View Poll Results: How to reduce gun related violence

Voters
81. You may not vote on this poll
  • Tighter restrictions

    21 25.93%
  • Ban Guns (repeal the second amendment)

    4 4.94%
  • Allow for the wider use of guns for self protection

    34 41.98%
  • Other (explain)

    22 27.16%
Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 128

Thread: In light of today's events

  1. #111
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,189

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    Then you better share that info with our politicians. Some have the wrong opinion about what an assault weapon is. They are the people that matter if they take the issue up.

    I've known for a long time that most anti-gun politicians don't know what an "assault rifle" is. None of the weapons banned by the 90s AWB were actually "assault rifles".

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  2. #112
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I've known for a long time that most anti-gun politicians don't know what an "assault rifle" is. None of the weapons banned by the 90s AWB were actually "assault rifles".
    I stand corrected. Thank you.

  3. #113
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    a rifle that shoots 5 bullets per second and is used in the military is not an assault weapon? Since when?
    The only way a semi-automatic weapon is going to fire 5 bullets in one second is if you can squeeze the trigger 5 times in a second. The US military uses selective fire rifles that can switch between safe,semi-automatic to automatic or safe, semi-automatic to 3 round burst. These weapons have never been used in a mass shooting. If you in the anti-2nd amendment crowd are going to propose bans and severe restrictions then you should at least know what you are talking about.

    Here check this video out.

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #114
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The only way a semi-automatic weapon is going to fire 5 bullets in one second is if you can squeeze the trigger 5 times in a second. The US military uses selective fire rifles that can switch between safe,semi-automatic to automatic or safe, semi-automatic to 3 round burst. These weapons have never been used in a mass shooting. If you in the anti-2nd amendment crowd are going to propose bans and severe restrictions then you should at least know what you are talking about.

    Here check this video out.

    I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.

  5. #115
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,189

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.
    Define overkill.

    Weapons are inherently dangerous; they're bloody well supposed to be, or they aren't working properly. Any weapon good for self-defense is also capable of being misued by a criminal or a crazy.

    Mass-murders are also committed using things other than guns: bombs, fire, knives (recent stabbing of 22 children in china for example), and even a hammer (case in Atlanta years ago, I posted a link in another thread).

    The one common denominator is that almost all of these mass-murderers were mentally ill. That is why I keep saying mental illness is where our focus should be.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #116
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    I am not anti 2nd ammendment, but I do object to weapons that can be overkill.
    Isn't that like saying I'm not anti-1st amendment but I think mega-churches should be banned,porn magazines should be banned, and you should only be allowed to write your elected official once a year?
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  7. #117
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Define overkill.

    Weapons are inherently dangerous; they're bloody well supposed to be, or they aren't working properly. Any weapon good for self-defense is also capable of being misued by a criminal or a crazy.

    Mass-murders are also committed using things other than guns: bombs, fire, knives (recent stabbing of 22 children in china for example), and even a hammer (case in Atlanta years ago, I posted a link in another thread).

    The one common denominator is that almost all of these mass-murderers were mentally ill. That is why I keep saying mental illness is where our focus should be.
    This shooter took his mother's guns so having stronger gun laws in relation to the mentally ill would have had no effect. I have a problem with any weapon that can rapidly fire and put many bullets in someone. I can't imagine a 6 year old child having 11 bullets in his body or anyone else for that matter. It makes me sick.

  8. #118
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,626

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Isn't that like saying I'm not anti-1st amendment but I think mega-churches should be banned,porn magazines should be banned, and you should only be allowed to write your elected official once a year?
    Not in my opinion. Not all guns should be allowed. The 2nd ammendment was written a long time ago and any weapon that can put multiple bullets into a person should not be allowed. It makes no sense to me.

  9. #119
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,189

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    This shooter took his mother's guns so having stronger gun laws in relation to the mentally ill would have had no effect. I have a problem with any weapon that can rapidly fire and put many bullets in someone. I can't imagine a 6 year old child having 11 bullets in his body or anyone else for that matter. It makes me sick.

    Of course does. It would make anyone sick.

    The thing is, you'd need to ban almost all firearms if you really wanted to prevent such crimes.

    Most revolvers hold 6 rounds... some can hold 8. Many rifles that are in no way "assault rifles" can hold up to 10 rounds.

    A 12 gauge sporting pump shotgun that only holds 5 shells can put 45 lethal projectiles (00 buckshot, .30 cal, 9 per shell) into the air in less than five seconds.


    But okay fine, lets say you ban legal ownership of everything except single-shot guns.

    There are about 300 million firearms in the USA, most of which are not single-shot. How many do you think will actually be turned in? What about the millions upon millions of guns already on the black market? What about the millions of lawful gun owners who will believe you're infringing on their Constitutional rights and refuse to comply?

    How will you get rid of all those guns? Raid every house that ever owned guns? That's (depending on whose estimates you accept) over 30 million households.

    What about the black market? We can't keep weed off the street or from coming over the border, how will we keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies?

    The answer is you can't. Doing things your way will only insure that millions of law-abiding gun owners are turned into criminals, and that law abiding citizens will be FAR less well-armed than the criminals who prey on them.

    And for crazy mass-murderers, there would still be illegal guns, fertilizer bombs, arson, knives and swords (see China's recent attacks), and so on.

    Gun control is not the answer.

    Changing the way we handle mental illness (not just mental illness as it relates to gun ownership, but in the broader sense) will do FAR more to protect us from these types of events than any gun control ever could.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #120
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: In light of today's events

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    Well, thats a new one on me...So, all these policemen, state troopers, inspectors that the state has are simply acting on their own ?
    A man , of sound mind, being able to arm himmself is the entire "safety system" ???
    That is the way things were in the 600s, even to an extent in the 1600s.
    But this "protection" of the 2000s cannot be 100%, even if we have a total police state..
    Strange.
    The part you missed OBLIGATION, there is none for the state. They are NOT OBLIGATED to protect you. The SCOTUS has exempted the govenmet at all levels from that duty. There could be a COURT order and they are not obligated to enforce it. THey have made it VERY clear on that note.


    7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
    On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

    (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

    (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

    (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

    (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

    (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).


    (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
    "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

    (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
    Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

    (8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
    Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

    New York Times, Washington DC
    Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
    The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •