Some Simple FACTS About Disarming Americans

[Ernie S.]

no one wants to "disarm" anyone.

You just want to limit their effectiveness, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

no one wants to "disarm" anyone.

You just want to limit their effectiveness, right?

Only assholes like you. Your posts and you are so fucked up no sane society would want you loose with a gun, any gun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

no one wants to "disarm" anyone.

You just want to limit their effectiveness, right?

Only assholes like you. Your posts and you are so fucked up no sane society would want you loose with a gun, any gun.

Oh so someone is insane for defending their rights?

No here's what is insane supporting something that has never worked and thinking this time it will.
Gun ban didn't stop mass shootings or killings during Clinton's ban.
Gun control did not stop the shooting in Connecticut
Gun free zones only attract mass shooters.

 

[Ernie S.]

The sensible majority now backs Diane Feinstein and contends that the Federally enacted assault weapons ban be renewed with possible expansion. The 2nd Amendment stands, sure @ 1x hand gun OR rifle per household, this is reasonable. Assault weapons are meant for producing mass casualties, not for home defense unless a "Red Dawn" type of invasion is imminent, which I don't see any time soon. AR-15s are classified as assault rifles BTW as they are a still a mass casualty producing weapon system and share the "cosmetic" features of their automatic cousins. Had there only been 1 gun at this residence, perhaps the outcome would have been less horrific.

What is the difference between a gun with an 8 shot clip and one with a 30 shot clip? I can go out and buy all the clips and ammunition I want and fill my pockets with spare clips when I decide to go postal.
I fire 8 and reload in 2 seconds. That means it takes me 6 seconds longer to kill 27 people. Considering I'm in a "gun free zone" what difference does 6 seconds make?
Having grown up near Newtown and knowing the area, I'd bet it took nearly 5 minutes for the first LEO's to arrive at the school. The shooting took at the most, 2 minutes from the time he entered the building until he took his own life. Again, what difference does 6 seconds make?

Banning so called assault weapons or high capacity magazines wouldn't have saved any of those children. It will only make you feel like you are doing something about a bad situation.

Do something about a culture that breeds kids like this. Punish offenders of the laws we already have if you want to really end senseless crap like this.

Banning weapons because they are more efficient is just stupid.

 

[Ernie S.]

no one wants to "disarm" anyone.

You just want to limit their effectiveness, right?

Only assholes like you. Your posts and you are so fucked up no sane society would want you loose with a gun, any gun.

And yet despite having owned firearms for over 50 years, I haven't shot up a school, shot a rival drug dealer or robbed a bodega.

Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in the month I was gone. You still get all pissy when you get negged.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Please tell me - because from the gun nuts here, they don't seem to be showing much sympathy toward the dead kids, just about the thought of their guns being taken away.

There has been overwhelming sympathy toward the dead kids. The only NUTS here are the ones climbing on the pile of dead children & using them for a soap box to take away our freedoms before their bodies were even cold or the facts have come out.

Not at all. Had we reasonable gun laws concerning the types of weopons used in three shooting in one week in this nation, we would not be having this problem.

The cold hard facts are that the assault rifles are designed and created for only one purpose, that of killing large numbers of people rapidly. And, as we have seen this week, they do that well.

Since I take any notion that you may have that says you have a fully operational crystal ball, rendering you capable of experiencing alternative universes where alternative outcomes are fully explored with a grain of salt? I will take your claim that "Had we reasonable gun laws concerning the types of weopons used in three shootings in one week in this nation, we would not be having this problem" with a grain of salt.

Why should they not have the same rules for ownership as fully automatic weopons? When you can empty a 30 shot clip in under ten seconds, is there any real differance? Especially in a crowded mall, or a school room?

You're presuming that the same number of people would not have been killed had he just been using one or both of the pistols. You can't qualify your presumption. That you think, again, you've got a crystal ball which permits you the luxury to see that if this shooter would have had only those pistols at his disposal, a lesser number of people would have been killed? I don't think you have any such crystal ball.

Simply require that any one with such a weopon outside their home be required to have such a license, and that if they do not, the weopon is confiscated and destroyed, and they face jail time.

