounce off of him. Getting shot while wearing it is, I am told, like getting hit in the chest with a ball-peen hammer. It is excruciating, it can break ribs, and knock you to your knees and make you puke.

There is also the chance that a lucky shot might have hit the gunman in the head, or hand, or the foot, or actually struck and disabled the weapon he was using. While unlikely, it is certainly within the realm of possibility.

What is 100% certain...is that an unarmed person has absolutely zero chance against a lunatic with a gun.

 

[bbsam]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "What about drunks?" and how that relates to the meme I posted. Illegal and regulated substances are two different issues. The meme/joke is that this individual believes gun laws are enough to keep people from using guns but doesn't see the irony that drug laws aren't enough keep her from smoking pot.

I'm not pro guns, I'm not against them either. To each his own. I'm just skeptical that a law banning them would be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and lunatics any more effectively than they keep drugs out of the hands of anyone that seeks them out.

Organized crime and gangs and other professional criminals will be happy to be able to create a lucrative black market by subverting gun control laws, just like they do drug laws.

That would mean that drunk driving laws do nothing to curb drunk driving. With that logic, we should all drink and drive so that we are all more conscious about driving safely. And maybe we should all drive with loaded guns while drunk in case we come across a "bad guy". And my guess is that organized crime and gangs already do quite well selling guns. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could make a phone call and have an illegal gun within two hours. Wouldn't make anybody safer.

 

[bbsam]

That is how its done everywhere else. Incrementally decreasing gun owners rights slowly overtime, and eventually taking them altogether once the powers that be see its ok to do so. Grabbing guns isn't the initial objective of the gun control advocates, its their end game desire.

And I suppose you can name some instances in which this tactic has actually worked? No. I didn't think so.

 

[brett636]

And I suppose you can name some instances in which this tactic has actually worked? No. I didn't think so.

This has worked in most countries around the world where strict gun controls and bans are in place. I would name them all, but I don't have all day to type them out.

 

[soberups]

Again, even with certain politicians posturing, you and Baba and others can't possibly believe that the Second Amendment is under serious assault. There is nothing wrong with discussing legislation and if you can refrain from derogatory name calling, you might make your point better. It's discussion. What is wrong with that? I'm not even anti-gun, but your "shrill, whiny anti-gunners" line is hardly condusive to any progress.

Are you familiar with the term "death by a thousand cuts"?

There are politicians (Bloomberg, Feinstein, Daly etc.) as well as influential celebrities such as Rosie O'Donnell and Susan Sarandon, who are adamantly opposed to the 2nd Amendment and who would bury my "rights" under such an impossible tangle of restrictions, fees, bans and waiting periods as to make them meaningless. They are in fact shrill and whiny (ever listen to O'Donnell for any length of time?) and while there is little risk of the 2nd Amendment getting repealed, it can certainly be "bled to death" one cut at a time by such people.

I am more than willing to have a discussion about gun laws in this country....but that discussion must start with a recognition of the fact that (a) keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right and (b) self-defense is a fundamental human right. If you do not recognize these two facts, then we probably dont have much to talk about.

 

[soberups]

And I suppose you can name some instances in which this tactic has actually worked? No. I didn't think so.

Great Britain and Australia come immediately to mind.

There is actually an epidemic of home-invasion type robberies in England and Scotland. Gangs of youths armed with baseball or cricket bats will force their way into the homes of elderly people and rob them, secure in the knowledge that their victims are incapable of offering any resistance. Home invasion robberies are almost unheard of here in the States. Care to guess why?

 

[soberups]

Care to cite the numbers highlighted in bold?

I dont think he would care to highlight them, since he pulled them out of his ass.

 

[bbsam]

Are you familiar with the term "death by a thousand cuts"?

There are politicians (Bloomberg, Feinstein, Daly etc.) as well as influential celebrities such as Rosie O'Donnell and Susan Sarandon, who are adamantly opposed to the 2nd Amendment and who would bury my "rights" under such an impossible tangle of restrictions, fees, bans and waiting periods as to make them meaningless. They are in fact shrill and whiny (ever listen to O'Donnell for any length of time?) and while there is little risk of the 2nd Amendment getting repealed, it can certainly be "bled to death" one cut at a time by such people.

I am more than willing to have a discussion about gun laws in this country....but that discussion must start with a recognition of the fact that (a) keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right and (b) self-defense is a fundamental human right. If you do not recognize these two facts, then we probably dont have much to talk about.

It certainly hasn't seemed like you have much to discuss on the topic. In fact it seems that you do most of your talking at TOS and Klein, people who seem to "not recognize these two facts". So continue your shrill, whiny, Quixotic defense of a right not in peril if you want. That too is a fundamentsl human right.

 

[bbsam]

Great Britain and Australia come immediately to mind.

There is actually an epidemic of home-invasion type robberies in England and Scotland. Gangs of youths armed with baseball or cricket bats will force their way into the homes of elderly people and rob them, secure in the knowledge that their victims are incapable of offering any resistance. Home invasion robberies are almost unheard of here in the States. Care to guess why?

And I would say that England and Scotland are hardly the same as the United States simply in that they do not have the Second Amendment.

I have several guesses at why home invasion is low on the crime scale.

Better targets of opportunity. Any fress standing ATM near a Kwik Shop window is easy prey. Besides, who keeps cash in the house anymore?

Electronics make more profitable crime possible. Whether it's a simple fraud scam in Emails or intricate downloads of fractional bank transactions, it's easy money.

What would anyone want to steal in a house? Powerful laptops that cost $300? Ipods? Gaming machines? Cooler full of PBR?

Most of what could be valuable in a house is portable when they are in cars, they are easier targets. Not to mention the car might be worth stealing as well.

And in the case of a home invasion, if I am the thief, where do I fence it? I don't know about Oregon, but around here, law enforcement really cleaned up the pawn shops.

Last thief ring I knew around here wouldn't even have considered something as low rent as home invasion. Their targets were construction sites.

 

[moreluck]

They said we should start grabbing up everyone's guns? And you think it's gonna happen?

No, of course not! It's that it's the number 1 reaction and always 2nd, it's the Tea Party's fault........it's like a parroting that goes on after any type of mass shooting.

 

[moreluck]

And I suppose you can name some instances in which this tactic has actually worked? No. I didn't think so.

What about Hillary's global gun control ?
Global gun control law pushed by Clinton - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com


Obama Administration working on gun control 'under the radar' - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com

 

[soberups]

It certainly hasn't seemed like you have much to discuss on the topic. In fact it seems that you do most of your talking at TOS and Klein, people who seem to "not recognize these two facts". So continue your shrill, whiny, Quixotic defense of a right not in peril if you want. That too is a fundamentsl human right.

You dont own a gun, so you dont follow gun legislation in the manner that I do. Therefore, you dont really see your right as being in "peril". That is understandable.

The peril is real, however.

Lets take Mayor Bloomberg of NYC as an example. Not only is he a billionaire, but he is also the mayor of one of the largest cities on earth. And, he is adamantly opposed to the 2nd Amendment. He is at the forefront of most of the anti-gun legislation that is contantly being proposed. He sends his minions (paid for by NYC tax dollars no less) thousands of miles outside of their legal jurisdiction in order to harass law-abiding dealers and gun owners at gun shows in Arizona and West Virginia.

We are talking about a man who would deny me, a free citizen, the right to decide for myself whether or not to buy a 32 oz. Pepsi Cola. This man has political ambitions and deep pockets. Should he ever become a Senator...or God help us a President...my 2nd Amendment rights would be in DEEP peril. Should I be comfortable that such a man would uphold my 2nd Amendment rights? Or appoint Supreme Court justices that will do the same?

Bloomberg is just an example. There are many more like him, in positions of power and influence.

 

[bbsam]

Foreign policy rarely mirrors domestic.

And what if some do want to confiscate guns. It's a legitimate point of view that goes nowhere. Much like returning to the gold standard.

 

[moreluck]

Gee, TOS didn't post something from the favorite source.....I wonder why?

Jon Stewart is standing up for the Tea Party by asking: what do you have to do at ABC to get fired? Apparently, falsely accusing someone of mass murder isn't it.