Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on December 21, 2012, 08:25:19 AM
-
Anyone watching this shit
the basic premise is that in order to protect ourselves from their product (well not "theirs" but what they exist to advocate) they suggest we put armed guard in every school in the country
basically we need to turn ourselves into an armed police state in order to protect ourselves from their product rather than putting some sensible and highly supported restrictions on their product
-
Anyone watching this shit
the basic premise is that in order to protect ourselves from their product (well not "theirs" but what they exist to advocate) they suggest we put armed guard in every school in the country
basically we need to turn ourselves into an armed police state in order to protect ourselves from their product rather than putting some sensible and highly supported restrictions on their product
What law would have prevented this crime from happening?
-
What law would have prevented this crime from happening?
impossible to answer but I'm sure gun people will revert to their usual argument that if you can't prevent every act of gun violence then we should do nothing at all
that pathetic argument (not saying it yours) is not going to work anymore
-
What law would have prevented this crime from happening?
As far as I'm aware, there are already many laws to prevent this and the fact is simple... You can't stop crazy.
-
As far as I'm aware, there are already many laws to prevent this and the fact is simple... You can't stop crazy.
Laws don't prevent psychopathic people from committing acts like this guy did.
-
Laws don't prevent psychopathic people from committing acts like this guy did.
They never will... That's why they are called CRAZY.
-
They never will... That's why they are called CRAZY.
crazy people won't be able to understand the nuance
-
Anyone watching this shit
the basic premise is that in order to protect ourselves from their product (well not "theirs" but what they exist to advocate) they suggest we put armed guard in every school in the country
basically we need to turn ourselves into an armed police state in order to protect ourselves from their product rather than putting some sensible and highly supported restrictions on their product
What sensible and highly supported restrictions are you talking about straw?
-
What sensible and highly supported restrictions are you talking about straw?
we can start with the ones that have large support among NRA members and go from there
Here is a poll from July 2012 (and conducted by Frank Luntz)
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.
-
we can start with the ones that have large support among NRA members and go from there
Here is a poll from July 2012 (and conducted by Frank Luntz)
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.
I could get behind most but not all of these.
The problem is the legislation we will see will have idiotic parts to it like trying to reinstate moronic awb.
I bet there will be a stark contrast between these proposals and obamas commisions proposal
What other legislation would you like instituted straw?
-
Want to enforce gun control laws? Just have the blacks and Mexicans start joining the NRA in droves and obtaining legally registered assault weapons to defend their hoods. That shit will become regulated overnight.
-
impossible to answer but I'm sure gun people will revert to their usual argument that if you can't prevent every act of gun violence then we should do nothing at all
that pathetic argument (not saying it yours) is not going to work anymore
Nobody is suggesting that we do nothing. What SHOULD NOT BE DONE is this gun control crap, because that ain't stopping people who have decided to murder people on cold blood.
The laws against theft didn't stop Lanza from stealing his mama's gun, did it?
What's pathetic is this take of yours that murderous, devil-worshipping madmen, hell-bent on carnage, are suddenly going to become docile critters, because of some stupid left-winged, Obama-endorsed law (disarming law-abiding citizens)
-
Want to enforce gun control laws? Just have the blacks and Mexicans start joining the NRA in droves and obtaining legally registered assault weapons to defend their hoods. That shit will become regulated overnight.
PLEASE!! Obama's home city has black people, shooting each other, left and right. Yet, Obama's gun control flap was noticeably ABSENT!
Oh, I forgot!! Black people killing each other doesn't advance liberal policies very well. It's only white people being shot, or blacks being shot by (actual or perceived) white people that matter.
-
we can start with the ones that have large support among NRA members and go from there
Here is a poll from July 2012 (and conducted by Frank Luntz)
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.
Lanza's mother followed all of those rules (as far as we know), except she got shot, before she could report her gun stolen.
-
PLEASE!! Obama's home city has black people, shooting each other, left and right. Yet, Obama's gun control flap was noticeably ABSENT!
Oh, I forgot!! Black people killing each other doesn't advance liberal policies very well. It's only white people being shot, or blacks being shot by (actual or perceived) white people that matter.