Uhmmm, I'm not exactly sure what Connecticut's gun laws are? However, I know they are some of the strictest in the United States and unless you can prove otherwise, I'm presuming these weapons required licensing in the first place.

Second, if you store your gun carelessly, and someone takes it, you own any crime committed with it.

In this instance, however, I don't think that does much good, since the mother was killed. I guess she can't necessarily own any crime that her son committed with those guns, other than her death being the punishment.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Sure Bigrabble, if you cannot have a gun with which you can rapidly shoot up a shopping mall or a school full of little kids, you are disarmed, right?

You fucking god damn piece of fucking shit I hope you sorry ass meets a painful death. How fucking dare you insinuate I would shoot innocent children.

Isn't this how they do it...though? If you're a defender of your Second Amendment rights, you MUST want to go and shoot up a shopping mall or a school full of little kids? There's just no debating these asswhipes. And, that's the way it's going to be throughout this entire episode. Anyone who owns a gun and has no desire to give up their Second Amendment rights are going to be called everything in the book and I suspect this is only a small sample of the ways in which they will attack and impugn gun owners. I think it's going to get much worse and we haven't seen anything yet. But, the reality of the matter is, the only ones who are despicable here are those who are using the deaths of these children as tools to push their anti-gun agenda. Even though it can't be proven and they won't admit it directly and publicly, they've likely been silently dreaming of a day like this for years, where children are killed and they can use that as the mechanism for which to disarm the American citizenry.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

first, lets look at the most recent track record, the afghanistan war.

Afghanistan is a nation of a fairly backward population of 30 million who have only recently begun to modernise at all. The insurgency there consists of about 25,000 taliban.

The us has put about 100,000 troops there alongside about 450,000 fully trained and equipped afghan national forces. One soldier for every 60 afghans, roughly.

So, outnumbering the taliban nearly 20 to 1 and fighting for nearly twelve long years, we have been bled financially, morally and physically to the point that regardless of the likely collapse of the freindly regime, we are pulling out no matter what by end of next year.

So the taliban will win and any honest analysis would show this.

But here in the us, we have well over 300 million people who are tech savy and who own more than 270 million firearms and the ratio of americans to us standing forces is like one to a hundred. And americans have a highly trained cadre of experienced military that many of whom would be very effective at fighting a partisan war against a president that most of them hate and despise.

Anyone who cant see the dangers frought with a civil war in such a context is either ignorant, stupid or a fucking traitor who wants to see our nation destroyed from the ground up.

hey gun nuts...

You pick that fight you will lose

lol!

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

hahaha, there ya go...precisely. I for one can take a pass on the man card and still enjoy sport shooting with my .9mm. I don't see any "Red Dawn" type of scenarios in the near future.

Now that Nostrildumbass has spoken, we can now all feel safe. Pfffft! See any totalitarian U.S. governments in that crystal ball you're peering into...too?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Likely because they know that further restrictions will do little to save future lives – just as restricting or banning abortion won’t end abortion.

There’s also a legitimate concern that gun owners won’t be afforded due process, that legislation might be enacted based on ignorance of guns and gun violence, not facts, where further restrictions are put into place predicated not on evidence but emotion.

This is not to say gun owners have no emotion, or are devoid of empathy for the families of those slain; rather, they’re just as dedicated to finding actual solutions to the problem of gun violence, not measures clearly ineffective.

That's all nice in principle and packaged so eloquently. But the fact remains that these mass killings...as random as they are, are committed with assault rifles. If you read the testimony of the eyewitnesses, they all report that most of the killings were committed with the Bushmaster AR-15. These weapons are designed to do just that, produce mass casualties and do not need to be available to the general public. MOST, yes MOST gun owners are responsible and safe and are appropriately trained, but if just one of these assault rifles gets into the hands of an emotionally disturbed kid then it's too late. One look at a horrific scene of bloodshed and all of that "right to bear arms" shit takes a backseat to the tragedy. So this new legislation probably is a knee jerk and emotional reaction but if it saves 1 life than it is worth it. This new legislature simply intends to reenact the federal assault weapons ban, not seize your hunting rifles and handguns but restrict the availability of this class of weaponry to the general public and I wholeheartedly agree. As a gun owner myself, I will be perfectly content to be limited to my handgun and possibly a hunting rifle, I can leave my ego at the door in the interest of the greater good. I for one will support Diane Feinstein when she takes this to the Senate floor. My .02 cents.

