26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

Moot · Jan 5, 2013

j-mac said:
Do you believe that Feinstein, (wonder if he is any relation), builds that weapon in the hopes that children are murdered with it?

Well, Feinstein and other gun manufacturers sure don't seem to have a problem profitting from it. Surely, you noticed gun sales went up after the massacre. And for every gun sold, the NRA gets a kickback and more members. Massacres are very profittable for the NRA and gun manufacturers......so why would they want to stop them?

"....Additionally, some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membership for everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business......<snip>

"Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center. "While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."

There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organization develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.....<snip>

This shift is key to understanding why a coalition of hunters, collectors and firearm enthusiasts takes the heat for incidents of gun violence, like the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, rather than the companies that manufacture and market assault weapons.....

Read more: The NRA Has Sold Out To The Gun Industry To Become Their Top Crisis PR Firm - Business Insider

The Mark · Jan 5, 2013

Moot said:
This shift is key to understanding why a coalition of hunters, collectors and firearm enthusiasts takes the heat for incidents of gun violence, like the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, rather than the companies that manufacture and market assault weapons.....

Read more: The NRA Has Sold Out To The Gun Industry To Become Their Top Crisis PR Firm - Business Insider

If my understanding of the term "assault weapons" is accurate, none of the weapons used to kill people in sandy hook were such. Much the same with many/all of the similar incidents (at least those widely reported) in past few years.

If my understanding is correct, and I'm 90% sure it is, why was the phrase used in this sentence, seeing as it does not apply?

Moot · Jan 5, 2013

The Mark said:
If my understanding of the term "assault weapons" is accurate, none of the weapons used to kill people in sandy hook were such. Much the same with many/all of the similar incidents (at least those widely reported) in past few years.

If my understanding is correct, and I'm 90% sure it is, why was the phrase used in this sentence, seeing as it does not apply?

If you want to play semantics you're talking to the wrong person. My focus in on the gun manufacturers and their front group, the NRA. Now if you want to discuss the billions they reap in after each massacre and their show of indifference, then we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

j-mac · Jan 5, 2013

Moot said:
Well, Feinstein and other gun manufacturers sure don't seem to have a problem profiting from it.

The company makes a product, and make sales, and yes, if they are lucky they make a profit....That's business. Are you saying that only businesses that you approve of are entitled to make a profit? Also, to insinuate that the manufacturer is not only responsible for the actions of an unstable person using their product illegally, or that the CEO of that company has no feeling on the event in order to demonize him, is despicable in my view.

Surely, you noticed gun sales went up after the massacre.

Ofcourse they did. But it wasn't the Company that increased those sales, it was in direct response of the public fearing that their right to own them would soon be taken.

And for every gun sold, the NRA gets a kickback and more members.

Donations = "Kickbacks"?

Massacres are very profitable for the NRA and gun manufacturers......so why would they want to stop them?

That is nonsense, and pure rhetoric meant to inflame the debate. About 800 people a year die in pool related drownings, with 20% of them being children between 1 to 4 years old....Should we demonize the pool manufacturer for that?

As for your article using Mr. Sugarman of the Violence policy center, that bias piece of trash shouldn't even be considered anymore than opinion that you agree with....The VPC is an anti 2nd amendment lobby.

The overall goal of the VPC is to ban most types of firearms in the United States.

Violence Policy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moot · Jan 5, 2013

j-mac said:
The company makes a product, and make sales, and yes, if they are lucky they make a profit....That's business. Are you saying that only businesses that you approve of are entitled to make a profit? Also, to insinuate that the manufacturer is not only responsible for the actions of an unstable person using their product illegally, or that the CEO of that company has no feeling on the event in order to demonize him, is despicable in my view.

Are you saying it's okay to profit off the blood of innocent children? Sure looks like it.

Of course they did. But it wasn't the Company that increased those sales, it was in direct response of the public fearing that their right to own them would soon be taken.

Some gun shops refused to sale the Bushmaster in the wake of the massacre. They had common decency. Can't say that for the rest of gun industry or it's customers.

Donations = "Kickbacks"?

Gun manufacturers giving out an NRA membership to anyone who buys one of their guns is a kickback, not a donation. Giving the NRA a dollar for every gun sold is a kickback and not a donation. The NRA makes more money from promoting the gun manufacturer's products, than they do memberships. In return, they absorb and blow off the criticism and public outrage.