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I made. My statement was about the NRA ranks and a knock about their members. Not Obama. Not Chicago. Not black on black crime. Nor any color on any color crime at all.
-
Nobody is suggesting that we do nothing. What SHOULD NOT BE DONE is this gun control crap, because that ain't stopping people who have decided to murder people on cold blood.
The laws against theft didn't stop Lanza from stealing his mama's gun, did it?
What's pathetic is this take of yours that murderous, devil-worshipping madmen, hell-bent on carnage, are suddenly going to become docile critters, because of some stupid left-winged, Obama-endorsed law (disarming law-abiding citizens)
Do you actually believe the horseshit you wrote
Interesting that you believe "something" should be done but not "this gun control crap".
Even NRA members dont agree with you much less the majority of your fellow citizens
How in the world did your brain arrive at the conclusion that gun laws will turn insane people into "docile critters"? I never said anything of the sort but somehow thats where your mind took you.
Btw - nice touch with the devil worshiping part. From what I've read he was politically aware and considered himself a conservative/libertarian
-
Do you actually believe the horseshit you wrote
Interesting that you believe "something" should be done but not "this gun control crap".
Even NRA members dont agree with you much less the majority of your fellow citizens
How in the world did your brain arrive at the conclusion that gun laws will turn insane people into "docile critters"? I never said anything of the sort but somehow thats where your mind took you.
Btw - nice touch with the devil worshiping part. From what I've read he was politically aware and considered himself a conservative/libertarian
Because it is something "Obama" wants it deserves the spin here.
Meanwhile, the other candidate Romney has shown he was already for stricter gun laws even BEFORE this incident took place.
-
Because it is something "Obama" wants it deserves the spin here.
Meanwhile, the other candidate Romney has shown he was already for stricter gun laws even BEFORE this incident took place.
Tell me what law would have stopped Lanza
-
Tell me what law would have stopped Lanza
Who said I was talking about a law? You made that up didn't you? Try again.
-
Who said I was talking about a law? You made that up didn't you? Try again.
Obama and his cult of cry babies are trying to ram new gun laws through as if a new law would have stopped lanza. Since you support O-TWINK in this, please explain the law that would have stopped this that justifies a new law now?
-
Tell me what law would have stopped Lanza
Losers is forbidden to carry firearms.
Hard to enforce though..
-
Losers is forbidden to carry firearms.
Hard to enforce though..
300,000,000 guns in circulation - no law can stop reality
-
300,000,000 guns in circulation - no law can stop reality
Not without a change of the constitution.
-
Not without a change of the constitution.
And th chance of that is 0% - so we are faced w crime and bad shit - thats life.
-
Obama and his cult of cry babies are trying to ram new gun laws through as if a new law would have stopped lanza. Since you support O-TWINK in this, please explain the law that would have stopped this that justifies a new law now?
great point as always
we can't stop all murders or all drunk driving so why bother making any laws against them or doing anything to lessen the incidence of murder or drunk driving
-
great point as always
we can't stop all murders or all drunk driving so why bother making any laws against them or doing anything to lessen the incidence of murder or drunk driving
I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.
You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?
-
I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.
You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?
::)
-
I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.
You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?
I think that is what he is saying
basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership
-
I dont believe that is what he is saying, passing new gun laws isnt addressing the problem straw.
You do understand that guns are not the cause, right?
there is no correlation between having a gun and shooting someone
and
not having a gun and not shooting someone
don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise
-
I think that is what he is saying
basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership
I dont see how you get that b/c the guns laws proposed would not stop gun violence we should do nothing.
Making it easier to identify mentally unstable individuals and get them help would help the problem at the root of the cause....
wouldnt you agree?
-
reading most of these post,i can bet rush or hannity said the same shit today :D :D :D
-
there is no correlation between having a gun and shooting someone
and
not having a gun and not shooting someone
don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise
ahhh, youre living up to your screen name.
You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?
if you truly believe that then why are you not arguing for a gun ban in afghanistan?