You are in favor of banning automobiles, then? I mean, if we prevent one auto-related death, it would all be worth it. Wow, and think of the health impact when all of us have to walk everywhere we need to go! I'm pretty sick of that worn-out "if it prevents one death" bullshit talking point. There are plenty of ways people die every day. Maybe we should ban them all. Or wait, maybe we should all wrap ourselves in bubble wrap and sit at home, typing on some forum or watching TV. The government can pay to support us and no one would need to work ever again. And we'd all be absolutely safe from death.
Yeah...that's the ticket alright!

No, that wouldn't work either, in being absolutely safe from death. Then, we'd probably get cancer from watching TV, get heart disease from sitting and typing on the computer and, probably get some kind of unexplainable illness from the chemicals making up the bubble wrap.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Poor analogy, cars are not designed to produce mass casualties, assault rifles are designed specifically for this. We as a nation have to ask ourselves; have we done everything possible to stop events like this from occurring. Let's not make it easy for disturbed people to carry out these acts of violence, and just maybe this will allow for an intervening authority to enter before another tragedy occurs. I'm sure all of us gun owners can do without having military style weaponry in our households, I know I can, our 2nd amendment right to bear arms will still be well preserved.

It doesn't really matter what they are designed to do, more people die as a result of motor vehicles than they do of guns. How about banning airplanes, then? After all, when one of those babies goes down, the body count is usually out the roof. Maybe the travelling public should be prevented from flying in planes.

Isn't it interesting how he changes his criteria at random like that? First it was a matter of saving just "one life", to whether or not something was designed to "produce mass casualties". LOL! But, but, but, I thought he was just concerned with saving "one life"? If it's saving "one life", then any gun is game for banning. But, at his convenience, it turns in to saving multiple lives, by banning a gun that's allegedly designed to "produce mass casualties". So, I wonder, can this guy make up his mind? Is it about saving ONE life...or multiple lives? Because, if it's about saving ONE life then, like you said, he might just as well advocate for the banning of automobiles and multitudes of other items.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Talking to these "constitutionalists" is pointless.

Besides, one peek of armed soldiers or police coming to take their guns, and they'd be too busy wetting themselves to pull the trigger.

The Branch Davidians had guns. Heped them out a lot, didn't it?

Spare me the "Give me liberty or give me death" crappola. You guys would all choke, throw up your hands and squeal "Please don't hurt me" like six-year old girls facing a hairy spider.

You're so scared that you can't go through life without having a gun to hide behind.

That mentality should disqualify you from owning one.

The only ones who would be throwing up their hands and squealing "Please don't hurt me" like six-year old girls facing a hairy spider would be the ones who would lick the boots of the totalitarian government because they're too scared of guns to put up a fight. And, that would be you and your anti-gun clan.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Ok, for the sake of future discussions, the car analogy discussion is FAIL and includes, aircraft, buses, trucks and any other venue that MAY produce casualties but is not intended to produce casualties. That 5th grade argument is now negated.

assault weapons are designed for Soldiers NOT civilians, what is so damn difficult to understand about that??

They are coming off the streets, this reinstatement of the ban will happen, get over it.

If they are designed for soldiers? Then, they ARE designed for citizens. Your ignorance with respect to the reasoning behind the Second Amendment is quite stout...isn't it?

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Hey, we have a wonderful volunteer military now, sign your asses up and carry all the damn assault rifles you want, hell, they'll even give you people to shoot at.

Otherwise, as a civilian you get handguns or hunting rifles, you may as well get used to this notion because it's manifesting right now.

