ofiba Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 http://news.aol.com/article/pennsylvania-p...ooting%2F414264 One friend, Edward Perkovic, said the gunman feared "the Obama gun ban that's on the way" and "didn't like our rights being infringed upon." Another longtime friend, Aaron Vire, said he feared that President Obama was going to take away his rights, though he said he "wasn't violently against Obama." Yeah, the best way to show that people deserve to own guns is to open fire on policemen...
stuckincincy Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 It's been a rough spell. This, those other officers, a man kills 8 in Alabama, 5 or so shot in Cleveland or Detroit - I forget which, the shootings in Binghamton. There's no shortage of unhinged folks. This Administration, and Congress, ought not to fan the flames of vengeance...AIG, GM as prime examples. I heard the local AM ratio talk show host in Cincy reading off emails to some site - people wishing to do terrible things to people who work for AIG. Very graphic. I'm not suggesting direct cause and effect, and have nothing but contempt for these murderers - but I do know that at best, civilization is a thin veneer, and that government officials singling out individuals or groups for their own political expediency is a way to punch holes in it. Curiously - or not - the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $210 million in bonus money isn't making headlines like AIG. This article wasn't on the front page of the Cincinnati Enquirer like AIG - it was relegated to the Saturday business pages: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009040...040335/1076/BIZ
Alaska Darin Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 Welcome to the blame game. Don't worry, I'm sure our politicians will use the capital they're gaining from the publicity to further degrade our Constitutional rights. And the minions will continue to follow blindly, applauding like the trained animals they are.
Fewell733 Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 a depressed loony can do a lot more damage with easy access to assault rifles and handguns than he can without them. I don't think there should be any dispute about that. simple reality. Seriously, who are the brainwashed: those that favor rational gun laws, or those that want to believe it's still the wild west?
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 a depressed loony can do a lot more damage with easy access to assault rifles and handguns than he can without them. I don't think there should be any dispute about that. simple reality. Seriously, who are the brainwashed: those that favor rational gun laws, or those that want to believe it's still the wild west?Just by using the "wild west" phrase you lost any credibility you may have had on the subject.
Fezmid Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 I heard the local AM ratio talk show host in Cincy reading off emails to some site - people wishing to do terrible things to people who work for AIG. Very graphic. A friend of mine works for a subsidiary of AIG in California. She told me that the company removed the AIG sign on top of the building due to fears of the angry mob. How sad is that?
Fewell733 Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 Just by using the "wild west" phrase you lost any credibility you may have had on the subject. why is that? what kind of credibility do you deem necessary to discuss something so basic?
Jim in Anchorage Posted April 4, 2009 Posted April 4, 2009 why is that? what kind of credibility do you deem necessary to discuss something so basic? Because it is a meaningless emotional fluff phrase,used by anti gunners for 40 years to mask a lack of hard facts and figures.
Magox Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 People losing jobs in a massive way isn't going to make things any better. I would have to say there is a direct correlation with the job losses and violent crimes
Just Jack Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 A friend of mine works for a subsidiary of AIG in California. She told me that the company removed the AIG sign on top of the building due to fears of the angry mob. How sad is that? They did the same thing in NYC a couple weeks ago.
Alaska Darin Posted April 5, 2009 Posted April 5, 2009 a depressed loony can do a lot more damage with easy access to assault rifles and handguns than he can without them. I don't think there should be any dispute about that. simple reality. Seriously, who are the brainwashed: those that favor rational gun laws, or those that want to believe it's still the wild west? Has banning drugs made them more difficult to get? Here's a newsflash, Sparky: CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS. Rational gun laws don't take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You can pass all the leftislation you want, "assault weapons" and hand guns aren't going away. They'll still be manufactured in other countries, bought by criminals, and traded all around the world because they're basically used as currency. The only thing you ignorant morons will be successful in is eliminating another thing we actually manufacture competitively in the United States.
Bad Lieutenant Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 http://news.aol.com/article/pennsylvania-p...ooting%2F414264 Yeah, the best way to show that people deserve to own guns is to open fire on policemen... A paranoid right-winger went on a murderous rampage? That never happens...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 It's been a rough spell. This, those other officers, a man kills 8 in Alabama, 5 or so shot in Cleveland or Detroit - I forget which, the shootings in Binghamton. There's no shortage of unhinged folks. This Administration, and Congress, ought not to fan the flames of vengeance...AIG, GM as prime examples. I heard the local AM ratio talk show host in Cincy reading off emails to some site - people wishing to do terrible things to people who work for AIG. Very graphic. I'm not suggesting direct cause and effect, and have nothing but contempt for these murderers - but I do know that at best, civilization is a thin veneer, and that government officials singling out individuals or groups for their own political expediency is a way to punch holes in it. Curiously - or not - the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac $210 million in bonus money isn't making headlines like AIG. This article wasn't on the front page of the Cincinnati Enquirer like AIG - it was relegated to the Saturday business pages: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009040...040335/1076/BIZ I hear what you are saying Cincy, very well thought out and explained... Yet, the blue above part has me concerned... Sure if it is for political expediency, that is a bad thing... But, do we as nation cower because we know that there is a "thin veneer" to civilization? You know how fast the other side would use that in not being held accountable? IMO, I think they already are and have been using it for sometime. It is all about accountability and not the fear of the unknown, right?
EndZoneCrew Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Has banning drugs made them more difficult to get? Here's a newsflash, Sparky: CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS. Rational gun laws don't take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You can pass all the leftislation you want, "assault weapons" and hand guns aren't going away. They'll still be manufactured in other countries, bought by criminals, and traded all around the world because they're basically used as currency. The only thing you ignorant morons will be successful in is eliminating another thing we actually manufacture competitively in the United States. Excellent points Darin...and I take it jauron agreed as well
stuckincincy Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 A paranoid right-winger went on a murderous rampage? That never happens... Any paranoid left-wingers out there? Either way, give us your definitions of left and right. Assumedly, you are a left-winger, so include your solutions to the right-wing problem.
Bill from NYC Posted April 6, 2009 Posted April 6, 2009 Has banning drugs made them more difficult to get? Here's a newsflash, Sparky: CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS. Rational gun laws don't take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. You can pass all the leftislation you want, "assault weapons" and hand guns aren't going away. They'll still be manufactured in other countries, bought by criminals, and traded all around the world because they're basically used as currency. The only thing you ignorant morons will be successful in is eliminating another thing we actually manufacture competitively in the United States. This one involved a domestic dispute. Should we ban hetrosexual marriage? There is an entire generation out there that lacks any original thought. They want government to make all their decisions, and will jump on any trendy bandwagon, however idiotic. Here is one for the global warming lemmings: Keep believing Al Gore the Thief and making him another billion dollars.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Should we ban hetrosexual marriage? No. But there can be the ban of manufacture/import and trade of firearms... Right at the level of production and import UNLESS it directly effects the WELL REGULATED militia. And before anybody goes apesh*t on me, I don't advocate actually doing it... But it can be done (the way it reads literally). It says: Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Where does it say one can bear arms OUTSIDE of a well regulated militia? That is all one sentence there, which means the right to bear arms is within the context of a well regulated militia ONLY. IMO, if I read the 2nd LITERALLY, it just means that you can take your guns home from the militia... Much like a police officer may drive their cruiser (or whatever vehicle, department owned or POV they use for the job). Flame away... I do agree with the LIBERAL interpretation of the 2nd to include people have the right to bear arms OUTSIDE the contect of being innvolved in a well regulated militia.
Bad Lieutenant Posted April 7, 2009 Posted April 7, 2009 Here's an interview with his best friend. http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001115/ He just believed in our right to bear arms. He believe that hard economic times were going to put forth gun bans and that sort of thing. He basically believed in what our forefathers had put before us, and was being distorted by the Zionist-controlled government, and he didn’t believe in that. There was a domestic dispute at the household and I guess the police came to take his firearms away from him, and he always said that if anyone tried to take his firearms he was going to stand by what his forefathers told him to do and defend himself, and I guess he went about it the wrong way.. He just basically told me he didn’t like the Zionist control over our government, he didn’t like that there was about to be military policing, he didn’t believe in the fact that there was about to be a gun ban. He didn’t like anything that was going on in the political forefront, and he was basically very politically active, and he didn’t agree with what was going on right now in the United States of America..
Recommended Posts