close to 20 people dead (including children) in CT kindergarten shooting[views:413599][posts:319]________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:33pm - DestroyYouAlot ""] Other acceptable DC villains would have been Captain Nazi, Crazy Quilt, or Psycho Pirate. http://spider-bob.com/teams/dc/SecretSocietySuperVillains.htm |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:35pm - trioxin245 ""] DestroyYouAlot said:Other acceptable DC villains would have been Captain Nazi, Crazy Quilt, or Psycho Pirate. http://spider-bob.com/teams/dc/SecretSocietySuperVillains.htm I just said Raz Al Ghul because of the whole taking-down-a-society-when-it-gets-too-big-and-out-of-control thing. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:46pm - largefreakatzero ""] ShadowSD said:My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck. If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None. We don't each have a nuclear bomb or a bazooka under the second Amendment, even though they're arms, so why semi-assault rifles? This is one area where being a strict constructionalist really makes sense, as the second amendment was conceived about muskets when you couldn't shoot more than one person every thirty seconds. 40% of gun deaths in American come from guns legally owned by friends and family, like in Sandy Hook, but sadly many people think having high-powered guns in your house and taking your kids to the shooting range is still the solution and not the problem, like this shooter's mother did - and she unwittingly ended up helping him practice his target shooting for twenty first graders. For those who want to make the case that more guns are the answer to preventing future shootings, all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it. My child's life is worth more than expanding your gun rights beyond the muskets the second amendment was written around. The true libertarian position at this point is the correct one: people have the freedom to hurt themselves, but NOT infringe to on each others' freedoms: it's time to take all police resources directed towards drugs and free up law enforcement to focus on eliminating guns that can be used for multiple shootings; the idea that to this day a person could walk into my daughter's elementary school and kill children with a legally purchased military-style weapon but would be ingesting illegal drugs in an overdose had he chosen to only harm himself shows exactly what is wrong with our country, and why the twenty dead children will not be the last unless we reverse that mentality. You want to kill yourself, go right the fuck ahead, drugs and no guns mean you go out alone. Instead we have legal military style weapons and illegal heroin, the implication shoot the kids as long as you don't shoot up. Who favors that policy? Anyone? Thing is, though, we will probably see this kind of mass shooting of children happen at least another five or ten times before we actually change - hundreds more children WILL die due to the power of gun enthusiasts like the shooter's mom to resist these changes in law from happening. And with every shooter, the question is raised: how many children's lives are worth the cost of not being able to reload your clay pigeon shooting fast enough? 20? 50? 100? 200? 1000? And eventually the number will get big enough - but the real answer is one child. Your child. Any child. In regards to bomb comparison, it's a pretty good because it makes the point bombs are illegal as these guns should be, and having government surveillance/pre-emptive techniques on bombing attempts used with the same efforts on preventing mass shooting sounds good, too. When it comes to the argument of how CT had relatively tight gun controls to other states, the murder weapon was in fact LEGAL here, clearly showing how low the bar is for reasonable controls in any state; what little gun control we do have in our state is why this shooter was twice denied guns when he tried to purchase them himself, due to his unwillingness to go through a background check and waiting period. For the record, I have never before posted anything on the topic of gun control, nor was I in favor of legalizing all drugs, just pot - but this tragedy has changed my mind and convinced me we've got it all wrong in terms of liberty when it comes to these things. Be free unless it infringes on the freedoms of others. Drugs, on their own, don't when taken by people. Guns capable of mass shootings do. And every dead child in that school shouldn't have had their rights to live freely at all put BEHIND the rights of others to weaponize freely. Liberty and justice for all. So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future? You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember? So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines? All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:46pm - ShadowSD ""] shutup%20hippie%20fagget said:Shadowsd said: all I can say is that if one of your relatives grabs those guns you legally own and shoots you in the face, I'm not surprised and you get what you should have expected - but your stupidity also kills my child and dozens more, and that's when your damned right I have a say about it. shutup hippie fagget You must know a lot of pissed off hippies to draw that impression. Did a hippie steal your virginity? He took you by the hand Made love in his Chevy Van And that's alright with you |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:50pm - trioxin245 ""] Limiting freedom because of fear is the opposite of American. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes every year. We should probably make cars illegal too, that way we can save 40,000 lives a year! |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:54pm - ShadowSD ""] largefreakatzero said:So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future? You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember? So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines? All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you. His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets. At the end of the day, there might have to be incentives to help the turnover process, but I have faith that the majority of law-abiding gun owners would continue to be just that - law-abiding - at least more faith than I do in their ability to keep their guns away from mass shooters, since they keep failing at it, and twenty children more were just killed because of that failure. My point is there's no reason to have any more faith in the Nancy Lanza approach to guns and safety and passing on the same values to one's family, she was just as confident in all these things until reality shot her in the face. |
| ________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 4:59pm - shutup fagget ""] ShadowSD said: largefreakatzero said:So what law would have prevented this? What law do you want to propose that would prevent this in the future? You point out that the gun was legally owned, but you fail to mention it was not legally acquired by the shooter -- he shot the owner, dear old mom, remember? So, you go ahead and ban all "assault rifles" -- are you going to send the cops around door-to-door to the millions upon millions of Americans that legally own firearms with what you have deemed "high capacity" magazines? All I've seen is theorizing and posturing from the anti crowd, but no practical ideas about execution of an actual law. Nothing would have prevented this from happening, and nothing with prevent it from happening again. Do your absolute best to protect yourself (and your family if you have one) and don't rely on government to help you. His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets. At the end of the day, there might have to be incentives to help the turnover process, but I have faith that the majority of law-abiding gun owners would continue to be just that - law-abiding - at least more faith than I do in their ability to keep their guns away from mass shooters, since they keep failing at it, and twenty children more were just killed because of that failure. My point is there's no reason to have any more faith in the Nancy Lanza approach to guns and safety and passing on the same values to one's family, she was just as confident in all these things until reality shot her in the face. shutup fagget |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:01pm - ShadowSD ""] trioxin245 said:Limiting freedom because of fear is the opposite of American. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes every year. We should probably make cars illegal too, that way we can save 40,000 lives a year! Should we all have bazookas and A-Bombs in order not to limit freedom? That would make me feel pretty damn free. Not too safe though. And if we shouldn't have those, then why semi-assault weapons? After all, if there's a line, why isn't it before twenty kids dying and instead after? Also, semi-assault weapons can't drive you to work, or take shooting victims to the hospital. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:04pm - trioxin245 ""] I'd take getting blown away by an a-bomb over Big Brother breathing down my neck any day. |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:04pm - largefreakatzero ""] I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:10pm - Boozegood ""] Gun culture has always been a part of American culture, therefore there are A LOT of guns all over America. They ARE NOT going away. Comparing the banning of guns in a country where there are millions of guns around to the banning of guns in America is completely unrealistic. Also, America has always had a di fferent outlook on 'freedom' than the rest of the world. American freedom is based on liberty/individual freedoms and not ease of life/safety. Ie: (traditionally) in America it is far more important to maintain individual rights and liberties (ie: the right to bear arms/self defense) than it is to deny these freedoms in favor of theoretical safety. This is also apparent in our traditional disdain for socialism as well; we do not place a large value on comfort/ease of life if it involves hand holding. That is a topic for another time; but it's all related. NOW I am not saying which is superior to the other; just that perhaps you can step back and view things from an 'American' viewpoint sometimes. We are a very, very different country than the rest. Some of us love it that way; some of us want to move more towards a European sense of safety/freedom balance. It's up to the individual's opinion of course. And of course there is always the point that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting; it's a form of checks/balances on our own Government. I understand that it is very, very far-fetched that we will ever have to have an 'uprising' against our own government; but it is not impossible and the 2nd Amendment has been used in this way during 'modern' times ( examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29 ). "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." "The land of the free, the home of the brave." [img] We aren't addicted to guns, we are addicted to liberty. Guns, being as controversial and 'extreme' as they are are a PERFECT example of what sets us apart from literally EVERYONE else. Lovers of liberty cling to their guns because they are a symbol of just how free we are; we are allowed to have something that is considered so controversial, so 'deadly', so 'wrong', so 'scary', etc. etc by the rest of the world. And we have been allowed to do so by our own Constitution since the founding of our beautiful country; and no one is going to change that. Firearms are the perfect symbol of freedom. It's easy to grant people certain freedoms; granting them the freedom of essentially rebellion is not easy. It really comes down to this: Anti-gun people want to make America a safer place; this being their idea of freedom. Pro-gun people don't want to sacrifice certain liberties in order to make America (maybe) a bit safer (and most of them don't think it will do that anyways, myself included). So no one will ever agree. It comes down to this, as a pro-gun sort of fellow: If you were a magical wizard from the land of Oz that could somehow ACTUALLY guarantee that there would be 100% less violence in America if we banned all guns; I would still tell you I don't want that. Freedom is more important. Anti-gun arguments are the same as Christian arguments that are based in the Bible ("It's in the bible; therefore it is correct.") if I don't BELIEVE in the Bible in the first place; the argument is useless. If I don't BELIEVE in safety-above-all; your arguments are useless to me as far as gun-control goes. [img] inb4 "Huurrr durrrr edgy fucking comments about America/the flag/whatever." You are so QUIRKY and EDGY, rttp. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:11pm - trioxin245 ""] QUICK SOMEBODY TAKE THAT MARINES' RIFLES AWAY BEFORE SOMEONE BREAKS INTO HIS APARTMENT AND SHOOTS UP A NURSERY |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:12pm - ShadowSD ""] largefreakatzero said:I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't. In a few years if nothing happens and the number of dead children is in the hundreds every year, you might not necessarily feel the same way. There is, I think, a price too high, a line that represents that in everyone's mind; a point where you'd say I'd give up the ability to fire multiple rounds if it could have brought those kids back. Is it 100? Is it 1000? I don't know. But it's there. And we're on our way much higher numbers without changes in law, faster than anyone realizes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...gun-arrest-20121217,0,1967249.story |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:18pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: largefreakatzero said:I don't think you can compare a nationwide weapons ban and recollection to anything that has happened historically. Americans love their guns and most would not give them up happily for the greater good. I sure wouldn't. In a few years if nothing happens and the number of dead children is in the hundreds every year, you might not necessarily feel the same way. There is, I think, a price too high, a line that represents that in everyone's mind; a point where you'd say I'd give up the ability to fire multiple rounds if it could have brought those kids back. Is it 100? Is it 1000? I don't know. But it's there. And we're on our way much higher numbers without changes in law, faster than anyone realizes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...gun-arrest-20121217,0,1967249.story How many terrorist have to be created via propaganda and religion and blow themselves up in crowded bazaars before you start eroding the 1st Amendment? Everyone always says 'The 1st Amendment isn't there for when people say nice things.' IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT FOR THE 1ST AMENDMENT; the 2nd Amendment is a TRUE TEST of liberty, it isn't easy. Every person dies; freedom only dies when you deliberately kill it. "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Eisenhower |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:21pm - trioxin245 ""] [img] |
| ______________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:22pm - Yeti ""] all i know is that you can't stop a psycho from being psychotic. we'll ban assault rifles, they'll use shotguns. we'll ban shotguns, they'll use handguns. we'll ban guns altogether, they'll use bombs. the underlying issue is, why are so many people psychotic? |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 5:26pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: His mom bought the weapon legally. Had the assault weapons ban not expired, the gun would have been illegal, and there would be no mass shooting. If a new ban were instituted, it would have been illegal. Legislation has already been proposed on this, also involving clips over ten bullets. There is still an 'Assault Weapons' (not a real thing, by the way. Made up term.) ban active in CT. And you are talking about magazines, not clips. If you are going to be a fascist, at least do some research. Don't use made up words and incorrect terms. Yes, 'I mad'. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 6:53pm - ShadowSD ""] Wow, I'm a fascist now for thinking people have the freedom to hurt themselves but not to infringe on each others' freedoms. I think when you read what I said, my argument was based on liberty entirely. Those kids had a right to liberty, too. Not to total security. As Yeti correctly pointed out, attackers can just as well use a shotgun or a handgun or a knife. If they did, I and most people in the country right now wouldn't be pissed at the government about this. The difference with a semi-automatic is 0 or 1 or 2 deaths verses 27. No there is no such thing as total security. That's why I think turning schools into airports post 9-11 as a response to this tragedy like I've heard some people (not here) say would be insanity, and what happens when you get overly defensive instead of taking care of dismantling the offense. I don't want metal detectors, or cops, or armed security guards at my daughter's school every day, I'm talking to the principal this week to voice my opinion of that very thing, no one let alone kids should live under a cloak of paranoia. I also oppose national ID cards, support legalizing pot, and I now support the legalization of all drugs. But because I don't want my kid shot by legal military style weapons for civilians, I'm a fascist. Got it. Someone still has yet to answer me why you don't feel your freedom is under assault from not being able to use bazookas or nukes. I'm still waiting on that one. I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. I'm just saying we follow the Founders in both deed and not just word on this. Liberty of children to be free from mass shootings like they were in the days of the Founders > liberty of grown men to fire weaponry the Founders never conceived or considered. |
| ________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:04pm - shutup fagget ""] shutup faggets..............shit happens, bad things happen, tragedy happens. shutup faggets. SHUTUP FAGGETS! SHUTUP FAGGETS! |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:08pm - trioxin245 ""] I'll quote someone else instead of the founding fathers: "The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill!" -Zardoz |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:09pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said:Wow, I'm a fascist now for thinking people have the freedom to hurt themselves but not to infringe on each others' freedoms. I think when you read what I said, my argument was based on liberty entirely. Those kids had a right to liberty, too. Not to total security. As Yeti correctly pointed out, attackers can just as well use a shotgun or a handgun or a knife. If they did, I and most people in the country right now wouldn't be pissed at the government about this. The difference with a semi-automatic is 0 or 1 or 2 deaths verses 27. No there is no such thing as total security. That's why I think turning schools into airports post 9-11 as a response to this tragedy like I've heard some people (not here) say would be insanity, and what happens when you get overly defensive instead of taking care of dismantling the offense. I don't want metal detectors, or cops, or armed security guards at my daughter's school every day, I'm talking to the principal this week to voice my opinion of that very thing, no one let alone kids should live under a cloak of paranoia. I also oppose national ID cards, support legalizing pot, and I now support the legalization of all drugs. But because I don't want my kid shot by legal military style weapons for civilians, I'm a fascist. Got it. Someone still has yet to answer me why you don't feel your freedom is under assault from not being able to use bazookas or nukes. I'm still waiting on that one. I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. I'm just saying we follow the Founders in both deed and not just word on this. Liberty of children to be free from mass shootings like they were in the days of the Founders > liberty of grown men to fire weaponry the Founders never conceived or considered. You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate. Your arguments are completely fucking invalid as long as you keep stating completely made up things like 'military style weapons'. Why should I believe or take note of ANYTHING you say if you can't even get simple facts right? Also American civilians can own 'bazookas'/RPGs/Grenades/.203 grenade launchers/etc. Again, do your research. Nuclear weapons are debatable. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:10pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegood said:And you are talking about magazines, not clips. I was just repeating the wording one person used describing the legislation on Meet The Press, who probably thought you could get away with saying clip instead of magazine. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:13pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. Please support ANY OF THIS with a single cited fact. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:16pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegod said:Nuclear weapons are debatable. Boozegod said:You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate. FIXED |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:20pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: Boozegod said:Nuclear weapons are debatable. Boozegod said:You are a complete and utter fucking idiot, not even worthy of mild debate. FIXED Well, they are. They are constitutionally debatable. I am not the one making up stuff here. You are just making things up out of the blue/expressing opinion as fact/using made up terms ("assault weapon", "military style rifle", etc). |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:29pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegood said: ShadowSD said: I'd also love to know why every statement and symbol from the Founders is pulled out on cue except the actual weapons they used. Why not respect the whole history of the second amendment instead of cherry picking? The Founders meant we each get a musket in our house. That's an individual right no one can fuck with and that I believe in with every ounce of my being, the right to arm yourself in your home to have the power to fire a shot, not to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. Please support ANY OF THIS with a single cited fact. You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be quite educated about weapons. Is it your assertion they had Uzis? Not sure what point you're making there. They had muskets, they wrote laws with those muskets in mind. Not rocket science. The only other thing I said in that quote was the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that. Maybe you're referring to what I said about the usage of the gun, which true enough, also could make reloading faster for target shooting on a range - but I was talking about having one in the house, which is the right being described. If SWAT's after you, doesn't matter if you have a handgun or a semi-automatic they'll take you down, so the whole insurance policy against government intrusion doesn't really work as a justification for needing stronger weapons than the ones used in our early history; having one in the house just means killing more people before you die, not withstanding or thwarting the government intrusion. |
| __________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:32pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegood said:Well, they are. They are constitutionally debatable. I am not the one making up stuff here. You are just making things up out of the blue/expressing opinion as fact/using made up terms ("assault weapon", "military style rifle", etc). I'm just repeating commonly used terms in the analysis of this tragedy, I'm not making any of them up. If you have an issue with the terms, that's fair, but I can tell you I don't go around inventing words. And if nukes are Constitutionally debatable but currently aren't allowed, why aren't semi-automatic weapons in the same category? |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:35pm - trioxin245 ""] I liked when you said "... to fire hundreds in seconds in a way that only has one real-life usage, killing the innocent. " Plenty of people hunt with those things, ya know... Not children though, just bucks, elk, stuff like that mostly. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:40pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be quite educated about weapons. Is it your assertion they had Uzis? Not sure what point you're making there. They had muskets, they wrote laws with those muskets in mind. Not rocket science. This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next. The only other thing I said in that quote was the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that. Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." ( http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html ) Maybe you're referring to what I said about the usage of the gun, which true enough, also could make reloading faster for target shooting on a range - but I was talking about having one in the house, which is the right being described. If SWAT's after you, doesn't matter if you have a handgun or a semi-automatic they'll take you down, so the whole insurance policy against government intrusion doesn't really work as a justification for needing stronger weapons than the ones used in our early history; having one in the house just means killing more people before you die, not withstanding or thwarting the government intrusion. Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight. Also, the 2nd Amendment has already been used in that fashion in 'modern' times (a few of which I've already cited, but will again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:43pm - Boozegood ""] ShadowSD said: I'm just repeating commonly used terms in the analysis of this tragedy, I'm not making any of them up. If you have an issue with the terms, that's fair, but I can tell you I don't go around inventing words. Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is? And if nukes are Constitutionally debatable but currently aren't allowed, why aren't semi-automatic weapons in the same category? My research has shown that Nuclear Weapons contradict certain other parts of the constitution. But since I don't have any of that research on hand right now I'm unable to argue that point. Also, the idea that the ingredients required to create a nuclear weapon can be federally regulated without disturbing the constitution. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:51pm - trioxin245 ""] Shadow, you say 'legalize all drugs' yet if I were you I would be much more worried about the likelihood of impressionable young kids easily getting their hands on substances they have no respect for and dying. Something like 5000 people die each year in the US from overdosing, yet you say legalize it all and make it MORE accessible, and 27 people die from bullets and they should be illegal? It's much more likely your kid will run into some scumfuck drug dealer who will convince him to ruin his life with coke or whatever than it is that they get shot by a mass murderer. I mean no disrespect to your kids, just saying. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:54pm - trioxin245 ""] eh I didnt word that last post very well, but I think you get the jist (gist?) |
