Eugene Robinson sobs over us having guns

[OODA_Loop]

First, if you even talk about an extensive mental health care program for the mentally ill, the right will scream "Whaaaaaaat! Socialism!!!!! Don't you know that we need that money for Stepford Ann's Polo Pony!!!!"

Second, we lock up more people than any country in the world, 2 million compared to less than 100,000 for most industrialized nations. Locking them up doesn't work.

Yes you can't hold the individual accountable for anything just the inanimate object I forgot.

 

[OODA_Loop]

let me know when you remember the part of the 2nd that talks about "a well-ordered militia"

Yes totally agree. The militia is indeed well regulated.

 

[JoeB131]

First, if you even talk about an extensive mental health care program for the mentally ill, the right will scream "Whaaaaaaat! Socialism!!!!! Don't you know that we need that money for Stepford Ann's Polo Pony!!!!"

Second, we lock up more people than any country in the world, 2 million compared to less than 100,000 for most industrialized nations. Locking them up doesn't work.

Yes you can't hold the individual accountable for anything just the inanimate object I forgot.

Not at all.

There are a whole lot of "inanimate objects" you really think average citizens shouldn't have.

If I had a small nuclear device or a howitzer or a lab that made weaponized anthrax virus in my home, the government would seize that in a heartbeat. There would be no good reason for me to have that kind of weaponry. If I were to set up a minefield to keep the neighbor's dog from crapping on my lawn, the authorities would want to have a word with me, to be sure.

There's no good reason for me to have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, either.

 

[chikenwing]

Will we even pretend to do anything to prevent the next mass shooting by a crazed loner? I doubt it. We'll just add Aurora to the growing list -- Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson -- and wait for the inevitable.

When that next atrocity comes, we'll tell each other we're shocked and stunned, knowing full well we should be neither. We'll probe the assailant's life in search of a motive, knowing full well we won't find one that makes any sense. We'll comfort the survivors and the victims' families and assure them their suffering will not be in vain.



Meanwhile, somewhere out there, another disturbed young man will be purchasing an assault rifle and making unspeakable plans.

I can only conclude that we, as a society, have decided this state of affairs is acceptable, that the occasional murderous rampage is the price we pay for ... for what? For freedom? For the Second Amendment? For campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association?

Forgive me if I sound cynical. I'm afraid I am. Five years ago, I arrived on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va., just hours after student Seung Hui Cho's murderous rampage left 33 dead, including himself. I will never forget what it felt like -- the stunned disbelief, the white-hot anger, the unbearable sadness of so many young lives being extinguished for no reason, no higher purpose. No purpose at all.

I was there as a journalist, so I interviewed witnesses and survivors, took notes, wrote columns. But I was hardly an objective observer because I'm a father who has sent two sons off to college.

*************************

I don't own a gun and never have.

But this is disgusting.

We kill 180,000 people a year because of cigarettes and 19,000 people die because of drunk drivers.

Robins uses the deaths of youth in Colorado for one purpose, to stick his finger in the eye of the right.

I would not want anyone to shoot Eugene. Instead, I'd like the them to beat him black and blue with the stock (oops sorry...only blue).

I thought you were actually going to address anything he said...Silly me.

So once again the rights answer is: Nothing will help and nothing can be done

Awesome!

enforce the laws we have on the books already,that doing something.

The guy that killed 13 in Binghamton NY,got a pistol permit from the local cops,the guys father told the cops not to do it,my son has problems,they did anyway,then refused to enter the building for fear.

This could have bee prevented by the laws on books,but wasn't so more are just bound to help??

By the way Obamma never came to binghamton why was that??

 

[squeeze berry]

This thread is about Robinson's willingness to use tragedy for political purposes.

You can argue all you want about gun control. But choosing a high emotion time to make your case is simply slimey.

And Robinson has always been a slimeball.

I'm sorry, if there's ever a time to actually have a discussion about whether guns should be freely available to crazy people, it's after a crazy person goes out and shoots a bunch of people with a gun he never should have been able to get.

no civilian needs an AK-47

but it's funny to see all of the "originalists" suddenly want to expand the constitution to protect something that didn't exist when the founders did their thing.

no one had an AK-47 back in the day

PS does that mean we are only legally entitled to own flintlocks?

I have several BTW...............

 

[OODA_Loop]

First, if you even talk about an extensive mental health care program for the mentally ill, the right will scream "Whaaaaaaat! Socialism!!!!! Don't you know that we need that money for Stepford Ann's Polo Pony!!!!"

Second, we lock up more people than any country in the world, 2 million compared to less than 100,000 for most industrialized nations. Locking them up doesn't work.

Yes you can't hold the individual accountable for anything just the inanimate object I forgot.

There are a whole lot of "inanimate objects" you really think average citizens shouldn't have.

If I had a small nuclear device or a howitzer or a lab that made weaponized anthrax virus in my home, the government would seize that in a heartbeat. There would be no good reason for me to have that kind of weaponry. If I were to set up a minefield to keep the neighbor's dog from crapping on my lawn, the authorities would want to have a word with me, to be sure.

There's no good reason for me to have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, either.

All of those things are ordinance and illegal already nor Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes you can't hold the individual accountable for anything just the inanimate object I forgot.

There are a whole lot of "inanimate objects" you really think average citizens shouldn't have.