-
reading most of these post,i can bet rush or hannity said the same shit today :D :D :D
did you get that from media matters?
-
no but i know you get your shit from talk radio, its almost like it was recorded :D :D :D :D :D
-
no but i know you get your shit from talk radio, its almost like it was recorded :D :D :D :D :D
hahaha says the guy who literally parroted the white house while believing he was parroting a left wing news source.
LMFAO
-
I think that is what he is saying
basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership
This is exactly what I believe... No... A constitutional right should not have ANY regulation that was not specifically stated in the constitution.
-
Obama and his cult of cry babies are trying to ram new gun laws through as if a new law would have stopped lanza. Since you support O-TWINK in this, please explain the law that would have stopped this that justifies a new law now?
Where did you see me support Obama in this? You made that up didn't you? Is life so hard to cope with you have to make up the conversation you have with someone else?
-
hahaha says the guy who literally parroted the white house while believing he was parroting a left wing news source.
LMFAO
tonymctones i let talk radio do my thinking for me :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D the dumbing down of the repub party 'pat buchanan'
-
ahhh, youre living up to your screen name.
You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?
if you truly believe that then why are you not arguing for a gun ban in afghanistan?
first of all I'm not suggesting we get rid of all guns but you can't possibly be serious in your question
there is NO DOUBT that if all the same attacks happened but the person didn't have a gun but a knife, or ax or baseball bat that there would be MANY LESS FATALITIES
just pretend the nut job in Aurora, Arizona or Connecticut did not have a gun and tell me you think the same number of people would have died
Take your time and think about if for as long as you need before you respond
-
This is exactly what I believe... No... A constitutional right should not have ANY regulation that was not specifically stated in the constitution.
since no specific weapon was stated in The Constitution then you should either have the right to any weapon available on this earth ?
-
first of all I'm not suggesting we get rid of all guns but you can't possibly be serious in your question
there is NO DOUBT that if all the same attacks happened but the person didn't have a gun but a knife, or ax or baseball bat that there would be MANY LESS FATALITIES
just pretend the nut job in Aurora, Arizona or Connecticut did not have a gun and tell me you think the same number of people would have died
Take your time and think about if for as long as you need before you respond
goodness gracious, FIRST youre assuming that they wouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun even if there was a ban...Making it illegal to own guns doesnt stop a number of felons so why would it stop ppl who want to massacre alot of ppl?
SECOND, do you not think they wouldnt have altered their plans if they didnt have a gun?
You really think they would have conducted the same style of attacks at the same locations with a knife?
ORRRRR
do you think they would have thought about the way they could kill the most ppl and do that?
-
goodness gracious, FIRST youre assuming that they wouldnt be able to get their hands on a gun even if there was a ban...Making it illegal to own guns doesnt stop a number of felons so why would it stop ppl who want to massacre alot of ppl?
SECOND, do you not think they wouldnt have altered their plans if they didnt have a gun?
You really think they would have conducted the same style of attacks at the same locations with a knife?
ORRRRR
do you think they would have thought about the way they could kill the most ppl and do that?
I assumed NOTHING
I answered your SPECIFIC QUESTION which was "You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?"
the answer of course is an obvious YES, those deaths would not have happened or at least not in anywhere near the number
it's such an obvious YES I don't know why you even asked the question
If you don't like the answer then why did you ask that question?
-
since no specific weapon was stated in The Constitution then you should either have the right to any weapon available on this earth ?
In my opinion, fuck yes... Mutually assured destruction is a very good defensive strategy.
-
In my opinion, fuck yes... Mutually assured destruction is a very good defensive strategy.
who are the parties that you're thing about who will mutually assure each others destruction?
citizen vs state or citizen vs. citizen?
I can't recall that concept being discussed in history books at the time the country was founded
Should this include things like rocket launchers, large caliber machine guns, drones, chemical and biological weapons
-
who are the parties that you're thing about who will mutually assure each others destruction?
citizen vs state or citizen vs. citizen?