That is nonsense, and pure rhetoric meant to inflame the debate. About 800 people a year die in pool related drownings, with 20% of them being children between 1 to 4 years old....Should we demonize the pool manufacturer for that?

What do you care about how many die, you're too busy fondling your gun and playing with it's accessories.

As for your article using Mr. Sugarman of the Violence policy center, that bias piece of trash shouldn't even be considered anymore than opinion that you agree with....The VPC is an anti 2nd amendment lobby.

Well, who would you suggest the article quote, Mr. La Pierre? :roll:

j-mac · Jan 5, 2013

Moot said:
Are you saying it's okay to profit off the blood of innocent children? Sure looks like it.

Some gun shops refused to sale the Bushmaster in the wake of the massacre. They had common decency. Can't say that for the rest of gun industry or it's customers.

Gun manufacturers giving out an NRA membership to anyone who buys one of their guns is a kickback, not a donation. Giving the NRA a dollar for every gun sold is a kickback and not a donation. The NRA makes more money from promoting the gun manufacturer's products, than they do memberships. In return, they absorb and blow off the criticism and public outrage.

What do you care about how many die, you're too busy fondling your gun and playing with it's accessories.

Well, who would you suggest the article quote, Mr. La Pierre? :roll:

Ok, we are done with this. Your standpoint is clear. You don't think anyone should be able to own a gun, and I believe that responsible gun ownership is my right. You want to take that away, and any dishonesty, demonizing, or downright manipulation of facts that serves your ends of doing such is not only accepted by you, but warranted, and proper.

We will never agree on this issue, and frankly I do not understand your willingness to so cavalierly give up your own rights, or think that you presume to tell me what I should give up, but hey, it is your opinion. I just don't care anymore to discuss it with you, because it has no resolution between us, therefore why? What's the point?

Have a good night.

Moot · Jan 5, 2013

j-mac said:
Ok, we are done with this. Your standpoint is clear. You don't think anyone should be able to own a gun,

I didn't say that, so how could it be clear?

and I believe that responsible gun ownership is my right. You want to take that away, and any dishonesty, demonizing, or downright manipulation of facts that serves your ends of doing such is not only accepted by you, but warranted, and proper.

There you go again, lying about what I said and telling me what I believe or want.

We will never agree on this issue, and frankly I do not understand your willingness to so cavalierly give up your own rights, or think that you presume to tell me what I should give up, but hey, it is your opinion. I just don't care anymore to discuss it with you, because it has no resolution between us, therefore why? What's the point?

Have a good night.

Okay, thats fine with me since you seem to have been arguing both sides of the argument all by yourself anyway. Classic strawman if ever I did see one....but to see you work yourself up into frenzy while you're doing it....was priceless. LOL

The Mark · Jan 5, 2013

Moot said:
If you want to play semantics you're talking to the wrong person. My focus in on the gun manufacturers and their front group, the NRA. Now if you want to discuss the billions they reap in after each massacre and their show of indifference, then we'll talk. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss there.
Some nut kills a bunch of people, other people get scared and buy guns to protect themselves.

The gun manufacturers make guns, so they profit.
The NRA is a gun ownership club of sorts (very generalized way of putting it I guess), and thus they profit (although to a lesser degree).

That's the extent of the thing, so what discussion is necessary?

j-mac · Jan 6, 2013

Moot said:
I didn't say that, so how could it be clear?

I didn't say that you expressly said those words. This was the conclusion I came to from reading your body of posting.

There you go again, lying about what I said and telling me what I believe or want.

Well, it's real easy if you answer a simple question...Do you believe that there is such a thing as responsible gun ownership?

Okay, thats fine with me since you seem to have been arguing both sides of the argument all by yourself anyway.

How's that? I think I was pretty clear in that I am for the 2nd amendment not being infringed by reactionaries....

Classic strawman if ever I did see one....but to see you work yourself up into frenzy while you're doing it....was priceless. LOL

Strawman? where? Maybe I can clear it up for you. And 'frenzy'? I assure you ma'am I don't get worked up typing to anonymous people on the internet, I approach it as entertainment as rational people should, maybe this is a bit of liberal projection at work once again.

Dwight · Jan 6, 2013

Medusa said:
this carnage points to the importance of death penalty..

***BOGGLE***

:roll:

presluc · Jan 6, 2013

j-mac said:
Who could be sure? So many new laws, and or regulations are passed these days whenever they feel the need to slip them in, that IMHO, it is just getting to the point of, if we don't like what you are doing, living, owning, etc., we will find a way to say you are breaking the law.....

Agreed,
but this is about gun control laws and should they be looked into or not. IMHO according to the track record they should be at least looked at.

As far as "if we don't like what you are doing, living or owning we will find away to say you are breaking the law."
Old news there is a list but it's quite long , how about the fact that you can not own a resturant for smokers only?, From there it get's well a little crazy.

However, what are we to do, make out your protest sign I'll meet you in D. C.?
Been there done that for Civil Rights and the War in Nam.
I'm a bit old to be taking nightsticks to the head, but you are welcome to try with my blessings.

eace

presluc · Jan 6, 2013

Blackdog said:
Irrelevant.

That is an illegal straw purchase and the seller who sold the weapon to the child is responsible. Not the dealer. The kid (depending on age) is also responsible as ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Just a huge incoherent bunch of nothing at this point. Can't even respond to that nonsense.

IRRELEVANT???
Excuse me, but I think defending a law that you don't know how it's enforced is quite RELLEVANT.

I will admit my mistake I should have said seller not dealer or manufacturer.

However to protect the current gun control laws from being even looked into on one hand and to say how background checks are made is IRRELEVANT ON THE OTHER WELL?
Am I missing something?

I was making a point if you missed it call it nothing , but I know what it was.

eace

presluc · Jan 6, 2013

The Mark said:
Correct, I am not at all familiar with the details of how a gun store owner runs a background check. What is your point?

Of course not. I never said anything that even hinted at suggesting such. Are you sure you're reading my posts? And stop shouting.

In descending order of guilt: Mainly the fault of the person who shot the now-dead person, secondly the fault of the adult who illegally sold firearms to the child, and last/least the fault of the kid. OR so I would look at it, if such an unlikely situation occurred.

Depends on the circumstances.

I've answered this question already. Do you even read my posts?

My point is but one if I was defending the right for a law to remain the same at least I would know how such a law was enforced.

That is all I have to say to you sir.

presluc · Jan 6, 2013

The Mark said:
What is the purpose of this sentence?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Accuse you of something? :lamo

I just guessed that it might have been you, I had no idea, and I don't really care.

Well you don't know how a gun store owner runs a background check, and evidently you don't care.

You guessed it was me but when proven wrong it was the old "I DON'T REALLY CARE"
When I make a mistake I admit it and try to correct it this "don't care" crap ain't my style.

If you never sent another post to me I think I might borrow from your post "quoteing here"" I DON'T REALLY CARE".

In short if you don't care STEP OFF.

eace

The Mark · Jan 6, 2013

presluc said:
Well you don't know how a gun store owner runs a background check, and evidently you don't care.

You guessed it was me but when proven wrong it was the old "I DON'T REALLY CARE"
When I make a mistake I admit it and try to correct it this "don't care" crap ain't my style.

If you never sent another post to me I think I might borrow from your post "quoteing here"" I DON'T REALLY CARE".

In short if you don't care STEP OFF.eace

You are a strange person.

How do you read all this stuff in my posts that I don't say?

Not a single one of the statements above is correct or accurate in any way.

presluc · Jan 6, 2013

The Mark said:
You are a strange person.

How do you read all this stuff in my posts that I don't say?

Not a single one of the statements above is correct or accurate in any way.

Post 524, post 525,

Post 524" I am not at all familiar with how gun store owners run background checks ", your words are they not.
You have had more than sufficient time to check how background checks are run but didn't which means you don't care.

You were guessing the new law that was passed was first brought up by me. again your words or words to that effect.

Yet when proven wrong it was the old "I had no idea" "I don't really care."

Question if you did not care who brought up the new law that was passed why did you post it saying you guessed it was me why not another poster why post at all if you do not know who brought it up?

Answer I DON'T REALLY CARE YOU SHOULD. CAUSE YOU GOT CAUGHT,.

I would have accepted an apology or even messed up there but I HAD NO IDEA I REALLY DON'T CARE.
Some how that don't sit right with me .

I've been on this forum a long time debated on just about everything, won a few and turned my king over and lost more than a few, but with honorable posters not DON'T CARE ,I DON'T REALLY CARE, IRRELEVANT, DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS BUT IT SHOULD STAY THE SAME.

The Mark · Jan 6, 2013

presluc said:
Post 524, post 525,

Post 524" I am not at all familiar with how gun store owners run background checks ", your words are they not.
You have had more than sufficient time to check how background checks are run but didn't which means you don't care.

You were guessing the new law that was passed was first brought up by me. again your words or words to that effect.

Yet when proven wrong it was the old "I had no idea" "I don't really care."

Question if you did not care who brought up the new law that was passed why did you post it saying you guessed it was me why not another poster why post at all if you do not know who brought it up?

Answer I DON'T REALLY CARE YOU SHOULD. CAUSE YOU GOT CAUGHT,.

I would have accepted an apology or even messed up there but I HAD NO IDEA I REALLY DON'T CARE.
Some how that don't sit right with me .

I've been on this forum a long time debated on just about everything, won a few and turned my king over and lost more than a few, but with honorable posters not DON'T CARE ,I DON'T REALLY CARE, IRRELEVANT, DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS BUT IT SHOULD STAY THE SAME.

What the hell are you talking about.

Of course I don't know exactly how gun stores run background checks, if such is required. I stated as much. Had no plans to investigate further, not important.
I stated that I had not known about said "new law" (which must be no longer new by this point), and off-handedly wondered if you had mentioned it first. You reply by telling me you did not and going off about how I accused you of such. Which I frankly found laughable. Accusation was not in mind at all. Now you're telling me I faked not caring, and are apparently quite pissed about this. I'm kinda sitting here going..."WTF?? Is this guy serious?"

Yet apparently you are. Damn.

-------------------
As for why I don't have specifics to throw back at you, and why I have not spent the time to go look this **** up...

Busy IRL, this convo frankly unimportant.

Black Dog · Jan 6, 2013

presluc said:
IRRELEVANT???
Excuse me, but I think defending a law that you don't know how it's enforced is quite RELLEVANT.

It was irrelevant to his statement. I know how background checks are made as well.

presluc said:
I will admit my mistake I should have said seller not dealer or manufacturer.

You said "person, so it would have made no difference.

So if a person bought a gun legally or say a bunch of guns legally and sold them to a second party and the second party a kid who knew nothing about guns it's the kids fault if somebody winds up dead? - presluc

presluc said:
However to protect the current gun control laws from being even looked into on one hand and to say how background checks are made is IRRELEVANT ON THE OTHER WELL?
Am I missing something?

Yes. A coherent sentence? I will try and understand...

So to protect the current gun laws from being looked into on one hand, and to say background checks are made irrelevant on the other, well?

So by to "protect" you mean stop someone from looking into our current gun laws? While at the same time saying background checks are irrelevant because of it?

OK it still makes absolutely no sense and has no point.

presluc said:
I was making a point if you missed it call it nothing , but I know what it was.eace

I will call it incoherent ramblings thank you, lol.

Seriously you take it real easy man.

presluc · Jan 8, 2013

The Mark said:
What the hell are you talking about.

Of course I don't know exactly how gun stores run background checks, if such is required. I stated as much. Had no plans to investigate further, not important.
I stated that I had not known about said "new law" (which must be no longer new by this point), and off-handedly wondered if you had mentioned it first. You reply by telling me you did not and going off about how I accused you of such. Which I frankly found laughable. Accusation was not in mind at all. Now you're telling me I faked not caring, and are apparently quite pissed about this. I'm kinda sitting here going..."WTF?? Is this guy serious?"

Yet apparently you are. Damn.

-------------------
As for why I don't have specifics to throw back at you, and why I have not spent the time to go look this **** up...

Busy IRL, this convo frankly unimportant.

For somebody that is going to the mat to protect gun control laws from even being looked into I too would use the letters WTF.
I too would ask is this guy serious? He wishes to stop any investigation about a law that he does not know how it's full potential or how it is enforced?

Yet you apparently are DAMN???

eace

presluc · Jan 8, 2013

Blackdog said:
It was irrelevant to his statement. I know how background checks are made as well.

You said "person, so it would have made no difference.

So if a person bought a gun legally or say a bunch of guns legally and sold them to a second party and the second party a kid who knew nothing about guns it's the kids fault if somebody winds up dead? - presluc

Yes. A coherent sentence? I will try and understand...

So to protect the current gun laws from being looked into on one hand, and to say background checks are made irrelevant on the other, well?

So by to "protect" you mean stop someone from looking into our current gun laws? While at the same time saying background checks are irrelevant because of it?

OK it still makes absolutely no sense and has no point.

I will call it incoherent ramblings thank you, lol.

Seriously you take it real easy man.

You know the first time I saw a spin doctor put a spin on something I was a very young man about 23 or 24.
It was actually during the 60's at a civil rights march, some KKK MEMBER SAID THAT SEGREGATION WAS GOOD FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS , IT KEPT THEM SAFE, of course that was before the hangings and church burnings in the South came into play.

So a lot of years as passed since then try your spin tactics on a tree hugger or some anti- gun fanatic.

It won't work here.

I ask why the current gun control and background checks aren't being investigated , or at least looked into?
The answers I got irrelevant ,,makes no sense, has no point, no coherent sentence, no difference
My question remains unanswered just a lot of excuses which I have yet to use excuses but I think history does not lie, excuses can be made but innocent people remain dead shot and killed.

eace

The Mark · Jan 8, 2013

presluc said:
For somebody that is going to the mat to protect gun control laws from even being looked into I too would use the letters WTF.
I too would ask is this guy serious? He wishes to stop any investigation about a law that he does not know how it's full potential or how it is enforced?

Yet you apparently are DAMN???eace

I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is the person you are directing this post at?

Because it sure as hell isn't me.

Black Dog · Jan 8, 2013

presluc said:
You know the first time I saw a spin doctor put a spin on something I was a very young man about 23 or 24.
It was actually during the 60's at a civil rights march, some KKK MEMBER SAID THAT SEGREGATION WAS GOOD FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS , IT KEPT THEM SAFE, of course that was before the hangings and church burnings in the South came into play.

So a lot of years as passed since then try your spin tactics on a tree hugger or some anti- gun fanatic.

It won't work here.

I ask why the current gun control and background checks aren't being investigated , or at least looked into?
The answers I got irrelevant ,,makes no sense, has no point, no coherent sentence, no difference
My question remains unanswered just a lot of excuses which I have yet to use excuses but I think history does not lie, excuses can be made but innocent people remain dead shot and killed.eace

Ummmm... has nothing to do with spin, no one can understand WTF you are saying. What part of "incoherent" needs a detailed evaluation and explanation for you?

And what the hell does the KKK or anything else you rambled have to do with anything I said.

I want whatever your on, lol.

presluc · Jan 9, 2013

Blackdog said:
Ummmm... has nothing to do with spin, no one can understand WTF you are saying. What part of "incoherent" needs a detailed evaluation and explanation for you?

And what the hell does the KKK or anything else you rambled have to do with anything I said.

I want whatever your on, lol.

Ah that's the problem with SPINNERS.they want you to buy their spin but they don't want to buy anybody elses spin.

You know that's the second time a WTF phrase as showed up on a post directed at me.

So in keeping up with the uhh... current trending I decided to present my own WTF phrase.

WTF is so secretive about gun control that it can't be even looked into???
I mean WTF ARE THEY HIDING?

eace

Black Dog · Jan 9, 2013

presluc said:
Ah that's the problem with SPINNERS.they want you to buy their spin but they don't want to buy anybody elses spin.

You know that's the second time a WTF phrase as showed up on a post directed at me.

So in keeping up with the uhh... current trending I decided to present my own WTF phrase.

WTF is so secretive about gun control that it can't be even looked into???
I mean WTF ARE THEY HIDING?eace

:roll:

Useless.

The Mark · Jan 9, 2013

presluc said:
Ah that's the problem with SPINNERS.they want you to buy their spin but they don't want to buy anybody elses spin.

You know that's the second time a WTF phrase as showed up on a post directed at me.

So in keeping up with the uhh... current trending I decided to present my own WTF phrase.

WTF is so secretive about gun control that it can't be even looked into???
I mean WTF ARE THEY HIDING?eace

I think you need to back up a bit and calm down.

From where I sit at least, you appear to be overexcited.

Attempts at rational discussion usually work best when the participants are at least somewhat calm.

26 reported killed in Newtown [W:72/89]

Moot

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

Moot

j-mac

Moot

j-mac

Moot

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

j-mac

Dwight

Well-known member

presluc

presluc

presluc

presluc

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

presluc

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

presluc

presluc

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

presluc

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.