• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

nota bene said:
I am not arguing for personal irresponsibility. I can see that you didn't read the CNN article to which I linked you. In it, those who knew her said that she was very responsible.

There is no indication that Nancy Lanza was irresponsible. There is also no evidence that she was even awake when shot; in fact, every report I've read suggests that she was likely asleep when murdered.

You're practicing psychiatry without a license here, and you haven't really read up on this. Those with autism are frequently very difficult to "reach," and this does NOT translate to their distance being an indication that they have violent tendencies.

Where have you read that Adam Lanza had an anti-social personality disorder? Where have you read that I promote irresponsible gun ownership? What evidence do you have to support your claims beyond "Hindsight is 20/20"?

Produce evidence that Adam Lanza had violent tendencies and that somehow his mother should have known that he was going to do what he did.

I will produce evidence now that suggests that there was NO CLUE:

[Richard] Novia said he was surprised by the deadly rampage that left 20 children and seven adults, including Adam Lanza's mother, dead.

"He had some social disorders, poor personal skills," Novia said. "We felt strongly he could develop. He was highly intelligent, but how do you inject him in the system and develop him socially?"

Novia was not able to give specifics about the killer's specific condition, but said Adam Lanza did not have any violent tendencies.

"In a security aspect, it wouldn't be what he would do," he said. "It was what they might do to him."

Adam Lanza underwent psych evaluations in years past - WFSB 3 Connecticut


Click to expand...


But this CT case is the crown jewel of liberal argument that the NRA and guns are evil, not the people that misuse (abuse?) them. We must use this tragedy as intended; to require (justify?) as much nanny state gov't expansion as possible. We the sheeple are incapable of contolling all in our midst so we need more gov't ASAP; now they will not do it either, but that is never to be discussed - we the sheeple had our chance and we blew it, just ask Obama, he will tell you; it is his mandate to "fundamentally transform" America.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

nota bene said:
I am not arguing for personal irresponsibility. I can see that you didn't read the CNN article to which I linked you. In it, those who knew her said that she was very responsible.

There is no indication that Nancy Lanza was irresponsible. There is also no evidence that she was even awake when shot; in fact, every report I've read suggests that she was likely asleep when murdered.

You're practicing psychiatry without a license here, and you haven't really read up on this. Those with autism are frequently very difficult to "reach," and this does NOT translate to their distance being an indication that they have violent tendencies.

Where have you read that Adam Lanza had an anti-social personality disorder? Where have you read that I promote irresponsible gun ownership? What evidence do you have to support your claims beyond "Hindsight is 20/20"?

Produce evidence that Adam Lanza had violent tendencies and that somehow his mother should have known that he was going to do what he did.

I will produce evidence now that suggests that there was NO CLUE:

[Richard] Novia said he was surprised by the deadly rampage that left 20 children and seven adults, including Adam Lanza's mother, dead.

"He had some social disorders, poor personal skills," Novia said. "We felt strongly he could develop. He was highly intelligent, but how do you inject him in the system and develop him socially?"

Novia was not able to give specifics about the killer's specific condition, but said Adam Lanza did not have any violent tendencies.

"In a security aspect, it wouldn't be what he would do," he said. "It was what they might do to him."

Adam Lanza underwent psych evaluations in years past - WFSB 3 Connecticut


Click to expand...


I have heard numerous sources that say he was anti social. He would frequently withdraw. I never once said he was violent. lol. I said he wasn't able to care for himself and needed to be committed.

His mother didn't keep her guns locked up and from Lanza easily accessing them. What other proof do you need that she lacked judgement? I am not so much calling her irresponsible as I am calling your attitude irresponsible. Every single person in the would shouldn't be taught to use a gun. I don't care if you believe in a dooms day coming or not. If somebody can't take care of themselves to the point they need to be committed and has anti social behaviors, they probably shouldn't be taught how to use a firearm. If you do choose to teach such an individual such skills, for god's sake, keep your guns locked up.

In the future, people should do more to keep their own guns being used in this manner. That's one way of preventing future mass shootings. You're arguing his mother did nothing wrong, and it was fine he accessed her guns. It's not.

Pick gun control and gun restrictions, or pick responsibility. Don't argue that the mother's behavior and decsions should be repeated over and over in this country, because it shouldn't be.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

poweRob said:
Really? Because as a conservative voice in this thread, those are the cards you keep playing for yourself.

You know, how you went on the attack in this thread and then whined about being attacked, then blaming progressives for mass shootings... ring a bell? nah.. I suppose not.
Click to expand...

I've never attacked anyone.

Don't confuse different views with attacks, or the notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your progressive is somehow "conservative."

I'm a real liberal not a progressive. I believe in individualism, hence I don't need government dictating outcomes for me or you. I'm an adult, you're an adult - you don't need government telling you what to do or how to live your life.

Do you really enjoy the notion that government controls your life? - that government makes decisions for you that you could make for yourself?

A real "liberal" would scoff at the idea of government intervention...... The audacity you have to portray yourself as a "liberal" is amusing!

Merry Christmas,

- I hope that offends you BTW.
 
Last edited:
Re: NRA Newtown response

This is what I mean about not reading up. She kept her guns locked up.

And don't put words in my mouth, SheWolf. I have never said what you claim I've said.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

nota bene said:
This is what I mean about not reading up. She kept her guns locked up.

And don't put words in my mouth, SheWolf. I have never said what you claim I've said.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem she kept her guns locked up or out of his access.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Nota,

What do I have wrong about your argument? She taught him to shoot, which I don't feel was necessary. And she didn't keep her guns out of his ability to access them, which ended up being deadly in this case.

Yeah, according to your article she kept a gun in a metal lockbox in the basement. That was a statement by an eyewitness. If the gun was locked away safe, then how did Lanza get them? Both can't be the truth.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
I don't think it would be easy... as far as other shootings are concerned, there has been trained people and ex cops trying to take down people with little to no armor and failing to get a lethal shot.
Click to expand...

Naturally. Hitting a moving target with a pistol at distance is tricky. However, simply delaying / distracting an active shooter is fairly easy. I would have no problem with a first responder having biometric access to a carbine in order to make them more accurate and even up their odds of scoring a kill rather than simply knocking the shooter flat on their butt. (seriously, it's not like the body armor makes hundreds of pounds of energy just disappear - it just spreads the force over a larger area of your body) And throat / groin guards and the like are for shrapnel - not direct hits.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

SheWolf said:
Why hasn't the NRA responded to any other mass shooting tragedy? That's what I want to know. I think it's a valid question, and obviously one you yourself cannot answer.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how it's that critical of a question. Why haven't democrats pushed for gun control in response to other mass shootings such as Aurora? You can just as easily ascribe every negative possible motivation that you can come up with for the NRA to them.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Higgins86 said:
Problem is these are the same computer games/movies countries like Japan, Germany, UK etc watch and you dont see much gun crime there. As for the whole armed guard in schools my question is where does it stop? If a gunman kills the guard and then shoots a load of kids what will be your response then? More guards? Barbed wire? Maybe a moat......
Click to expand...


is that any different than those who pushed the strict gun laws in CT and now want even more restrictions on law abiding gun owners?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
I don't understand how it's that critical of a question. Why haven't democrats pushed for gun control in response to other mass shootings such as Aurora? You can just as easily ascribe every negative possible motivation that you can come up with for the NRA to them.
Click to expand...


they do nott have a tight election looming now

after Aurora it would have cost them lots of votes
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TaraAnne said:
A lobbyist group/ terrorist group!
Click to expand...

what supreme idiocy. who does the NRA terrorize other than criminals?

but thanks for proving my point-advocates of gun control hate the NRA more than murderers and that is why people such as you advocate stuff designed to hassle gun groups rather than impact criminals
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Mr.Nick said:
I've never attacked anyone.

Don't confuse different views with attacks, or the notion that anyone who doesn't agree with your progressive is somehow "conservative."

I'm a real liberal not a progressive. I believe in individualism, hence I don't need government dictating outcomes for me or you. I'm an adult, you're an adult - you don't need government telling you what to do or how to live your life.

Do you really enjoy the notion that government controls your life? - that government makes decisions for you that you could make for yourself?

A real "liberal" would scoff at the idea of government intervention...... The audacity you have to portray yourself as a "liberal" is amusing!

Merry Christmas,

- I hope that offends you BTW.
Click to expand...

What I enjoy is good discussions and intelligent debate. Saying Merry Christmas is not offensive. That's just you playing stereotypes because you can't think for yourself. What does offend me is calling liberals the teachers of mass killers. That is incredible ingorance. This could go on and on but I choose not to believe much when your record states that you not only Romney would win big but also that he'd take New York. :lol:

And since I'm not getting good discussion from you nor intelligent debate... I guess it's off to the ignore list with you.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

BTW.................

383747_340205159420414_1386034139_n.jpg
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

apdst said:
BTW.................