If I had a small nuclear device or a howitzer or a lab that made weaponized anthrax virus in my home, the government would seize that in a heartbeat. There would be no good reason for me to have that kind of weaponry. If I were to set up a minefield to keep the neighbor's dog from crapping on my lawn, the authorities would want to have a word with me, to be sure.

There's no good reason for me to have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, either.

All of those things are ordinance and illegal already nor Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

 

[squeeze berry]

There are a whole lot of "inanimate objects" you really think average citizens shouldn't have.

If I had a small nuclear device or a howitzer or a lab that made weaponized anthrax virus in my home, the government would seize that in a heartbeat. There would be no good reason for me to have that kind of weaponry. If I were to set up a minefield to keep the neighbor's dog from crapping on my lawn, the authorities would want to have a word with me, to be sure.

There's no good reason for me to have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, either.

All of those things are ordinance and illegal already nor Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

so what should the cutoff for magazine capacity be?

 

[JoeB131]

All of those things are ordinance and illegal already nor Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

so what should the cutoff for magazine capacity be?

10 rounds. If you can't hit your target once with ten shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

 

[squeeze berry]

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

so what should the cutoff for magazine capacity be?

10 rounds. If you can't hit your target once with ten shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

who the hell are you to say?

 

[OODA_Loop]

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

Because nukes are illegal.

 

[JoeB131]

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

Because nukes are illegal.

Why are they illegal?

You see the trap you are in here, guy?

Why can't I have a nuke for home protection?

and if you say it's illegal, then why can't we make semi-automatic assault rifles with 100 round magazines illegal?

 

[JoeB131]

so what should the cutoff for magazine capacity be?

10 rounds. If you can't hit your target once with ten shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

who the hell are you to say?

Someone who has probably fired more guns than you have...

Sorry, the Army won't let you have a gun if you can't hit the target 27 out of 40 times.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why are they illegal?

You see the trap you are in here, guy?

Because they are not Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

 

[MeBelle]

How do you make that determination? You see the problem here, guy?

If I just keep my nuke in my home and never use it, I'm not hurting anyone. I mean, Salt Lake City might have some reasons to be a bit worried, given my statements about Mormonism, but hey, if you can have a semi-automatic weapon with a 100 round clip, why can't I have a nuke?

Because nukes are illegal.

Why are they illegal?

You see the trap you are in here, guy?

Why can't I have a nuke for home protection?

and if you say it's illegal, then why can't we make semi-automatic assault rifles with 100 round magazines illegal?

Nukes were never designed for home use.

 

[JoeB131]

Why are they illegal?

You see the trap you are in here, guy?

Because they are not Constitutionally protected arms in common usage.

And where does the constitution specify "common usage"?

If you want to go strict constructionism, the only guns the founders knew of were muzzle loaded muskets. A fully automatic weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a minute would be dark sorcery to them.

Dammit, I want my nuke. It would vastly improve my negotiating ability with vendors!

 

[jillian]

let me know when you remember the part of the 2nd that talks about "a well-ordered militia"

Yes totally agree. The militia is indeed well regulated.

what militia would that be?

and i don't mean the anti-goverment psychos. that isn't what was intended.... or the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

 

[NoNukes]

Will we even pretend to do anything to prevent the next mass shooting by a crazed loner? I doubt it. We'll just add Aurora to the growing list -- Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson -- and wait for the inevitable.

When that next atrocity comes, we'll tell each other we're shocked and stunned, knowing full well we should be neither. We'll probe the assailant's life in search of a motive, knowing full well we won't find one that makes any sense. We'll comfort the survivors and the victims' families and assure them their suffering will not be in vain.



Meanwhile, somewhere out there, another disturbed young man will be purchasing an assault rifle and making unspeakable plans.

I can only conclude that we, as a society, have decided this state of affairs is acceptable, that the occasional murderous rampage is the price we pay for ... for what? For freedom? For the Second Amendment? For campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association?

Forgive me if I sound cynical. I'm afraid I am. Five years ago, I arrived on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va., just hours after student Seung Hui Cho's murderous rampage left 33 dead, including himself. I will never forget what it felt like -- the stunned disbelief, the white-hot anger, the unbearable sadness of so many young lives being extinguished for no reason, no higher purpose. No purpose at all.

I was there as a journalist, so I interviewed witnesses and survivors, took notes, wrote columns. But I was hardly an objective observer because I'm a father who has sent two sons off to college.

*************************

I don't own a gun and never have.

But this is disgusting.

We kill 180,000 people a year because of cigarettes and 19,000 people die because of drunk drivers.

Robins uses the deaths of youth in Colorado for one purpose, to stick his finger in the eye of the right.

I would not want anyone to shoot Eugene. Instead, I'd like the them to beat him black and blue with the stock (oops sorry...only blue).

Help me out here..

You want Mr. Robinson beaten because of his "opinion"?

Is that part of your religion doctrine? Or a personal thing? And if it's a personal thing..are you really all that religious?

As an atheist and an American..I think everyone should be free to express their opinions, free of violence.

This is the right.

 

[squeeze berry]

10 rounds. If you can't hit your target once with ten shots, you probably shouldn't own a gun.

who the hell are you to say?

Someone who has probably fired more guns than you have...

Sorry, the Army won't let you have a gun if you can't hit the target 27 out of 40 times.

you would be wrong cordite breath

 

[NoNukes]

Would gun control have stopped Timothy McVeigh's mass murder at the Murrah Building?

Irrelevant, you are grasping for straws.