| _________________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:57pm - Headbanging_Man ""] Boozegood said:Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is? Complains about inaccurate use of weaponry terms; flagrantly misuses civil legal terminology. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 7:59pm - Boozegood ""] T Headbanging_Man said: Boozegood said:Because they are obviously slanderous words that put images in peoples heads; when in fact they literally mean absolutely nothing. Please tell me what an 'assault weapon' or a 'military style rifle' is? Complains about inaccurate use of weaponry terms; flagrantly misuses civil legal terminology. slan·der (slndr) n. 1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. I thought it could be applied to an object/slanderous to the owners of said weapons in this situation; if I'm wrong I stand corrected. See how easy it is to be an adult and admit when you are wrong? Amazing, really. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 11:26pm - ShadowSD ""] Boozegood said: ShadowSD said: You don't believe the Founders had access to muskets and nothing much stronger, needing citation for that? This would be mildly arguable (and still false) if it was true that the founding fathers had 'only muskets'. Which isn't true, so: next. I never said "only muskets". I said "they had access to muskets and nothing much stronger." What's the point of blockquoting what I said and then ignoring the part you quoted? Boozegood said: ShadowSD said:the individual right to have a gun in your home that the Supreme Court recently ruled was the intent of the Second Amendment, not just for militias to have guns. It was the right decision, as well as a decision all those in favor of guns agreed with - and you can google that. Also not correct, though you are correct that home-defense was specifically mentioned in the final ruling: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Isn't that what I just said? What's not correct? You're saying gun owners opposed this right? Boozegood said:Again; this isn't true. Counter Insurgency is the most difficult form of warfare to fight. Yes, but only when 1. the terrain offers a lot of cover with mountains or jungles, 2. the counter insurgency is from foreigners unfamiliar with the terrain. That's what makes it hard, and those don't both apply, particularly the second one. US Troops of some future tyrannical government wouldn't have much trouble in the rural plains no matter what magazines the rebels had. With the armaments and training and tanks and explosives and knowing their own country as well as any insurgents, it would be a very short uprising, unaffected in duration by the amount of bullets each gun could fire quickly or not. Whether we like it or not, our military transcended the level where we could defeat it with an insurrection decades ago, no manner how many bullets we had. This is not a comforting thing, I can agree with you there - but it has been true for some time. I think it's difficult to argue otherwise when you consider all our government's combined defense and intelligence capabilities; we only can lose wars to insurgents because we're the foreigners and they're hidden in the asscracks of terrain they know far better than us. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 11:38pm - ShadowSD ""] trioxin245 said:Shadow, you say 'legalize all drugs' yet if I were you I would be much more worried about the likelihood of impressionable young kids easily getting their hands on substances they have no respect for and dying. Something like 5000 people die each year in the US from overdosing, yet you say legalize it all and make it MORE accessible, and 27 people die from bullets and they should be illegal? I'm not saying open up hard drug dispensaries and make them more accessible, but there is something to said about the argument addicts shouldn't be in prison, they should be in treatment; my real point here is take that police manpower directed towards drug busts and possession charges and focus it on the weapons, not the drugs. End the DEA and focus those agents on guns. Any scumbag that's pushing drugs like you mention still has to convince a kid to start using who is already open to that idea, whereas with the gun, well it does the convincing automatically, doesn't it? That's the issue here. Every person has a choice to start using or not, you have that freedom, you have that liberty, you have none when you become a mass shooting victim. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 17,2012 11:52pm - ShadowSD ""] trioxin245 said:Plenty of people hunt with those things, ya know... Not children though, just bucks, elk, stuff like that mostly. The idea someone NEEDS the freedom to use a semi-automatic with over ten bullets in particular in order to hunt an elk suggests they're such a crappy shot they should be nowhere near a gun. Most of this country's history, people hunted animals without that technology. In another century, are we so overkill for the sake of lazy that hunters will be launching drone strikes on elk from their computers in their bedrooms? Or maybe tactical nukes... I think hunting and eating what you kill are part of life and part of this country. But if you can't do it with a simple firearm let alone a bow and arrow or a knife, and you need to fire off dozens of shots with a semi, nature has already kicked your ass, and it's time to ditch the Rambo meets Bambi charade and order your sorry ass a pizza. |
| ________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 2:54am - Burnsy ""] Yeah, absolutely Shadow. (SM 10): Let's go back to muskets. When the government comes for you (nooooooo that could never happen heeeeeeeeere) let's see how happy you are with your faggot musket. Also, how long did you study constitutional law as you seem so adept at interpreting the amendment (albeit only to cater to your opinion). |
| ________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 3:06am - Burnsy ""] I also need to note that I didn't read the whole thread. Good on ya for the massive blocks of text but if there was really "no way to extrapolate the point. None" then your point would be simple and concise, which it isn't. Not at all. I think if your daughter overdosed on heroin, you'd have a totally different take on the matter, btw. Stick to marijuana, you have a much stronger argument there. |
| ________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 6:10am - DestroyYouAlot ""] ShadowSD said:My daughter is in the first grade here in CT, in a school a lot like Sandy Hook, where I sent her on Friday and again today. I keep thinking about this all day every day since this happened, walking through it in my mind over and over, what it would look through the eyes of student, child, and shooter. This topic isn't a subject I ever write about, and what I say here won't make me very popular here, but I don't really give a fuck. If the Founders of this country saw their sacred right to have a musket in your home stretched to semi-automatics that kill dozens of children in regular mass shootings, they would be disgusted. There's no way to extrapolate that intent from them. None. Correction: If they saw those weapons in the hands of the police and other government forces, and the citizenry not keeping up, they'd be disgusted. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 7:08am - arilliusbm ""] In all new guns purchased after January 1st, 2013, insert a microchip that disables gun on school grounds; if microchip is removed you face up to 15 years in prison. If gun is old, then well, I dunno. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 7:12am - arilliusbm ""] Then again that's a horrible idea because if someone possessed the emitter technology that disables the guns then all hell would break loose. NEED COFFEE. |
| ____________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 7:15am - arilliusbm ""] Oh and BTW, just your average coincidence between the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings. http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scan...-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify |
| ______________________________ [Dec 18,2012 7:39am - Yeti ""] guns, drugs, dicks and abortions for all! |
| ________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 7:46am - DestroyYouAlot ""] arilliusbm said:In all new guns purchased after January 1st, 2013, insert a microchip that disables gun on school grounds; if microchip is removed you face up to 15 years in prison. If gun is old, then well, I dunno. Yeah but then the ultimate weapon becomes THE CARDBOARD BOX. |
| _______________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 8:43am - AndrewBastard ""] trioxin245 said:Im waiting for my gun license to go through, THIS BETTER NOT AFFECT ANYTHING seriously? |
| _______________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 8:44am - AndrewBastard ""] meant to OK BOBBY that |
| __________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 8:51am - halfway to hobo ""] I lost my cardboard box, and still haven't figured out the box shelter thing-a-ma-jiggy yet, no worries though, these jeans be skinny! |
| _________________________________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:23am - movealong-nothing to see here ""] arilliusbm said:Oh and BTW, just your average coincidence between the Aurora shooting and the Sandy Hook shootings. http://www.examiner.com/article/libor-scandal-grows-as-the-fathers-of-two-mass-murderers-were-to-testify this. |
| ___________________________________ [Dec 18,2012 11:33am - ShadowSD ""] Burnsy said:Yeah, absolutely Shadow. (SM 10): Let's go back to muskets. When the government comes for you (nooooooo that could never happen heeeeeeeeere) let's see how happy you are with your faggot musket. About as happy and dead as I'd be with any gun against the whole US Armed Services and intelligence forces, and just as quickly. So would you, so would anyone. To assume otherwise is a jerk-off Die Hard fantasy - a fantasy that has no comparison to real, dead kids, especially those who happened to die from a jerk-off Die Hard fantasy in the mind of an insane killer. Also, how long did you study constitutional law as you seem so adept at interpreting the amendment (albeit only to cater to your opinion). It's the amendment as it was written with the intent it was written, regardless of my opinion. That was the weaponry, those were the rights enshrined about them. Don't blame me for it, that's what happened. There's a crowd out there (not saying you're one of them) that claims it's all about original interpretation of amendments in the Constitution, but say that about the second amendment, and you're a faggot-armed reinterpretist. Burnsy said:Stick to marijuana, you have a much stronger argument there. You're right, it is a stronger argument, and that's why I was only for legalizing pot before - but in a context where semi-automatics remain legal on the basis of arguments in favor of liberty, it's pretty insane to have the government jail you for hurting yourself with drugs, that's the point I'm really making here. It's so hypocritical and illogical especially in the wake of this shooting that it's maddening: the shooter's gun was legally bought by his mother but heroin he could have bought to overdose instead would be illegally bought. Not sane policy - and certainly not in favor of anyone's liberty. Burnsy said:I think if your daughter overdosed on heroin, you'd have a totally different take on the matter, btw. If anyone here's child was shot in this sort of thing, they would certainly have a different take on the matter as well. The only difference is, drugs require you to consent taking them, you have that freedom to choose. With being shot, you don't have that liberty. Drug suicides only have a death toll of one; you don't want people heavily armed when they decided they truly want to kill themselves, because when you're at that stage, you don't give a fuck about anybody. The results from that combination are obvious and inevitable. |