I can't recall that concept being discussed in history books at the time the country was founded
Should this include things like rocket launchers, large caliber machine guns, drones, chemical and biological weapons
Yes, yes, no, no.
-
Yes, yes, no, no.
why are you suddenly deciding to limit certain kinds of weapons
if the intent of the founders was to keep arms in the hand of the people in order to defend ones self and property but to also defend against the tyrannical government then given today's technology you would need all of those items I mentioned to fight against the government
-
Yes, yes, no, no.
Can you elaborate on why rocket launchers are OK but chemical or biological weapons aren't? How will you go duck huntin'?
-
The premise that an armed fficer would stop an armed maniac is kinda hard for democrats to swallow.
The killers were not law abiding armed citizens, they were theives and maniacs.
Civilians being armed in order to resist maniacs and the maniacs in government is a good thing.
Whiny commies can go on and on but it was not a law abiding pair fo citizens who did this.
-
The premise that an armed fficer would stop an armed maniac is kinda hard for democrats to swallow.
The killers were not law abiding armed citizens, they were theives and maniacs.
Civilians being armed in order to resist maniacs and the maniacs in government is a good thing.
Whiny commies can go on and on but it was not a law abiding pair fo citizens who did this.
Ron needs to establish a retard board so you'll have somewhere to post where your fellow retards might actually take you seriously
-
Can you elaborate on why rocket launchers are OK but chemical or biological weapons aren't? How will you go duck huntin'?
I don't consider chem or biologicals "armaments"... Some do for sure, but I do not.
-
I don't consider chem or biologicals "armaments"... Some do for sure, but I do not.
Fair enough.
-
I don't consider chem or biologicals "armaments"... Some do for sure, but I do not.
there is no specificity in The Constitution so either everything should be available to everyone or we should be able to agree that things have changed A LOT since this country was founded and we the people have the right to make interpretations (and we know this is true) for the benefit and security of every citizen.
We can debate the details but it's either everything goes or we have the right to make some distinctions
-
there is no specificity in The Constitution so either everything should be available to everyone or we should be able to agree that things have changed A LOT since this country was founded and we the people have the right to make interpretations (and we know this is true) for the benefit and security of every citizen.
We can debate the details but it's either everything goes or we have the right to make some distinctions
Well, it seems to me that you are talking about "Gun Ownership" right?
I think that is what he is saying
basically there is no law that will stop ALL gun violence so therefore we should do nothing, well at least nothing in terms of laws to regulate gun ownership
So from your own words, I say that NO... we should not have ANY regulation regarding gun ownership and if you put guns on the same level as chemical or biological weapons, then you are simply making a leap that just isn't there.
I can't believe I'm even posting on threads on this goddam board again.
Fuck.
-
Do you actually believe the horseshit you wrote
Interesting that you believe "something" should be done but not "this gun control crap".
Even NRA members dont agree with you much less the majority of your fellow citizens
How in the world did your brain arrive at the conclusion that gun laws will turn insane people into "docile critters"? I never said anything of the sort but somehow thats where your mind took you.
Btw - nice touch with the devil worshiping part. From what I've read he was politically aware and considered himself a conservative/libertarian
I arrive at the conclusion from the BS you've been spewing, ever since this incident took place last week.
-
Well, it seems to me that you are talking about "Gun Ownership" right?
I assume the founders were talking about guns since that's pretty much all they had at the time (I guess that and cannons) and the text mentions a "well regulated militia"
Fast forward 200+ years and well regulated militia is now our modern military which includes all kinds of new "arms"
So from your own words, I say that NO... we should not have ANY regulation regarding gun ownership and if you put guns on the same level as chemical or biological weapons, then you are simply making a leap that just isn't there.
I can't believe I'm even posting on threads on this goddam board again.
Fuck.
LOL - I feel that same way most of the time
I think we can definitely have some regulations and obviously admit that we've got to also try to attack the problem for other angles as well
Most of these mass murder shooter types are mentally ill and after the fact we hear their friends, family, neighbor, etc.. saying they knew something was wrong with them for a long time
There are also cases where these people do get stopped before they go through with the act and it's usually a vigilant family member, friend or someone who alerts the authorities
Those cases stay in the news for about 10 second so we never even remember them but it does happen but we'll obviously never stop them all
-
we can start with the ones that have large support among NRA members and go from there
Here is a poll from July 2012 (and conducted by Frank Luntz)
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/poll-07-24-2012.pdf
74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees - a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.
