NRA: Stand and Fight
January 15th, 2013
The folks at the NRA send us a link to their latest campaign Stand and Fight and this is the first of their videos in that campaign.
If the video doesn’t work, it’s also at the link. I’m on my Kindle for the rest of night. Lazy person that I am.
January 15th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Oh, that is excellent!
January 15th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Scary…
January 15th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
Bout time somebody starts telling the truth about this elitist.
January 15th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
I don’t like it. Oh, the message is fine and, of course, true, but the voice sounds mean and the direct attck on obamaman won’t help. It will be viewed by fence sitters as a racist attack on the 1/2 black guy in the White House. I’d rather see women and young people making the case.
January 15th, 2013 at 9:42 pm
@4: Good point
January 15th, 2013 at 10:12 pm
Well, as a young kid currently in college, I fully agree with what the NRA is saying, if not quite the tone of their message. I do like that give him credit for taxing the wealthy though. It gives them a bit more credibility.
January 15th, 2013 at 10:50 pm
cant get it to play…..is the oreo blocking it?
January 15th, 2013 at 10:55 pm
Won’t open…
January 16th, 2013 at 3:14 am
Yeah they will argue this point all day long. Just know there is campus security and cops on all college campuses though. Even the shitty ones…
January 16th, 2013 at 6:31 am
Is that a broad brush comment there, Mike? Or is that from actual experience? Because back in the day, campus security used to be night watchmen, or fire watch and carried a clock and insert a key that was at entry and exit of each building check. And God help you, if you came across criminal activity on shift. City cops rarely if ever showed up let alone arrive in time to extract an unarmed campus security guard from a hostile situation.
January 16th, 2013 at 6:32 am
And I like the commercial. Short, sweet and to the point.
January 16th, 2013 at 7:33 am
Mike, I’m a dispatcher. I work with the schools. At least one school doesn’t have armed security and Weber state has maybe one or two police wandering about. Funny thing is, as was pointed out to me earlier, our schools aren’t necessarily gun free though.
January 16th, 2013 at 7:52 am
Won’t open on my Kindle Fire. . . .
January 16th, 2013 at 9:27 am
Good name for the video, in contrast to Homeland Security’s “Run and hide” training video.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:00 am
I like the video, I suspect of course it’s preaching to the choir and will not change any minds on the other side. Folks who are undecided might look at the messenger more than the message.
I think the fence sitters are mostly namby pamby types as well….this is not a really hard issue to understand you either support the 2nd amendment or you don’t. Outright bans do nothing except violate that amendment, and have a zero impact on the crimes committed daily across the nation.
As Hondo has pointed out in several of these threads, there is a method for altering the Constitution, it’s called the amendment process. Trying to legislate around that process is inappropriate. Period.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:19 am
There are so many strawman arguments coming from the left that it’s easy to become overwhelmed by it. It’s not an entirely foolish endeavor for ads like this to remind the Constitutionalists among us that they are not alone in their frustrations.
I have to laugh each time someone posits that the Constitution doesn’t mean this or that because technology had not yet advanced to that point. The Constitution doesn’t mention automobiles, steak knives or ball bats, so should those also be outlawed? (In the case of motor vehicles, there are many thousands killed each year, so that should be a priority, right?)
January 16th, 2013 at 10:22 am
I was shocked when I woke up this morning and Indianapolis WISHTV was playing this video and being objective.
January 16th, 2013 at 11:57 am
You Americans should be ASHAMED of yourselves. Innocent children were killed and instead of your priority being safety and protecting your children, your priority is ensuring that guns remain on the market. You are all money hungry desperate losers. The President’s children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be attacked than any other child, only an absolute moron would think of an AD like this it is hilarious. Any NORMAL human being would understand the President’s children are more of a target than any other child. You people are so hilarious and embarrassing and I am sincerely sad for all of you.
January 16th, 2013 at 11:59 am
We will see how fast you change your mind when someone YOU love is personally effected by gun violence.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
@16 Except that the discussion isn’t at all about saving lives. Nobody talking about gun control thinks they will actually save a life. They know exactly what they are doing, disarming the majority of law abiding citizens. If they actually wanted to save lives we would be analyzing crime rates in major metropolitan areas and discussing methods for enforcement in high crime areas as well as options to reduce poverty and increase education in those areas to make crime a less viable option for the folks so affected.
