Gene Frenkle

I believe the euphemism you're looking for is 'Chicago', thought that's not usually your schtick. I wonder what college professors might think?

That's because they are CHILDREN

Wow, conservative pro-gun cops referenced on Breitbart? Weird! What's next, liberal pro-marijuana hippies referenced on High Times?

Prosecution of minors for procreating before some old a-holes think they're ready is rather Draconian. This is, after all, how homo sapiens have survived for thousands and thousands of years. It reeks of moral legislation and human rights violations, even if your motivation is strictly financial. Mandatory sterilization is just as bad.

Yes, I see it every day!

Holy **** this is stupid.

No, not really. But it's obviously fun for you to say Chicago.

No, we are not all what God made you.

Aren't we all?

Smart, self-absorbed AND funny. You are the complete package.

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe. Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented. The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online... Where am I not willing to address all the issues? You're the one jumping to "common-sense" conclusions about complex psychological conditions. Would these people have engaged in these acts without viewing these movies or playing these video games? How are so many people able watch these movies and play these games without committing mass murder? You are talking about facts as if invoking that word makes these conclusions correct. What does "taking on his hollywood base" mean?

It's not about ignoring root causes, it's about actionable solutions. Gun/weapon rights are already restricted. It makes sense that laws restricting weapon technology should be refined as weapons are improved. Most gun advocates don't want their speech restricted either. Many even watch violent movies and play violent video games. Right, just the number of resulting deaths.

That's all you've got, huh? "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." - Margaret Thatcher

The legislation to restrict certain types of weapons and/or accessories has a lot of precedence and an obvious method, whether you agree with that type of restriction or not. A line will and must be drawn somewhere, it's just a matter of determining where. Universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods are a no-brainer to me, but I see a lot of opposition to that as well (opposition for the sake of opposition in most cases). The piece you left out is the restriction of access to weapons by the mentally ill, which both sides seem to support. The "hollywood" argument is a righty talking point designed to drum up anger by invoking "the liberal media" and "liberal hollywood" and calls for ambiguous moral legislation to combat speech and expression that is morally objectionable to some. What are the realistic actionable solutions to the "violence in the entertainment industry" problem? How do you propose to solve this problem via legislation? Are you simply looking for the president to scold his hollywood "base" and then do nothing concrete? Is that the opportunity that Obama missed? AR-15 probably. It's worthy of outrage, but not in the context of a gun control thread.

Lol, I understand why you feel the need to redeem your apparent reading comprehension skills, but my statement was in response to Chef's post: Yeah, it's a gun problem. How many more dead/wounded if the attacker had an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine do you think? I have no problem with that discussion, but it seems like you're valuing the right to bear arms over freedom of speech. Unless I'm missing your point, which is quite possible.

I read all about it a couple of hours ago. There's a good reason for expecting such a response: it makes a valid point. I'm not sure how a mass knife attack with few or no casualties supports your 'no gun problem' hypothesis. What are you getting at exactly?

Those poor dead Texas students! Errr, wait...

Oh, I see. 'You and yours' was referencing people who share your politics, which just happens to be made up largely of Christians, a declining population. I have nothing against Christians. To borrow a train of thought from Carlin, I see them as victims of one of the greatest scams the world has ever seen. I actually feel bad for them. I'm all compassion and concern.

I think we're speaking different languages here. Would you kindly translate that last part for me?

Really? How am I mocking Christians and what exactly am I failing to understand? You won't find one word from me in this thread that is disrespectful of Christians or anyone else. I do, however, see several posts disparaging non-believers. I'm not the type to cry about it though...

You make some good points about Canadians there. But you have to admit that hockey is awesome.

I guess that means you and yours will become more and more f-ed as the country becomes less and less religious. My condolences.

Does one have to be liberal to be non-religious?

I figured that was just you trying to be like my buddy Crayonz. You'll never live up to that so don't try. I was trying to give you an out and let you save some face. The answer is 'yes'.

Evangelical? LOL EXACTLY