63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.
The NRA rank and file also supports barring people on terror watch lists from buying guns (71 percent) and believe the law should require gun owners to alert police to lost and stolen guns (64 percent). The NRA's Washington office strongly opposes both measures.
Lanza's mother obeyed these laws, as far as we know.
None of those issues deal with what happened, namely Lanza stealing his mama's legally-purchased weapon and KILLING HER and all those kids.
-
I assume the founders were talking about guns since that's pretty much all they had at the time (I guess that and cannons) and the text mentions a "well regulated militia"
Fast forward 200+ years and well regulated militia is now our modern military which includes all kinds of new "arms"
LOL - I feel that same way most of the time
I think we can definitely have some regulations and obviously admit that we've got to also try to attack the problem for other angles as well
Most of these mass murder shooter types are mentally ill and after the fact we hear their friends, family, neighbor, etc.. saying they knew something was wrong with them for a long time
There are also cases where these people do get stopped before they go through with the act and it's usually a vigilant family member, friend or someone who alerts the authorities
Those cases stay in the news for about 10 second so we never even remember them but it does happen but we'll obviously never stop them all
True, but chem and bio are against the geneva convention, so if it's against the GC, then I'm ok with saying we don't need those either... Everything else is pretty much fair game.
-
guy was rational
If there had been an armed guard, the shooters possibly would have been stopped.
Same if woman teacher could carry 22 in her purse.
Taking gun from law abiding ciizens makes them less safe and saves fewer lives.
Obama and democrats are again wrong.
Where do they grow these idiots?
-
I arrive at the conclusion from the BS you've been spewing, ever since this incident took place last week.
great answer
how about you post one or two of my "BS" statements that let you to believe that
"this take of yours that murderous, devil-worshipping madmen, hell-bent on carnage, are suddenly going to become docile critters, because of some stupid left-winged, Obama-endorsed law (disarming law-abiding citizens)"
please show us which dots you connected to arrive at that idiotic conclusion
-
Lanza's mother obeyed these laws, as far as we know.
None of those issues deal with what happened, namely Lanza stealing his mama's legally-purchased weapon and KILLING HER and all those kids.
go tell that to the NRA members who are in broad support of all of those ideas
btw - how do you know that Lanza mother completed a gun safety course
Maybe that one simple thing alone would have included some info on keeping your guns secure and away from any potentially crazy or violent family member
What if she just locked up those guns and made sure NO ONE could access them other than her
That one simple thing could have potentially prevented the massacre of 28 people
-
great answer
how about you post one or two of my "BS" statements that let you to believe that
"this take of yours that murderous, devil-worshipping madmen, hell-bent on carnage, are suddenly going to become docile critters, because of some stupid left-winged, Obama-endorsed law (disarming law-abiding citizens)"
please show us which dots you connected to arrive at that idiotic conclusion
Your entire premise of posts fail to deal with what ACTUALLY happened (i.e. a madman took someone else's legally-purchased gun and SHOT the owner, his mother, and two dozen other people).
Instead, they deal with taking legally-purchased weapons from law-abiding citizens or making such harder to procure.
-
True, but chem and bio are against the geneva convention, so if it's against the GC, then I'm ok with saying we don't need those either... Everything else is pretty much fair game.
Rocket Launcher which anyone nut bag could potentially use to shoot down a plane or a heavy machine gun or well, you get the idea
I know what you're saying and hopefully it's pretty obvious that I think we have the right as a people to impose some limitations and restrictions for the safety and actually for the freedom of us all
-
Your entire premise of posts fail to deal with what ACTUALLY happened (i.e. a madman took someone else's legally-purchased gun and SHOT the owner, his mother, and two dozen other people).
Instead, they deal with taking legally-purchased weapons from law-abiding citizens or making such harder to procure.
so you can't actually find one or two quotes from me that led you to draw your totally idiotic conclusion ?
-
go tell that to the NRA members who are in broad support of all of those ideas
btw - how do you know that Lanza mother completed a gun safety course
Maybe that one simple thing alone would have included some info on keeping your guns secure and away from any potentially crazy or violent family member
What if she just locked up those guns and made sure NO ONE could access them other than her
That one simple thing could have potentially prevented the massacre of 28 people
How do you know she didn't complete the course or that she didn't take such precautions?
In typical, boneheaded lib fashion, you focus on everything and anything BUT THE KILLER HIMSELF.
You blame the gun; you blame the NRA; you blame Lanza's mother; you blame the 2nd amendment.
so you can't actually find one or two quotes from me that led you to draw your totally idiotic conclusion ?
Sure I can. Your previous post just became another dot. Thanks!
This horrible tragedy is all on ADAM LANZA, period. BTW, you can chalk up this post as another dot.
-
Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the statement I made. My statement was about the NRA ranks and a knock about their members. Not Obama. Not Chicago. Not black on black crime. Nor any color on any color crime at all.
Sure it does. Gun crimes happen in Obama's city on a regular basis. Yet, because it's black people killing each other, Obama can't be bothered.
Yet, little white kids get massacred (conveniently after Obama's re-election), Obama sees it as an opportunity to push the left's anti-gun agenda.
How come Obama and his liberal buddies don't want to have this "serious conversation" about gun violence, when black kids get shot...unless they get shot by (what they perceived to be) white people?
-
How do you know she didn't complete the course or that she didn't take such precautions?
In typical, boneheaded lib fashion, you focus on everything and anything BUT THE KILLER HIMSELF.
You blame the gun; you blame the NRA; you blame Lanza's mother; you blame the 2nd amendment.
Sure I can. Your previous post just became another dot. Thanks!
This horrible tragedy is all on ADAM LANZA, period. BTW, you can chalk up this post as another dot.
I don't know if she took a course or not but you claimed that SHE DID all of those things
I do know that she didn't secure her weapons so that ONLY SHE could get at them
You still can't point to anything I've said which allowed YOU to reach a completely idiotic conclusion and keep in mind it's YOUR CONCLUSION and not mine
I never said any law would have turned a crazy nutjob into a "docile critter"
It's a moronic statement and all I've asked is which of my statements you read to reach that stupid conclusion
why is that so hard for you?
-
Sure it does. Gun crimes happen in Obama's city on a regular basis. Yet, because it's black people killing each other, Obama can't be bothered.
Yet, little white kids get massacred (conveniently after Obama's re-election), Obama sees it as an opportunity to push the left's anti-gun agenda.
How come Obama and his liberal buddies don't want to have this "serious conversation" about gun violence, when black kids get shot...unless they get shot by (what they perceived to be) white people?
dude you are all over the map
what does gun violence in Chicago have to do with Obama or even the shooting in Newton
you seem highly emotional about this issue
more so than you usually do
you're making totally stupid statements that you can't even explain how you derived them
what's really going on here ?
-
dude you are all over the map
what does gun violence in Chicago have to do with Obama or even the shooting in Newton
Simple! Both have to do with gun violence and the killing of our youth. But, as stated earlier, Obama and his friends don't seem to want to have this "serious conversation", when black folk pop each other.
you seem highly emotional about this issue
more so than you usually do
you're making totally stupid statements that you can't even explain how you derived them
what's really going on here ?
The stupid statements are summations of YOUR words which are basically....STUPID STATEMENTS.
Exploiting this tragedy to push more liberal crap gets on my nerve, especially when people (much like you) focus on the WRONG part of the problem, namely the instruments used in the killing vs. THE PEOPLE DOING THE KILLING!!
-
Simple! Both have to do with gun violence and the killing of our youth. But, as stated earlier, Obama and his friends don't seem to want to have this "serious conversation", when black folk pop each other.