383747_340205159420414_1386034139_n.jpg
Click to expand...

so you want to treat every kid like their father is the president and therefore a legitimate terror target? Going to cost a lot of $ you dont have!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
what supreme idiocy. who does the NRA terrorize other than criminals?

but thanks for proving my point-advocates of gun control hate the NRA more than murderers and that is why people such as you advocate stuff designed to hassle gun groups rather than impact criminals
Click to expand...
Your point seems incredible to me! I defy you to prove that "advocates of gun control" (I'm one) like murderers more than the NRA! That is a ridiculous statement that is based purely on an absurd premise. How can anyone take your debating points seriously when you post comments that are so inaccurate and have no facts at all to back them up?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Higgins86 said:
so you want to treat every kid like their father is the president and therefore a legitimate terror target? Going to cost a lot of $ you dont have!
Click to expand...

Great point not to mention that if you were to suggest an additional tax to pay for the cost of such an extreme concept the same people who are whining about needing over the top security measures will filibuster or not allow a vote on the topic because of the tax. It's just like when Tea Party types talk about entitlement reform so long as their not impacted by the reform!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Your point seems incredible to me! I defy you to prove that "advocates of gun control" (I'm one) like murderers more than the NRA! That is a ridiculous statement that is based purely on an absurd premise. How can anyone take your debating points seriously when you post comments that are so inaccurate and have no facts at all to back them up?
Click to expand...

well its pretty obvious that the gun control advocates want to stick it to the NRA and honest gun owners

murderers are not allowed to possess weapons so bans on "assault weapons" and some of the other schemes the anti gun left proposes are designed to hassle people like me. people who ignore capital murder charges don't worry about gun laws-law abiding people do.

And yes I have the facts on my side. you liberals were waiting for a tragedy like this to push an anti gun agenda that was in place all along-fears of a close election a couple months ago kept the scheme under cover

everything you liberals have proposed has no impact on people who premeditate murder

registration-would not have stopped Lanza-it was already in place
insurance requirements-wouldn't have stopped him-he was not the registered gun owner
assault weapon bans-he couldn't buy one legally
gun purchase restrictions-nope he wasn't the one who bought it


why is it that 95% of those calling for limitations on what people like I can own liberal to extreme left?
because for 40 years the dems have used gun control a political shield against claims they were soft on crime and that caused us pro gunners to mobilize and start becoming active in politics to counter the dem schemes to sacrifice our rights so dems could continue to coddle criminals while pretending to be tough on crime
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
well its pretty obvious that the gun control advocates want to stick it to the NRA and honest gun owners
Click to expand...

Your statement is an out of context one that is way too simple to be true. New polling suggests that a majority of Americans do not believe that AR 15 type weapons are necessary to honor the 2nd Amendment or to prevent crime and the poll also shows that a majority want to limit the size of magazines to far less than 30 or 100. That is what people are advocating in the mainstream. You make it sound (and so do so many people who post like you do) that you're rights are being threatened and that it's all about a conspiracy to forcibly remove guns from legal gun owners.

You're exaggerating and using "scare" tactics to make people feel threatened when a threat doesn't exist. This "strategy" is what Republicans / Conservatives tried hard to do in the last election and a majority of Americans defied the fear factor and voted for Democrats. Elections have consequences and when one side loses the wining side tries to implement what they perceive they were elected to accomplish. However, this does not include taking away your precious guns.

Making bs statements like you write is muckraking and is meant solely to piss off people who disagree with you. It adds, IMHO, nothing concrete to the actual debate because it is bs and not true. Maybe if you stopped making up stuff and exaggerating the truth your debating points would be taken seriously? The way it is your tendencies to use bs talking points born on Fox News, the NRA and Conservative Talk Radio are all propaganda and nothing more than that. Sorry!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

jakiejakester said:
Your statement is an out of context one that is way too simple to be true. New polling suggests that a majority of Americans do not believe that AR 15 type weapons are necessary to honor the 2nd Amendment or to prevent crime and the poll also shows that a majority want to limit the size of magazines to far less than 30 or 100. That is what people are advocating in the mainstream. You make it sound (and so do so many people who post like you do) that you're rights are being threatened and that it's all about a conspiracy to forcibly remove guns from legal gun owners.

You're exaggerating and using "scare" tactics to make people feel threatened when a threat doesn't exist. This "strategy" is what Republicans / Conservatives tried hard to do in the last election and a majority of Americans defied the fear factor and voted for Democrats. Elections have consequences and when one side loses the wining side tries to implement what they perceive they were elected to accomplish. However, this does not include taking away your precious guns.

