Well there hasn’t really been a rash of crazy people making bombs and randomly killing people in the US. There has been a rash of crazy people (sorry, I mean gun enthusiasts) getting a little too enthusiastic quite often. What say we worry about that real problem and then if crazy people setting off bombs in public becomes a problem we will figure out an action plan?
Actually, the Aurora police chief confirmed that a 100-round drum was found at the scene, not a clip.
Given their refusal to comment on this latest in a long string of events (or the several right before it, seemingly starting with Giffords), and given also the absolute lack of comment even on this board from the board’s own normally-vocal gun “enthusiasts”, one might wonder if there’s some close self-examination and reconsideration of their views going on right now. If only they, or at least a few representatives, had enough moral clarity or even simple courage to tell us.
Hahahahahahaha!!! Whew. Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Dick Cheney will stand on the National Mall and admit that the whole Iraq thing was a frame-up and a huge mistake and that the 2004 election was completely rigged and he should be tried for war-crimes before the NRA will self-examine or reconsider their stance on guns.
He was not in med school but was a grad student in neurosciences.
Besides, before medical school, we didn’t torture any small animals. We stuck to digging up freshly buried corpses and dissecting them (well, sometimes, we’d just take them to McDonalds and leave them sitting in a booth).
I have a few questions for the pro gun ban people.
Do we compensate the owners of the guns that need to be turned in?
How long do we jail non compliant persons when a banned gun is found?
How would you stop smugglers from bringing in banned guns?
I was pissed when the person at MSNBC spoiled the movie by talking about the gun use in the movie. Talking about critical scenes.
As for people not pitting this guy beforehand, of course people hate this guy. It’s like pitting Hitler… what’s the point if you know everyone’s on board?
Rather than pitting the sorry-ass shooter, I’d rather call attention to the sleazebags using this crime to promote their asinine agendas.
For instance, Mike Adams, the “Health Ranger”, who operates an inexplicably popular pro-“alternative medicine” website, NaturalNews, which also is deeply into conspiracy theories.***
Adams is pushing the idea that the government “staged” the Colorado shooting. More repulsively, he is essentially calling the victims cowards for not having stopped the killer.
“The guy literally walked in, tossed a couple of smoke bombs, started shooting everybody in sight, and for some reason that remains entire unexplained, they let him do it…Again, I’m not blaming the people there, I’m just bewildered that nobody fought back. It doesn’t make sense. Unless, of course, the very fabric of American culture is now so passive and afraid that people have forgotten how to take action in the face of fear.”
Mikey boasts that if he, a concealed weapons carry permit holder had been in the theater, he would have opened fire on the shooter (more likely, he would have been hiding as best he could).
What a slimebucket.
***Adams’ claptrap about the shooting being “staged” is featured on DailyPaul.com, the Ron Paul fans’ website. It figures.
There are a lot of people who will not comply. There are a lot of officials who will not comply. Attempting to mass confiscate firearms in this nation is a recipe for civil war. If you believe the army could be mobilized against it’s own people for this purpose, then you’re a fool. You can argue that people cannot fight the army. This would be largely true, but what you are describing would still be a Civil War.
I know.
I just wonder if the pro gun ban people have put any thought into the details of their position.
Strawman.
Cite, please. It’s been awhile, but I recall a mix of substantive and visual aspects to the semi-automatic regulation during its brief life.
I also don’t recall anyone on the pro-gun side saying, “yeah, we ought to do something about properties of guns that have far more to do with killing a lot of people quickly than sitting in a blind, waiting for a good shot at a deer, but the Brady folks are making a hash of it, so maybe we could design a better law that accomplished their goals, without so much bullshit stuff in it.”
So you got what you were willing to work for: first, an assault-weapons ban that did have some bullshit aspects to it for you to criticize, and ultimately a repeal rather than an improvement of that ban.
That is so totally crap that you’d need Heracles to dig it all out.
First of all, at the time, ANY victory for the gun-control side was worth crowing about. For a long time - just like now - the most reasonable restrictions seemed politically impossible.
So yeah, we had to do our proposals one at a time. It wasn’t like an omnibus gun-control bill with everything we wanted could have had a prayer. So it wasn’t like we could have produced a set of reasonable restrictions, passed it, and then said “Done.”
It’s not like the NRA’s ever been open to one of those ‘grand bargains’ that the pundits sometimes talk about. We worked step by step, because the NRA was fighting us step by step, tooth and nail.
Not to mention, a goodly number of the restrictions we gun-control folks would like were and are substantively unrelated to one another. What does a limitation on the number of rounds in a clip have to do with a one-gun-a-month law like Virginia used to have? These belong in separate measures.
Everything’s “they’re coming to take our guns.” Even after the gun-control side basically abandoned the field for a dozen years. You guys got rid of the assault weapons ban, got pretty much all limitations removed from concealed-carry permits, got open-carry laws passed in a number of states, got stand-your-ground laws passed in a couple dozen states, and a few other things I’m forgetting right now, all with very little if any organized opposition. And yet the NRA and its allies are still up in arms about alleged plots to take away your guns.
You guys are full of bullshit, nothing but bullshit. We’re not up against honorable adversaries in this debate. We’re up against professional liars and agitators. Fuck them all.
Well, take the limitation on the number of rounds in a clip. That might have stopped him from shooting the last 20 or 30 people he shot. That constitutes ‘any of this.’ Not ‘all of this’ - in a society that basically accepts the right to own guns as an individual right, which is how it is and will be for the foreseeable future, stopping all gun violence will be impossible - but ‘any’ or ‘some’ of this - quite likely.
No bullshit serious question. You want to ban assault weapons. Fine.
How do you go about it? What criteria are you going to use? What in the Wiki description applies to only an assault rifle an not your average semi auto target/hunting rifle? With the exception of 5.56mm of course.
So you ban .223 caliber guns. Great that gets rid of the AR-15 and AK47.
A gun maker comes out with a copy of an AK47 chambered in .224. Legal, right?
Now what are you going to do?
So unless you just base the ban on scary looking guns you have a problem.
Saying let’s do something is easy, doing it is often way more difficult. Example I say all you have to do is flap your arms and you can fly away. Good luck with that.
If you think there would be a sudden emergence of a militia that would actually be well-regulated, that the resistance you postulate would be in any way organized or effective, or if it were would actually be willing to oppose to the death the sworn law enforcement officers who both outnumber and outpower them, then it’s not at all clear who’s the fool, hmm?
The NRA"s slogans may make their members feel good, but would they actually represent reality? They’re a bunch of cowards who use weapons to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy against a world that threatens them with civilization and reason and morality. Other than a few who are half-gone already, they won’t risk their lives. Time to drop the fantasy bubble, shut off your cherished “Red Dawn” DVD, and look around you.
The foolishness is in believing that the sworn law enforcement officers would be all too happy to go door to door and round up guns.
Still, there has to be some reason for the NRA’s silence other than simply needing time for their media types to come up with the right spin. They’ve had the time ever since Columbine and Giffords and (fill in the blank). Or is “No comment” no more than an acknowledgment of cowardice?
Sworn LEO’s do a *lot *of things they’re not happy to do. But they take their oaths, and lives, seriously. Or are you postulating a mass nationwide mutiny? :dubious:
Yes.
Confiscation of Guns is ordered.
A helluva lot of people disagree and are not going to comply.
Rural or Suburban Sheriff says “Are you fucking nuts? I’m not going to do this and have my officers shot at all day long!”
And this idea of sending in the troops? I’m not on the ‘Red Dawn’ fantasy here, I’m trying to point out Reality. Sending in the army against our own people on a national level would be historically unprecedented and would by very definition constitute a civil war.
Since the shootings were in self-defence, the NRA is waiting for disclosure of the supporting facts.
That’s “our own people”, not “violent criminals”? :dubious: Try again.
Sworn LEO’s go into dangerous situations all the time. They do it not only because of their oaths, but because they take pride in the job of preserving public safety, among other things. The many, many who would know they were preventing murders, not simply apprehending suspects after the victims are already dead, would take even greater pride in it.
So everyone who owns a gun is a violent criminal and the cops would be all over going door to door to collect their guns? Just who is delusional here?