Here's the deal
just because you make an idiotic claim does not means it's true or even has a speck of truth
The stupid statements are summations of YOUR words which are basically....STUPID STATEMENTS.
Exploiting this tragedy to push more liberal crap gets on my nerve, especially when people (much like you) focus on the WRONG part of the problem, namely the instruments used in the killing vs. THE PEOPLE DOING THE KILLING!!
nothing I've written has said, suggested or even implied that stricter gun regulations would turn a crazy person into a "docile critter"
that is such a bizarro conclusion on your part that I assumed you had based it on something specific
I see now that it's just your hyper emotional state that is making you completely irrational to the point of being crazy
-
I assumed NOTHING
I answered your SPECIFIC QUESTION which was "You believe that all these deaths due to guns wouldnt have happend by other means if guns were not available?"
the answer of course is an obvious YES, those deaths would not have happened or at least not in anywhere near the number
it's such an obvious YES I don't know why you even asked the question
If you don't like the answer then why did you ask that question?
Ever hear of a bomb or suicide vest or arson or poisoning?
-
Here's the deal
just because you make an idiotic claim does not means it's true or even has a speck of truth
I'm sorry! How many talks and press conferences about gun control has Obama started, after black kids get shot up by other black people, again?
nothing I've written has said, suggested or even implied that stricter gun regulations would turn a crazy person into a "docile critter"
that is such a bizarro conclusion on your part that I assumed you had based it on something specific
I see now that it's just your hyper emotional state that is making you completely irrational to the point of being crazy
Au contraire!! You have focused on everything but the killer himself. You assume the mother was negligent; you assume the NRA was negligent; you are taking the accountability off the monster responsible, and instead you pretend some law, yanking people's firearms, could have stopped this act or will stop acts like this in the future.
-
I'm sorry! How many talks and press conferences about gun control has Obama started, after black kids get shot up by other black people, again?
Au contraire!! You have focused on everything but the killer himself. You assume the mother was negligent; you assume the NRA was negligent; you are taking the accountability off the monster responsible, and instead you pretend some law, yanking people's firearms, could have stopped this act or will stop acts like this in the future.
you're delusional buddy
I never said the NRA was negligent and the FIRST time I suggested the mother was negligent was only a few posts ago when I asked how you knew she didn't take a safety course so you couldn't have drawn your idiotic conclusion on page 1 of this thread from a post on page 3
I've also never written that we should yank people fire arms or that a law could have prevented this act or stopped future acts and in fact I said it would NOT
what is it with you just making up shit out of thin air and then pretending it's fact
I asked you to go find my specific post that led to you moronic conclusion on page 1 of this thread and so far you haven't been able to post even one
You so completely out of touch with reality I'm hoping for the sake of people around you that you don't have a gun
-
So why support new gun control measures then?
you're delusional buddy
I never said the NRA was negligent and the FIRST time I suggested the mother was negligent was only a few posts ago when I asked how you knew she didn't take a safety course so you couldn't have drawn your idiotic conclusion on page 1 of this thread from a post on page 3
I've also never written that we should yank people fire arms or that a law could have prevented this act or stopped future acts and in fact I said it would NOT
what is it with you just making up shit out of thin air and then pretending it's fact
I asked you to go find my specific post that led to you moronic conclusion on page 1 of this thread and so far you haven't been able to post even one
You so completely out of touch with reality I'm hoping for the sake of people around you that you don't have a gun
-
you're delusional buddy
I never said the NRA was negligent and the FIRST time I suggested the mother was negligent was only a few posts ago when I asked how you knew she didn't take a safety course so you couldn't have drawn your idiotic conclusion on page 1 of this thread from a post on page 3
I've also never written that we should yank people fire arms or that a law could have prevented this act or stopped future acts and in fact I said it would NOT
what is it with you just making up shit out of thin air and then pretending it's fact
I asked you to go find my specific post that led to you moronic conclusion on page 1 of this thread and so
far you haven't been able to post even one
You so completely out of touch with reality I'm hoping for the sake of people around you that you don't have a gun
Not only have I posted one, I cited that specifically as yet another "dot", as you like to call it.
But since your memory is shot:
Maybe that one simple thing alone would have included some info on keeping your guns secure and away from any potentially crazy or violent family member
What if she just locked up those guns and made sure NO ONE could access them other than her
That one simple thing could have potentially prevented the massacre of 28 people
Preceded by.....
the basic premise is that in order to protect ourselves from their product (well not "theirs" but what they exist to advocate) they suggest we put armed guard in every school in the country
basically we need to turn ourselves into an armed police state in order to protect ourselves from their product rather than putting some sensible and highly supported restrictions on their product
And, that's just a small snippet of the drivel you've been citing.
Once again, putting the focus on the NRA and the guns, instead of the KILLERS.
-
every school.... 800 to 1500 kids.
easy target for domestic shooters, foreign terr'ists, restraining order parents, hostage-seekers, etc...
Try to estimate the value of 1000 kids lined up. Then tell me, with the bloated school budgets and 40,000$ smart board projecters in every classroom, they cannot afford $140 a day for a cop to hang out in front office?
I'm glad the NRA came out with this idea, but I was shouting this exact idea the minute the shooting happened. One cop doesn't cost that much. It'll be nice for kids to see a cop and grow up seeing them with a smile keeping them safe at school, not just giving tickets or taking daddy to jail. I dont know any kids who would suddenly be scared because a friendly police officer is at their school. Kids see cops like firefighters or astronauts. Only the parents would have a stigma with it.
-
Flashback: Clinton Requests $60 Million to Put Cops in Schools
Breitbart ^ | 12/22/2012 | Chrisnj
Posted on December 22, 2012 8:13:24 AM EST by chrisnj
Today, the same elite media who no doubt send their own kids to private schools that employ armed security, just can't stop howling ridicule at the NRA's idea to give every student in America those same protections. Because the NRA's idea is so appealing, as I write this, the media's going overboard, mocking it as bizarre, crazy, and out of touch. This is how the media works to silence and vilify the opposition and to ensure that only their ideas control The Narrative. The media doesn't care about securing our schools; they only care about coming after our guns and handing Obama another political win. The media also doesnt care how wildly hypocritical they look. In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called "COPS in School," a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
I dont know any kids who would suddenly be scared because a friendly police officer is at their school. Kids see cops like firefighters or astronauts. Only the parents would have a stigma with it.
LOL, like the friendly security guard who tased a girl and broke her arm because she accidently dropped a piece of birthday cake on the floor?
Personally, I think bringing more people onto the scene than have to be there (ie: students & teachers) may not be the best course of action.
Up in this neck of the woods, we just had 2 school security guards busted for dealing pot. The school board hired them from a reputable big name security company to protect & provide supervision for highschool students, and less than a week into it, they get busted for dealing drugs to the kids. ::)
I gotta go with Tu on this one... there's no legislation for crazy.
Some thing that seems to continually get overlooked in these incidents are the mind bending psychotropic drugs involved... more often than not legally prescribed.
What the heck does Big Pharma put in these things that send people so damned far over the edge?
-
Not only have I posted one, I cited that specifically as yet another "dot", as you like to call it.
But since your memory is shot:
Maybe that one simple thing alone would have included some info on keeping your guns secure and away from any potentially crazy or violent family member
What if she just locked up those guns and made sure NO ONE could access them other than her
That one simple thing could have potentially prevented the massacre of 28 people
Preceded by.....
the basic premise is that in order to protect ourselves from their product (well not "theirs" but what they exist to advocate) they suggest we put armed guard in every school in the country
basically we need to turn ourselves into an armed police state in order to protect ourselves from their product rather than putting some sensible and highly supported restrictions on their product
And, that's just a small snippet of the drivel you've been citing.
Once again, putting the focus on the NRA and the guns, instead of the KILLERS.
and yet NONE of those statements in any way supports YOUR BELIEF that
that murderous, devil-worshipping madmen, hell-bent on carnage, are suddenly going to become docile critters, because of some stupid left-winged, Obama-endorsed law (disarming law-abiding citizens)
still have no clue how you arrived at that idiotic conclusion