With steadily decreasing crime rates over the last 20 years it’s clear we are already on the right path without the AWB. Take the lessons learned and apply them to those areas we know are trouble spots and continue the efforts as they because without additional gun control laws crime is already falling.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
@18/19…uh, dumbfuck? Most of us are veterans. A lot of us have seen combat. Some of us have been wounded and lost friends.
In the civilian world, many of us have known victims of crime, both violent and non-violent.
You want to know why we wish to keep our arms? 1–because we can. 2–look up the word “detterence” in the dictionary.
Yeah, I’ll wait.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:09 pm
No need to be so angry! Just a discussion I think priorities are a little bit messed up. Therefore you think it is necessary for teachers around 5 year old children to carry semi automatic weapons? What if a child gets their hands on a weapon? Then what?…………………
Yeah I’ll wait.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
@ 18
You do realize that what your saying goes against protecting children in schools from shootings right?
Stripping guns from good people that would protect your future child is at stake.
How would you feel if a gunman showed up at your childs school and began shooting up the place?
Would you rather have police show up 10-15 minutes and even possibly 20 minutes later?! Rather than having a policeman on-site to act literally within seconds or a private security officer trained just for those situations?
Think before you type.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
@18 Don’t be sad for me ASBE, I was fine without you and will continue to be fine regardless of your thoughts on this topic.
Having an honest discussion means exactly that, what is the expected outcome of your desired law and what data are you using to support your claim? I don’t buy the nonsense about “if it saves one life it’s worth it” that’s patently untrue in every other aspect of our daily lives, after all if outlawing rock climbing saves just one life by your logic we should outlaw rock climbing just to save that one person who might day this year. If you are talking about reducing crime rates there is no statistical evidence in the US that supports your claim, in fact since the AWB expired 20 years ago violent crime and murder rates have dropped dramatically. You just want to ban guns that frighten you in the name of “doing something to protect the children”, regardless of whether or not you have any data that will support your position. I think that is the most interesting dynamic from those who favor more restrictive gun control, is that in spite of no supporting documentation they still believe they are creating a safer environment. While I agree not every advocate of gun ownership is using a fact based argument it’s clear that a great many anti-gun supporters are using only emotion and the deaths of some children to promote an agenda that has no factual supporting basis for action.
If you want to create a more restrictive environment for guns that is your right, you are free to pursue that right. I disagree that your efforts will have any impact whatsoever on the crime rate in the nation as is my right. I intend to make every effort to thwart your attempts to impose your ideas on me. We shall see who is able to sway legislators and constituents with our arguments.
You are wrong that having a loved one be the victim of a crime changes my mind, it has already happened to me and it doesn’t change my mind in any way. Because I believe in factual evidence, as opposed to emotional but ultimately useless reactions.
Good day to you and best of luck in what I hope will be a doomed effort on your part.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:15 pm
@22…and what Eurotrash shithole might you be posting from, pray tell?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:16 pm
@ 22
UHHHH……….
Really? did that thought just come out onto this page?!!?
Holy Jeeeez….
Okay there are holsters and safeties on guns for a reason.
You don’t have to leave it out for someone to get to, there are also lock boxes like pilots use to hold there gun that requires, guess what??! a combination to get to.
Think before you type.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:16 pm
My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART and just anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned and that in my opinion is a problem. Who needs a semi-automatic weapon unless they are in WAR? I realize the shooters mother was in possession of the weapons but why did SHE need a semi automatic weapon? There is no necessity for things like that.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Oh, and to answer your questions, nobody here has advocated children of any age (let alone 5) handling ANY weapons. We’re talking legal, mentally well-adjusted, non-criminal ADULTS who are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And if they happen to be a teacher, so fucking what? Do they have a lower set of rights than the rest of us, pray tell?
Do you think that even the most loopy Lanza fuckstick would go into a school KNOWING there’s a distinct possibility one or more armed people might just fucking stop them from killing 26 people, or would they go something like, “Well, I guess I won’t be shooting up Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, etc., today!”
Or did that confuse you just a bit, scooter?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
@ 27
You can’t just walk into a store and buy one and walk out.
There are background checks for a reason.
And HELLO EARTH TO 27!
They are for protection…
Think before you type.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Still waiting to hear from those who are honestly concerned with children and the violence against them. For instance – what is the most common cause of violent death of American children? If you are seriously concerned about the lives of the children, perhaps you should focus on that which actually canses the most deaths of children.
Once again I ask, how exactly will removing guns from the homes of law abiding citizens reduce the number of traffic accidents, abusive parents/guardians, and everything else which takes many more lives of children each year than do guns effect the number of children who die?
Seriously, you uninformed loons do understand that you really look stupid continuing to mime this craziness when there are thousands of American children every day being raped, subjected to drug abuse, and neglected. Are they not important? Yet you continue to parrot nonsensical ideas.
Whatever.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
I personally do not agree with guns, lost someone I know to guns.
I wish they were not around it is my personal opinion.
I am a teacher and do not think I need a gun to protect my students.
I am entitled to my own opinion I just think it is sad what this world is coming to.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART
How the fuck would you know?
Oh, and the one in my town does not. Has not. They sell ammo, but not very much, and certainly not in the more popular calibers. I think the last box of .45 ACP I saw on the shelf there was like 5 years ago.
And no, you can’t just “pick up any weapon, no questions asked” scooter. We do have background checks, they do work, and the last two weapons I bought (shotgun and pistol) I had to wait while they conducted checks on both. All of about 10 minutes.
And next question–what kind of car do you drive? Does it go faster than the posted speed limit? WHY? You don’t need a car that can do that unless you’re on a race track, you speed freak!
January 16th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
“My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART and just anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned and that in my opinion is a problem.”
If that’s your only worry, stop worrying. I’ve bought guns at WalMart and they go through the same background checks procedures as everyone else.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
And you are located where, again, anon?? Think carefully.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
#27
You can’t buy any firearm without a valid ID then a FBI check before you can walk out with the rifle, also in some states there is also a waiting period before you can complete the purchase.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Canada. THANK GOD
January 16th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
“I personally do not agree with guns, lost someone I know to guns”
What is there to “not agree with guns” about? Maybe the person you “lost” isn’t really lost – they’re just hiding from you.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:23 pm
@ 31
Everyone has lost someone, be it guns, drugs, driving, alcohol, etc.
I have lost someone to guns as well, it doesn’t change the fact that they are and will always be needed in a free and open society.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:24 pm
Oh, nevermind. That explains a lot.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
I live in the most regulated gun state in the country, CA.
That is all you need to know.
# 34
January 16th, 2013 at 12:26 pm
I agree with #36 we live in Canada and we don’t have these issues
There is a reason for that
January 16th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Anon @40…sorry, was referring to the Canuck.
No gun murders in Canada? Really want to go there, eh?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
Yeah, “Canadian”, so you all share the same IP address up there, too?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
#41
I would rather not end up like Australia thank you very much.
There are a lot more criminals here in the USA than up there.
Removing guns is like painting a target on peoples homes, saying come and rob me i have no gun.
If you spend the time researching what happened to Australia, you would find crime went up 67%.
Think about it.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:30 pm
No worries NHS
January 16th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Ah yes, Canada, where homicides country wide saw a 7% increase from 2010 to 2011, and where child pornography arrests saw a 40% increase in the same time period. Yep we should all be like Canada. Bwahahahahahaa!!
January 16th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Damn Jonn, whoda thunk someone would come in here with a bunch of sockpuppets???
Why, da noive!
January 16th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
Not to say that there have never been, that would be a lie. We are not innocent. However, we do not have the same worries that mentally ill individuals (such as the man who killed people at a movie theatre) will have the same access as they do here, which is slim to none.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
#41
You must not read your own papers: after a 5 second search. In the 1989 massacre of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Marc Lepine used a rifle, at the time equipped with a substantial magazine.
And in 2006, Kimveer Gill used a rifle to shoot 72 rounds at Montreal’s Dawson College, injuring 16 and killing one.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
@40 I never said there were no issues in Canada I just said it is not as bad.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:35 pm
# 48
It does not take much to kill any person. Bows and Arrows, Cross Bows, IED’s (Implemented Explosive Devices), anyone with half a brain can learn to make one from the internet.
Oh, darn, maybe we should ban that too…
not to mention 3-4 pounds of force on the human nose can kill someone.
The way you are going, maybe we should have all our hands removed, i mean it is for safety so we should do it right?
Think before you type.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:36 pm
I think everyone here is entitled to their own opinions it does not mean I have to agree with it
January 16th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
If you are from any country other than the United States, your views on our Law, our Constitution are moot… Stop being so self righteous, you have your fair share of skeletons hanging around.
“Americans should be embarrassed…” well I am embarrassed for you, and for my country if you are from here and come one here talking absolute nonsense about our laws, and guns when you obviously haven’t a clue about either.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
@41, the Ruger Mini-14 is legal in Canada. It fires the same round as the AR-15, can accomidate a “high capacity magazine”, and does not have to be registered except in Quabec.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:37 pm
I’m wondering if “America should be . . . ” and “Canadian” might be folks who used to be Americans but moved north to avoid military obligations.
Just wondering.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:38 pm
@48…whoopsie!!! Care to try that again, eh?
Maybe your vaunted healthcare system ain’t all it’s cracked up to be either.
BTW–want to do a comparison of violent crime rates in Canada versus the US? You sure?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
January 16th, 2013 at 12:38 pm
# 52
People are entitled to opinions, yes.
It doesn’t mean that their opinion has facts to back up what they say.
FACTS are what matter most about peoples opinions and if there are no facts to back what you are saying, you may as well just be spouting rhetorical non-sense.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:39 pm
And as an aside, for all those here who keep saying they ‘lost a loved one to a gun’, umm no you didn’t. While it may help you personally to lie to yourself that way, you didn’t ‘lose a loved one to a gun’, you lost a loved one to the irresponsible actions of a human being, blaming an inanimate object serves no useful purpose.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
Or that other place known as Quebec.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:41 pm
You are right. I do not have facts to back up what I am saying but it is my opinion I think guns are unnecessary thats that. Just like you guys think they are I don’t.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:42 pm
# 60
Now leave it at that and just leave the comment section alone.
You have no FACTS to bring to the table of discussion, this is how you know you have lost.
Do us all a favor and leave.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
Thank goodness I wasn’t in person with you all someone probably would have pulled a gun on me for disagreeing BYE!
January 16th, 2013 at 12:44 pm
@60–well, lucky for us your opionion means fuck-all.
How’s that freedom of speech thingy going for ya’ll up there? What? You say you don’t have it? Shame, really.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
#18 “You are all money hungry desperate losers”
#22 “No need to be so angry! Just a discussion”
You could cut the irony with a knife.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
@60: Best watch it up there in the Great White North when spouting your opinion. I understand speech ain’t exactly that free up there – though it does seem to be moving in the right direction a bit.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/09/andrew-coyne-why-does-canada-still-have-a-hate-speech-law/
January 16th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I love how # 62 had to get a last word, after he just got his ass handed to him.
I prefer to fight with a suit and a smile, but if i have to use a gun to defend my property and my children, then so be it.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
I want to start off by saying that I am not pro-guns and that I do believe the American government should alter gun laws in a way that deters an event like Newtown from ever recurring.
This is a forum of free discussion. I do not see why there is so much animosity towards opposing views when their grounds for concern are valid, given what happened at Newtown. I think the only way that we can have a well-rounded discussion is to NOT dismiss valid concerns. I believe that those who support gun laws need to consider the national impact of a tragedy like Newtown on the public and that something like Newtown has the capacity to spark serious deliberation about gun laws among U.S. administration. Also, I think we should be a little more compassionate and less hostile toward the concerned teachers in this forum. Many teachers today genuinely believe that they have to fear for their own lives, the lives of their students and the lives of their colleagues on a daily basis. It is no surprise that American teachers see a direct correlation between gun laws and the Newtown tragedy. Even if there is not, I believe that as a result of this national massacre, gun laws need to be addressed by the American government.
The NRA released this new ad. Despite the dramatic nature of the ad, I was able to see the point that they were making. However, what I do not agree with is the manner in which it was displayed. For those of you that are pro-guns, why do you think that the NRA insists on presenting such “political pornography” to advocate guns?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/#50480124 ?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, @62 is a prime example of what happens when you don’t monitor your children’s Internet activity.
You have been warned.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Anon @67–I’d be willing to address the left/gun-grabbers reasonable concerns, if they had any…
January 16th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
# 67
Don’t let the Mainstream Media think for you. I humored the link and watch 1 minute of it before i got sick to my stomach and almost lost my breakfast.
Referring to one of my last posts.
“You do realize that what your saying goes against protecting children in schools from shootings right?
Stripping guns from good people that would protect your future child is at stake.
How would you feel if a gunman showed up at your childs school and began shooting up the place?
Would you rather have police show up 10-15 minutes and even possibly 20 minutes later?! Rather than having a policeman on-site to act literally within seconds or a private security officer trained just for those situations?
Think before you type.”
January 16th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
Anyone willing to bet that #67 has the same IP as Canadian and ASBA? Any takers?
January 16th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
@22: Do you have armed guards to transport money and protect banks up there in Canada? Do you have armed guards protecting some of your politicians? Do you think they are much more important things to protect than your children? Are you saying that protecting your money is more important than protecting your children? If that’s the case, then it is you who should be embarrassed.
January 16th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
@60
Having worked with the Canadian military extensively as a cross border training liaison officer for 3 years and having spent a substantial amount of time in Canada I can say without a doubt that we have a vastly different opinion on this subject that is based on historical and cultural differences.
On a base level I do not believe that the protection of me or my family should be the sole responsibility of the Government or a hope in the “kindness” of my fellow man to do the right thing. I do not trust my Government or my fellow man enough to trade in my ability to protect myself or my family. Obviously you do which is your right. Your only option now is “hope” or to be a victim. I am not comfortable with either of those options.
On a much broader perspective you are at the mercy of your Government and much larger adversaries…being a Canadian. Until the Crown was “kind enough” to grant Canada independence in 1867 you remained at the mercy of the Crown. They could have done anything they wished and there would have been little you could have done about it.
Even today your defense in largely based on diplomacy and the protection of much larger allies. If either of those goes to hell…then what? Once again…hope is not a method I am comfortable with.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
I do believe the American government should alter gun laws in a way that deters an event like Newtown from ever recurring.
Short of confiscating every single gun, ain’t gonna happen.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
Anonymous (67): I just saw the POTUS and VP droning on and on about the “twenty beautiful first-graders” (exact words) killed at Sandy Hook. Why does the left insist on using the bodies of children killed by a lunatic left to roam free by laws passed at their urging as a political backdrop? Laws that make it virtually impossible to involuntarily commit lunatics? That, sir – and nothing the NRA has brought to the debate – is “political pornography”.
The left has the blood of these children on their hands. The left-controlled CT legislature considered changing that law last year – and refused to do so.
And yet, the left continues callously to use murdered children as nothing but a backdrop in order to push an anti-gun agenda. Why? “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Even if it’s a crisis you manufactured yourself.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Twist: different IP address, but same Canadian city and ISP.
I guess he/she moved to another computer at the library. Or maybe to a friend’s house.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Memo to Canadians and various Canuck sockpuppets:
Fix your own fucking problems first before you come here and shit in our yards.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
O-4E: yeah, a foreign policy based on “sucking up” to the “big boys” ain’t exactly without risk.
Personally, I’d rather live on my feet than spend my life on my knees. But to each his/her own.
January 16th, 2013 at 1:30 pm
Just wondering what relationship @60 has to any draft dodgers from the Vietnam era. Those people ran off to Canadia (intentional misspelling) and Australia quite a bit to avoid service.
I knew someone who did that, ran off to Canadia when all he had to do to avoid being send to Vietnam was sign on with the Navy’s medical corps. He was an MD, a pathologist. The Navy would have been glad to have him.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:06 pm
#27 – “anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned”
You mean like…”Vhat do you vant dis veapon for?” “You vill talk to me I assure you.” “Your papers…zey are not in order”.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:09 pm
I really do hate hearing the same points rehashed over and over again. Gun control laws like the ones being proposed honestly won’t be anywhere near as effective as enforcing the laws we already have. Instead of all the fearmongering GUNS ARE BAD AND ONLY PSYCHOPATHS WANT THEM going around,how about we (brace yourselves, this is a pretty radical idea here) actually teach people about guns? As in, safety procedures, proper storage, not selling it to the shifty-eyed junkie on the corner, and, oh I don’t know, maybe what actually constitutes an assault weapon?
Not entirely sure what my point was, but I just had to sit through an hour of a lecture in which the subject of “the upcoming assault weapons ban” came up almost ever other sentence. And these people are supposed to be educating me.
Joy.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
Gruntling–we do try to teach people about responsible gun use, but when people (like Joe) think there’s no legitimate purpose for a gun, it’s kind of hard to teach them to use it responsibly or that the vast majority of gun owners are in fact safe and responsible.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
I know. Its just incredibly frustrating to hear so many people not only disagree with, but flat out ignore the statistics, facts, and vocal majority simply because they don’t want to believe that someone other than them could be right.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
So the 2nd amendment fanatics’ party line is that if we ban guns, we should therefore ban cars, planes, knives, ropes, gas cans, etc., etc., because they can kill people too. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the US military arm our soldiers with cans of gas, ropes, etc., instead of guns?
January 16th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Joe, you better get back to your coloring books before your mom realises she forgot to log off of her computer.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Answer the question.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Once again the dipshit that said he would gladly use the blood of the dead to get his way calling others fanatics.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:41 pm
Gruntling,
Statistics are about what has already happened. Some people are more concerned with looking forward and changing those ststistics. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, conservatives never look forward, always back.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Joe, Thanks for proving my point. I would answer with this: we are not saying that everything potentially deadly should be banned. We are saying that only to illustrate a point: Namely, that just becaused something can be deadly, does not mean that immediately getting rid of it will solve anything. Saying it will is the equivalent of a toddler covering his ears and saying “Blah blah I can’t hear you”. Pretending that it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away. Banning guns won’t make them disappear, it will just create a veritable flood of illegal weapons.
As to your point on soldiers, well, as you clearly know, a firearm is the most effective way to do our job in combat. That’s it.
Also, I wouldn’t call myself a fanatic. Hell, a few years ago I would have been taking your side in this debate. I just believe that your argument is flawed, and ultimately creates far more problems that it solves.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
@84
Well Joe…facts are that FBI statistics show that twice as many people are killed by “at hand” weapons like baseball bats and hammers than are killed by firearms every year.
Those same statistics also show that deaths by gunshot have halved since 1994.
So yes…some of us are tired of fanatical statements and kneejerk reactions not based on reason ro facts
January 16th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Again, I’m not a conservative. I’m most definitely not a liberal, but not a conservative. I just call things like I see them.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
Statistics like the ones that show where CCW have been issued that it is a fact that violent crime goes down. Oh, nevermind, I forgot, liberals like Joe never let facts get in their way.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
Some very Sick folks made this ad and should not be allowed to carry a stick much less an assault gun.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:56 pm
And, demanding that someone answer his question? Fuck off, Joey-boy.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
As I was waking up to greet the day, I heard an interview on BC News with a mother of one of the slain children. It was perhaps the most gut wrenching interview I have ever heard. I was literally crying in my corn flakes. First rushing to the school when the news hit, then hearing a rumor that her child’s teacher had been shot, then confirmatin, then the incomprehensible news that the entire class was dead. They found her son in his teacher’s arms, and incredibly, between her sobs, she said that gave her some comfort. To state that this is as good as it gets displays a titanic lack of imagination. I will state that without the easy availability of guns, this atrocity could not have happened.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
And, in some people’s case, they should not be allowed near a keyboard and an internet connection, Rico.
January 16th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
should be “BBC News”.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:00 pm
Joe’s facts are moving targets. He used call himself pro-2d Amendment – but that was before Sandy Hook. So his facts derive solely from how he felt about those murdered kids. Everything that happened before that day, and after that day don’t register. That day he felt bad, and it sticks in his mind. One. Single. Day.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:00 pm
OH, and Joey-boy, I will state, like Hondo and others have, if it weren’t for you and yours making sure that people like Lanza couldn’t be committed, this wouldn’t have happened. Now, go tell mom that she left the computer on again.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:01 pm
O-4E: did you mean “rifles” above?
