We Come In Peace Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Wow, lot of made up crap in that post. Hope you feel better getting that out. Quick tip: Save the bull **** for your next failed screenplay. Please point to made up crap. Love to hear it. If I had the time right now, I could take this apart, point by point, and demonstrate how each sentence is wrong. (For example, yes the 2nd is the only amendment with "regulated" in it...in reference to militias, not weapons. So what? Go ahead and regulate militias.) And for the most part, my deconstruction would incorporate the same verbal contortions you just engaged, and be just as mendacious. Bring it on. You know I can take it.
BringBackFergy Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 (edited) Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Expecting to pass laws that criminals will follow is the height of stupidity that's only matched by the counter to that argument that the pro-gun crowd throws out and was highlighted by both of B-Man's ridiculous posts. But because criminals don't follow laws, does that mean we can't legislate at all? That brings us back to the original question which B-Man and others have consistently dodged and refused to answer: why is murder against the law if people are just going to murder regardless? Or any variation of that question that's been posed numerous times. Claiming legislation to curb gun violence is a failure because of incidents like Sandy Hook or Boston as specious as the left saying gun laws alone are the only way to solve the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We lose over 80 people a day to gun violence in this country. Half of those are by suicide. 30,000+ a year are killed by the epidemic of gun violence that is destroying, largely, one segment of the population. You can talk about culture, you can talk about mental illness and bring up many valid points with regards to possible solutions to the problem. But for some reason you can't talk about guns. That's ridiculous. Why can't we put everything on the table? What the NRA and pro-gun groups have done over the years is to systematically destroy ANY gun regulation or legislation's chance for success. They've kneecapped the ATF, resisted universal background checks (after supporting them), and made the debate about anything and everything BUT the weapons themselves. Why? It's not to protect the constitution. And it's not to protect our individual rights. It's to protect the gravy train of the gun manufactures who provide millions of dollars in funding to the NRA every year. If the NRA doesn't listen to their masters then Smith & Weston, Midway, The Beretta Group etc will take their funding to one of the other lobbyist groups out there like the CCRKBA or GOA, either one of which would be happy to pick up the fight and take the millions of dollars being thrown their way. The NRA isn't arguing out of a sense of duty to their members or their country. Instead, they're fighting a cause to fatten their own bottom line and that of their primary benefactors. So what can we do in terms of legislation? Well for starters we could do what 90% of Americans want, and 84% of Republicans want -- namely, expanding background checks to sales over the internet and at gun shows. Will this prevent Sandy Hooks from happening? No. Will it stop other potentially dangerous individuals from legally acquiring firearms? Yes. We can also eliminate the senate's ability to block ATF Directors from being appointed. We can also start enforcing the hundreds of gun laws already on the books both at the federal level and state level. The pro-gun crowd LOVES to argue that the fact there are already hundreds of laws on the books proves that gun laws don't work. Yet they run and hide the moment it's pointed out that these gun laws, however well written or well intentioned they are, are UNENFORCEABLE because of the gun lobby's efforts to stymie the execution of those laws. The Second Amendment is the only amendment with the word "regulated" written into it. The writers of the constitution were brilliant men who excelled in getting the most out of every word they committed to parchment. The Supreme Court has done a grave injustice in terms of how they've interpreted the Second Amendment and this is clearly an issue that should be examined in the future by the Supreme Court. And that in no way should be read as an endorsement for obliterating the Second Amendment, rather it's an endorsement for a new interpretation of it in the light of our present day technological advancements. The Founding Fathers could no more predict the invention of weapons that can fire 900 rounds per minute than they could predict the invention of the automobile. And we regulate the shiiit out of auto manufacturers without a second thought. We still have the ability to buy and own a car despite all this legislation and regulation. But legislation alone will not solve the issue. It's intertwined with a number of other overlapping issues such as education, poverty, the war on drugs, and probably countless others I'm forgetting. There is no reason we cannot preserve the intent of the Second Amendment AND regulate gun sales and manufacturers in such a way that will help stem the tide of gun violence plaguing this country. Well, there is a reason, I guess. It's as old as time itself: GREED. So that's the answer you have been holding back for 4 pages?? Let me get this straight:1) Expanded background checks, 2) Curb "greed" (another way of saying tax the gun manufacturer or the end user), 3) More educational programs for first time offenders, criminals, and those in poverty stricken areas. I feel safer already. Can't wait for the crack head who needs his next fix to attend class so he can learn to breathe slowly and call his support group rather than break into my house to grab some quick cash. I will gladly pay the tax on my new Glock for these educational programs...it's my duty to help educate. Hopefully this new approach won't morph into new legislation for paring knives, framing hammers, and whiskey bottles. Edited April 24, 2013 by BringBackFergy
B-Man Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 More '90 Percent' Nonsense Debunked More of that “90 percent” nonsense debunked, this time in the Washington Post. Did Republicans really end up on the wrong side of a landslide issue? Not so much, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. Yes, a plurality (47 percent) describe themselves as either “angry” or “disappointed” about the failure of the gun legislation but 39 percent call themselves “relieved” or ”happy” about what happened. That’s a far cry from the 90-ish percent support that expanding background checks – the centerpiece of the proposed legislation — enjoyed. The question? “What word best describes how you feel about the Senate voting down new gun control legislation that included background checks on gun purchases.” {snip} Play with numbers all you like, but the fact remains: After an actual bill was written, after there was an actual vote on that bill, after a concerted and well covered gun control campaign that lasted for months, and after Obama’s nationally televised Rose Garden Grand Remonstrance, only 47 percent of people were annoyed that nothing had been done. This, suffice it to say, is not good for the Left. Bottom line: Even after a national horror, they can’t get 50 percent for a minor gun control bill. Republicans must be praying daily that Harry Reid follows through on his threat to reintroduce something into the Senate or, even better, that Michael Bloomberg decides to go into the likes of Montana and South Dakota and kick up a fuss in 2014. That will not end well.