Making bs statements like you write is muckraking and is meant solely to piss off people who disagree with you. It adds, IMHO, nothing concrete to the actual debate because it is bs and not true. Maybe if you stopped making up stuff and exaggerating the truth your debating points would be taken seriously? The way it is your tendencies to use bs talking points born on Fox News, the NRA and Conservative Talk Radio are all propaganda and nothing more than that. Sorry!
Click to expand...

I don't accept nor care about your appeal to a mass of low information voters.

if civilian police officers have certain weapons than the rest of us civilians ought to have them too since our right to use deadly force against criminals is the same as theirs

and why don't you make an intelligent argument why lawyers, doctors, shopkeepers and factory workers' lives are less valuable than cops, revenue agents, poultry inspectors and fish and game wardens?

and then tell me what the second amendment really means
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

ThePlayDrive said:
This is why the NRA and fellow gun enthusiasts are not to be taken seriously. The main M.O. of these groups and individuals is take guns out of the discourse about violence and to insult people into staying silent or agreeing with them.
Click to expand...

Well said. And you do not have to look any further for definitive proof of that effort to intimidate than gun threads right here on this site. They are dominated by gun lobby apologists or supporters who can rally around each other in a gang mentality and discourage many from participating. That is obvious by reading them.

This is a deliberate political tactic to allow them to have unfettered control of the message and to send the warning that if you stand against us we will come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks. And even if you can hold your own or prove them wrong in the gun threads, they will find other ways to attack you. People get that message loud and clear and the stay away after experiencing such treatment and such tactics.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

TurtleDude said:
I don't accept nor care about your appeal to a mass of low information voters.

if civilian police officers have certain weapons than the rest of us civilians ought to have them too since our right to use deadly force against criminals is the same as theirs

and why don't you make an intelligent argument why lawyers, doctors, shopkeepers and factory workers' lives are less valuable than cops, revenue agents, poultry inspectors and fish and game wardens?

and then tell me what the second amendment really means
Click to expand...
Your reply to my last post was similar to your previous replies. You're tone as I interpret it is angry and arrogant - almost like you're pointing a gun at me. Does pointing a weapon at someone make you feel powerful and more of a man?

Your argument that police and civilians should have access to identical weaponry is incredible to me. No one, not the SCOTUS or anyone in a position to legislate would EVER legislate what you wrote. Your reply is EXTREME and FAR, FAR, FAR out in right field. It's really scary to think that you're so motivated by gun ownership and that you think you have the right to own any type of weapon that the police use.

True colors are often expressed here when people write angry posts and you my friend have revealed who you are. I for one, find your post disturbing to the extreme.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

haymarket said:
Well said. And you do not have to look any further for definitive proof of that effort to intimidate than gun threads right here on this site. They are dominated by gun lobby apologists or supporters who can rally around each other in a gang mentality and discourage many from participating. That is obvious by reading them.

This is a deliberate political tactic to allow them to have unfettered control of the message and to send the warning that if you stand against us we will come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks. And even if you can hold your own or prove them wrong in the gun threads, they will find other ways to attack you. People get that message loud and clear and the stay away after experiencing such treatment and such tactics.
Click to expand...
Thank you for our post it is very insightful and I agree with you 100%. I wrote in a post in this thread that it's almost like the intense gun defenders are pointing a gun at you as they type - their posts mean to intimidate and to make you shut up - not to debate.

You, or I or others can express a willingness to express an acceptance that Americans have a right to legally own and register guns - but for me that does not mean carte blanche or does it mean that I believe that certain guns and ammunition that are now legal should remain legal, i.e. AR 15 type weapons and magazine clips with more than 10 rounds.

We all know that the shooter in Tucson was stopped trying to reload his weapon and had he not needed to reload even more people would have been killed or injured.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Police are civilians. Their ability to deploy deadly force against criminals in an urban environment is limited to situations where the police officer REASONABLE believes that unless he or she shoots, the criminal will seriously injure or kill the officer or another citizen

OTHER CIVILIANS are in the same boat legally. WE can use deadly force only if we have a reasonable belief of imminent death or severe bodily harm. In some cases we have MORE leeway than a cop such as if someone comes into our house carrying an obvious weapon, we don't have a duty to challenge the criminal but can engage him first

SO what do we know

1) civilian police agencies have determined that the weapons gun haters call "assault weapons" are extremely suitable for self defense by civilians in an urban environment

2) the rules for using such weapons against criminals are the same for cops and other civilians

3) the cops are less likely to be attacked without forewarning than a homeowner or a shopkeeper

4) the cops are more likely to have backup available or on its way


so tell me why should LAW ABIDING citizens be unable to use the same CIVILIAN SELF DEFENSIVE weapons our tax dollars provide to cops
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom