If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA NO

[Ernie S.]

Let's see if I can get through the craniums of some of the loons that have been threatening to march on DC to keep their guns?

NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE OUR FRIGIN GUNS!

We need to at least think about issues such as asssualt weapons, 100 shot magazines, mental health issues, universal background checks, and security in public places.

If the GOP blocks everything that comes before them, and another mass shooting occurs, the pucblic will hold them accountable. Just keep that in mind. The GOP does not need another nail in their coffin.

I'll go with you on mental health issues. The rest will have zero impact on mass murders and only serve to limit the rights of people that would never walk into a school and butcher children.

And, what's an asssualt weapon? Could you define "pucblic"?

 

[Pogo]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

hey i have an idea, let's rewrite the constitution because of one nut. what the hell is wrong with you people?

Nobody in the entire thread advocated rewriting any part of the Constitution. Nobody mentioned Constitutional impact until M14 brought it up, and when I challenged him to define what he was talking about, he ran away. Apparently you're trying to attack a strawman. That's cute and all, but you have to set one up first.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? Let's see.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Hmm... looks to me like "ensuring this never happens again" is exactly what the Constitution's whole purpose. How is it not?

It appears you read right past my response. I will make the obvious part more obvious:

It is impossible to "ensure this never happens again" without violating the constitution and eliminating any semblance of a free society.

That's exactly what this thread is about.

Good to see you're willing to admit that you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda.
You may be a mionster, but at least you're an honest monster.

Oh no little man, you do not put words in my mouth.

You are right - I do not.
YOU said:

That's exactly what this thread is about.

And so, they are YOUR words.

But just what do you think my "pre-existing agenda" is?

Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution.

I started with your reference to the Constitution, quoted the preamble...

All of which is irrelevant, given that the powers granted to the government are not found in the preamble, nor are the limits placed on those powers with regards to the rights of the people.

Thus, my statement stands:
It is impossible to "ensure this never happens again" without violating the constitution and eliminating any semblance of a free society.

If you disagree, please tell us what you propose we do in regards to these issues that:
-Would have stopped the Newtown shooting
-Will stop another Newtown shooting
-Does not violate the Constitution
-Does not eliminate any semblance of a free society.
Please be sure to support your claims.

 

[Spoonman]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

hey i have an idea, let's rewrite the constitution because of one nut. what the hell is wrong with you people?

Nobody in the entire thread advocated rewriting any part of the Constitution. Nobody mentioned Constitutional impact until M14 brought it up, and when I challenged him to define what he was talking about, he ran away. Apparently you're trying to attack a strawman. That's cute and all, but you have to set one up first.

bullshit. as soon as you start enacting legislation on guns you are talking about rewriting the constitution. do you think you can go an start regulating what can be said and not be impacting the right of free speech?

 

[PredFan]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

Moron.

The NRA has seen it's membership increase by 100k since the shooting in Connecticut.

Progressivism is a grave mental disorder.

100k. WOW. Wonder how many MILLIONs of Americans now support some type of assault weapons ban? Any idea? Is it more than or less than the number of new members to the NRA? If it is more Americans supporting bans, will you stfu about the new members of the NRA? Just curious.

That is irrelevant. He said that the NRA was going to lose memberships. He's dead wrong....again.

 

[PredFan]

Hey pred,. I read that the NRA recieves one dollar from every sale of guns or ammo from a legit gun shop that supports the NRA. Is that correct?

How the **** should I know. Good for them, I've given them a few extra dollars lately if this is true.

 

[PredFan]

The NRA is such a bunch of assholes that after the Conn shootings, they couldn't even come out and tell responsible gun owners to lock your guns up, put trigger locks on them, if you have a young man with mental issues, remove your guns from your home. etc etc.,

The mother fuking NRA couldn't even offer ONE sensible idea to keep people safe from crazies with access to guns.

Their best idea. Arm everyone. And you don't think the NRA is working for the gun and ammo manufactuers? Why?