So you honestly think that, even if such a ban is instituted, it will prevent people from having these types of guns? Yeah, just like banning alcohol during Prohibition prevented people from drinking moonshine...eh? And, when you've got the war between the runners, the corrupt politicians and police and, those who are truly trying to uphold the ban? You can feel proud that you put the ban in place.

Or, even worse? When the civil war starts, when you're trying to infringe on Americans' Constitutional rights? You can feel proud then...too.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

MOst of the industrialized world restricts gun ownership, and they are just as free as we are.

Maybe more so.

For instance in Japan, where they have 11 gun murders compared to our 9,158, women can walk around big cities at night unaccompanied.

Japan has some of the highest corruption stats of any nation, and their peole are subservient. I know that doesnt bother you, being subservient, but thank God for most Americans it is a BIG issue. When some criminal approaches a man and demands money in Japan, most Japanese think they are morally bound to give it to him (and I know Democrats love that idea). Japanese women will not scream out or call for help when some asshole is trying to molest them in public, for the most part. They feel too ashamed to.

Yes, you would thrive in that kind of place, JoeBlow, but almost none of the rest of us not in a union want to live there.

As to American crime, remove from those stats the American cities and states with tight gun control laws, and we are safer than any country in Europe.

the only reason we have high crime rates is because of fascists like you and idiots like Starkey.

So you are going to express your profound ignorance of Japan, then? The Japanese have a lower incidence of robbery, rape, murder, than the US does.

Don't you mean, they have lower reported incidents of robbery, rape and murder? What's reported and, what's actual, are two different things.

 

[JoeB131]

[
A person who grew up as a child in the home of a democrat union member would have those values he was taught as a child.

Not really.

My dad was a Nixon Republican. Thought Nixon was the greatest thing ever.

Fact is, McVeigh fell in with the crazy people, and became one of these whacky government haters....

He's totally one of yours...

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

[
A person who grew up as a child in the home of a democrat union member would have those values he was taught as a child.

Not really.

My dad was a Nixon Republican. Thought Nixon was the greatest thing ever.

Fact is, McVeigh fell in with the crazy people, and became one of these whacky government haters....

He's totally one of yours...

LOL! I just noticed where you're from and I think maybe you ought to clean up your own backyard before you start yacking about how it is anyone else is supposed to clean up their backyard. Chicago isn't well-known for being the most peaceful place on earth and, the way I understand it, Chicago's gun laws are quite stringent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
A person who grew up as a child in the home of a democrat union member would have those values he was taught as a child.

Not really.

My dad was a Nixon Republican. Thought Nixon was the greatest thing ever.

Fact is, McVeigh fell in with the crazy people, and became one of these whacky government haters....

He's totally one of yours...

Parents influence children, I guess you aren't old enough to say when I look into the mirror I have become my father, just after you had an argument with your son.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL! I just noticed where you're from and I think maybe you ought to clean up your own backyard before you start yacking about how it is anyone else is supposed to clean up their backyard. Chicago isn't well-known for being the most peaceful place on earth and, the way I understand it, Chicago's gun laws are quite stringent.

First, I don't live in Chicago, I live in one of the SUburbs...

Secondly, Chicago's gun laws are meaningless if you can drive into Cicero and buy a gun there.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

LOL! I just noticed where you're from and I think maybe you ought to clean up your own backyard before you start yacking about how it is anyone else is supposed to clean up their backyard. Chicago isn't well-known for being the most peaceful place on earth and, the way I understand it, Chicago's gun laws are quite stringent.

First, I don't live in Chicago, I live in one of the SUburbs...

Secondly, Chicago's gun laws are meaningless if you can drive into Cicero and buy a gun there.

And they're meaningless anywhere if you can drive to your local Black Market and buy a gun there. Further, how would America's laws with respect to this impact Indian reservations, where one might be able to purchase such an item? All I can say is, since you're in Chicago, just look at the history of prohibition and you might get some idea as to how prohibiting certain types of guns, or all guns, is going to work out for you. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work. Prohibition of guns CERTAINLY isn't going to work. I watched a movie the other day based on a true story about prohibition called Lawless, about the Bondurant boys. It was truly an interesting movie considering what is going on at the moment.