IDBillzFan Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Play with numbers all you like, but the fact remains: After an actual bill was written, after there was an actual vote on that bill, after a concerted and well covered gun control campaign that lasted for months, and after Obama’s nationally televised Rose Garden Grand Remonstrance, only 47 percent of people were annoyed that nothing had been done. Again, it's difficult to fully express how incompetent of a leader someone must be to take something that has the self-proclaimed backing of 90% of the citizenry, and not even be able to get your own party to pass it.
Magox Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Despite all the hyperbolized demagoguing from the Morning Joe crew and other liberal lawmakers and "journalists" this is why, the 90% number they constantly cite, was virtually un-indicative towards the Gun Debate, and why the bill died in the senate,
IDBillzFan Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 Despite all the hyperbolized demagoguing from the Morning Joe crew and other liberal lawmakers and "journalists" this is why, the 90% number they constantly cite, was virtually un-indicative towards the Gun Debate, and why the bill died in the senate, This is what happens when elected officials spent a crapload of time discussing and debating an issue that only 4% of the country considers a priority.
Alaska Darin Posted April 24, 2013 Posted April 24, 2013 You think SCOUS did a grave injustice to the 2nd because the founding fathers never envisioned 900 RPM guns? I say go after the 1st. Never mind the fact that 900 RPM guns are virtually impossible to get and almost never used in crime.
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 25, 2013 Author Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) Never mind the fact that 900 RPM guns are virtually impossible to get and almost never used in crime. ]People like WCIP like to say the 2nd is obsolete because it's behind "current technology". They don't know, or choose to ignore, in 1925 anyone could walk into a hardware store and buy a Thompson submachine gun. They absolutely do not know the difference between full and semi. I still want his answer on what to do about the obsolete 1st, written in the day a printing press was the height of mass communication. Edited April 25, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 25, 2013 Author Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) Looks like we need to ban fireworks. http://www.foxnews.c...ators-conclude/ And toy cars. Edited April 25, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage
birdog1960 Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 Looks like we need to ban fireworks. http://www.foxnews.c...ators-conclude/ And toy cars. no but this http://www.npr.org/2013/04/24/178858037/taggants-in-gunpowder-might-have-helped-identify-bombers?ft=1&f=2 would be a good idea. not surprisingly, the nra opposes the use of taggants.
/dev/null Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 While we wait for the draft to start, anyone have experience with Palmetto State Armory M4's? Now that prices are coming back down I was thinking of getting a rifle and Glock
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 While we wait for the draft to start, anyone have experience with Palmetto State Armory M4's? Now that prices are coming back down I was thinking of getting a rifle and Glock Sure, you can buy an assault weapon...but God forbid you have hypnotoad as an avatar.
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 25, 2013 Author Posted April 25, 2013 While we wait for the draft to start, anyone have experience with Palmetto State Armory M4's? Now that prices are coming back down I was thinking of getting a rifle and Glock They seem well liked. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=685209&highlight=Palmetto+State+Armory+M4%27s
B-Man Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 SORRY, NO NATIONAL PLAY — DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE: Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store. SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store. Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people." Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms." Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."
/dev/null Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 SORRY, NO NATIONAL PLAY — DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE: Knives and Pressure Cookers I wonder if GE Capital will stop loaning money to Bed, Bath, and Beyond
IDBillzFan Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 SORRY, NO NATIONAL PLAY — DOESN’T FIT THE NARRATIVE: I know guns kill people, but it takes a special gun to carry a man AND kill people.
/dev/null Posted April 25, 2013 Posted April 25, 2013 I know guns kill people, but it takes a special gun to carry a man AND kill people. They're automatic weapons dude. They don't need people
DC Tom Posted April 26, 2013 Posted April 26, 2013 Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Let me make sure I'm clear on this: guns are weapons. Knives get turned into weapons. Right?
birdog1960 Posted April 26, 2013 Posted April 26, 2013 hmmmm...old, tired game. let's see who can shoot (or piss) the farthest. how bout something more substantial? where do you stand on taggants? how can they do anything but help national security? how do they threaten red blooded all american semi automatic carrying anglo males? why is the nra against them?
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 26, 2013 Author Posted April 26, 2013 hmmmm...old, tired game. let's see who can shoot (or piss) the farthest. how bout something more substantial? where do you stand on taggants? how can they do anything but help national security? how do they threaten red blooded all american semi automatic carrying anglo males? why is the nra against them? Because they where thought of decades ago and dismissed as useless and impractical. And they still are.
Recommended Posts