Idiot. They offered several ideas, but hey, don't let facts get in your way, there's a good and true liberal.

 

[Spoonman]

Hey pred,. I read that the NRA recieves one dollar from every sale of guns or ammo from a legit gun shop that supports the NRA. Is that correct?

How the **** should I know. Good for them, I've given them a few extra dollars lately if this is true.

it's true only if the buyer elects to make an nra contribution.

 

[Pogo]

It appears you read right past my response. I will make the obvious part more obvious:

It is impossible to "ensure this never happens again" without violating the constitution and eliminating any semblance of a free society.


Good to see you're willing to admit that you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push your pre-existing agenda.
You may be a mionster, but at least you're an honest monster.

Oh no little man, you do not put words in my mouth.

You are right - I do not.

But you just did, and it's sitting right here ^. What the hell do you call "you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids"?? You do read English, do you not?

YOU said:

That's exactly what this thread is about.

And so, they are YOUR words.

They are indeed. And what "that's" referred to was your:

Sadly, SO many people are more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids to push their pre-existing agenda to do just that

-- You do read English, do you not? Perhaps I'm assuming too much.
Thread title: If the Sandy Hook incident does not bring on changes due to the NRA (saying) NO -- and there's your "people more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids" etc.
This isn't rocket surgery. But it is reading comprehension.

But just what do you think my "pre-existing agenda" is?

Limiting the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding to the greatest extent possible, regardless of any protection afforded to said rights by the constitution.

Bzzzt. You actually found a way to flunk an open-book test where the answer was right on the same page. I was mistaken; you don't read English.
No, I've never advocated anything about the 2nd amendment at all. Not here, not anywhere. Don't take my word for it-- find a quote.

I started with your reference to the Constitution, quoted the preamble...

All of which is irrelevant, given that the powers granted to the government are not found in the preamble, nor are the limits placed on those powers with regards to the rights of the people.

Your protest of irrelevancy is itself irrelevant. You made the claim; ergo you have the burden to prove the negative.

Thus, my statement stands:
It is impossible to "ensure this never happens again" without violating the constitution and eliminating any semblance of a free society.

If you disagree, please tell us what you propose we do in regards to these issues that:
-Would have stopped the Newtown shooting
-Will stop another Newtown shooting
-Does not violate the Constitution
-Does not eliminate any semblance of a free society.
Please se sure to support your claims.

Try actually reading some posts instead of storming in whit assumptions. Half of real discourse is the art of STFU and listening. I'm not about to reprint what's already widely available. Start by hunting down these Constitutional quotes of mine on the 2nd Amendment. Rotsa ruck with that search.

 

[PredFan]

Hey marty. did you know you might have a better chance of surviving a crazy killer with a full auto weapon as opposed to a semi auto weapon?

Not really, after 7-8 rounds or so they tend to climb a bit.

Good for suppressing fire, not taking someone out.

I do know that if the asshole at newtown had a pump or lever action or even a bolt action rifle the same amount of people would be dead. if he had revolvers instead of semi auto handguns, the same amount of people would be dead.

Because the police took more than 10 minutes to respond, and no one in the school was armed.

So NY's law would have done ******* JACK SQUAT.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. mindless sheep can't seem to understand that.

 

[PredFan]

The fact of the matter is... guns do not kill people... people kill people.

No amount of gun control will stop those who wish to kill from killing.

We hear this mantra over and over; unfortunately it's irrelevant to present circumstances because the Sandy Hooks and the Oak Creeks and Auroras and Columbines and Tucsons are not about "killing". Clearly they're not, since you can kill with blunt instruments, poisons, ropes, bombs or any number of other methods.

These incidents are specifically about massacre by strafing, which can only be done with a gun, and for those slayers who insist on instant gratification, the more automatic the better because it specifically serves that purpose.

Mass random murder is no more about murder than rape is about sex; it's about power. And until we get that, we're going nowhere.

You should try thinking. What gun did Timothy McVeigh use.

...but of course if you DID think, you'd be a conservative.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh no little man, you do not put words in my mouth.

You are right - I do not.

But you just did, and it's sitting right here ^. What the hell do you call "you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids"?? You do read English, do you not?

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

 

[Spoonman]

in rwanda they banned guns. did that stop the slaughter of 800,000? machetes worked just fine

 

[Pogo]

You are right - I do not.

But you just did, and it's sitting right here ^. What the hell do you call "you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids"?? You do read English, do you not?

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

 

[PredFan]

Let's see if I can get through the craniums of some of the loons that have been threatening to march on DC to keep their guns?

NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE OUR FRIGIN GUNS!

We need to at least think about issues such as asssualt weapons, 100 shot magazines, mental health issues, universal background checks, and security in public places.

If the GOP blocks everything that comes before them, and another mass shooting occurs, the pucblic will hold them accountable. Just keep that in mind. The GOP does not need another nail in their coffin.

Yeah you lemmings keep saying that. You want us to whistle past the grave yard.

Not trying to take our guns? Sure, and obamacare isn't a tax, obama won't raise taxes on the middle class, and there aren't any death panels.

We aren't as stupid as the lefties are.

 

[PredFan]

This will be an atrocity. There are so many things that could be done to assure that this never happens again. But if there is mention of gun laws or anything to do with guns the NRA says NO.

They don't represent the majority of gun owners anymore. They respresent the manufactorers. Sooner or later, the NO, is going to start costing them memberships.

hey i have an idea, let's rewrite the constitution because of one nut. what the hell is wrong with you people?

They are suffering from a grave mental disorder: Progressivism.

 

[JimH52]

Poll Says Gun-Rights Supporters Fund Their Cause; Opponents Don't : It's All Politics : NPR

"But this bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals," Pew noted. "Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority of the public (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online."

The Poor GOP will be on the wrong side of History again.

 

[PredFan]

But you just did, and it's sitting right here ^. What the hell do you call "you're more than happy to use the blood of 20 schoolkids"?? You do read English, do you not?

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

You're dismissed. now go play out side child.

 

[Pogo]

We hear this mantra over and over; unfortunately it's irrelevant to present circumstances because the Sandy Hooks and the Oak Creeks and Auroras and Columbines and Tucsons are not about "killing". Clearly they're not, since you can kill with blunt instruments, poisons, ropes, bombs or any number of other methods.

These incidents are specifically about massacre by strafing, which can only be done with a gun, and for those slayers who insist on instant gratification, the more automatic the better because it specifically serves that purpose.

Mass random murder is no more about murder than rape is about sex; it's about power. And until we get that, we're going nowhere.

You should try thinking. What gun did Timothy McVeigh use.

...but of course if you DID think, you'd be a conservative.

Way ahead of you. What McVeigh did was not massacre. It was terrorism. He wasn't even in a position to watch it happen -- that's a crucial difference.

Mass massacre with guns is done for the visual gratification of watching the helpless (there's the power) run around bleeding and running for cover. That's what they're after; personal power -- that which they personally lack in life.

Terrorism by contrast is about committing some dramatic act whose impact is intended to move the hearts and minds of, or break the spirit of, a population. That's what McVeigh was doing. That's political.

The goal of the former is in the present and immediate and personal; the latter is long-term and ideological. Just because two different acts both result in death doesn't make them the same thing. Think about it. I'm talking about motivations; you're playing with the semantics of the reprercussions.

Terrorism, murder and massacre all have different motivations. That's why I keep saying, throwing laws at the problem is treating the symptom; the disease is the motivation.

Think about it.

But of course since I do think, I'm not enslaved to your mindless labels.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry -- I do not have time to discuss important issues with juveniles. You are dismissed.

So you're running away twice. At least you're an honest coward.

You're dismissed. now go play out side child.

Um -- that wasn't even your conversation. Are you using two different IDs, or are you just dense?