January 16th, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Ya but i can’t kill you with my key board LOL
January 16th, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Joe, You do realize that Lanza literally killed to get those guns, right? They weren’t easily available, he didn’t go out to the store and buy them, he murdered his mother and stole her guns. And, by that same token, I submit that had that school been protected, whether by security, armed teachers, or, well, anyone, that this atrocity could not have happened either. Furthermore, I believe that entirely too many people, yourself included, are focusing completely on the tool and not at all on the user. Why is this his mothers fault? Why does Adam Lanza seem to receive no blame for his actions? From what I see, society as a whole, or at least a large aspect of it, is being blamed for the actions of one sick-minded individual. And that is in and of itself a tragedy.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Gruntling,
The common factor in so many of these incidents is guns, high powered guns. There are lots of other variables, but one common factor – guns.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Jonn,
If Joe Scarborough can change his opinion after a shattering event like that, I can change mine.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:16 pm
True, guns are a factor on BOTH sides (attacker and defender). However, to bring up a point that has been stated frequently: What is worse, both sides having guns, or just the attacker? The flip side of the gun violence issue is how many incidents have been prevented by an armed bystander. This blog alone has published many account of such occurences in the last few weeks, any of which could have been the next national tragedy.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Corn flakes? Corn flakes??? CORN FLAKES?????
January 16th, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Well Gruntling, this site loves to post about the occasional incident where an armed citizen successfully relelled an assailant, but when you look at the big picture, we lose much more than we gain. And I will admit, even if guns were banned today, it will take several generations for them to work their way out of the system. But the children of the future will thank us for taking the risk. And if, as many contributors here maintain, ropes, cars, gas cans, knives, etc., can kill, defend yourselves with those, or maybe some numchucks. But think not only of today’s kids but those kids growing up a century in the future. In a sense, this constant paranoid fear that makes people want more and more amrmaments is a form of cowardice, cowardice towards future generations who would have to live in this heavily “armed society” that is the NRA’s wet dream..
January 16th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
the occasional incident
Which, if you read the works of John Lott, runs into the hundreds of thousands, if not million-plus per year in this country alone.
Whipping out a gun and blasting away isn’t always necessary, Joey. Quite the contrary, it is rarely necessary. Most often, incidents are stopped by either stating or showing the perpetrator that the potential victim has a weapon.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
But the children of the future will thank us for taking the risk.
If your ilk haven’t aborted them all first.
Kum-Bah-Yah, m’lord, Kum-Bah-Yah…
January 16th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
@Joe
Most of us that post here are either military or ex-military.
Yet YOU trust your government and your fellow man much more than we do.
What we don’t understand is your complete willingness to give up your means of protecting yourself and your familiy. And place that sole responsibility in the hands of your government and the “hope” that your fellow man will do the right thing. Hope isn’t a method that most of us ascribe to.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:45 pm
NHSparky covered the statistics before I could, so I’ll just focus on the future you’re looking at.
First, assuming you are correct that in a few generations these guns will have worked their way out of our society (a MASSIVE assumption, but I’ll get to that), then what exactly would you say to those generations who are bridging the gap betweens us? “Tough it out, it’s for the future?” The plan you are suggesting condemns several generations, mine included, to a lifetime of fear and paranoia, far far worse that the ‘heavily armed state’ you bring up.
Second, As to defending ourselves with knives, ropes, etc. Well, what if they have a gun? No, seriously. If someone were to break into my house, or yours, with an illegal gun, and all you have is a rope and some choice language, what is the most likely outcome?
And finally, dealing with the unlikelihood of the future you propose. You are envisioning a nation without guns, without that fear. It would be nice, yes. Peaceful. Hell, I’d love it if that could happen.
Unfortunately, this future is almost completely impossible. Economically, the firearm industry isn’t going away. Even if it is just the military sector, there will always be some trickle-down, legal or not, that will lead to privately possessed weapons. If someones determined enough, they could probably even just make some crude ones. Besides that, smuggling from other nations, from criminal organizations, all this would continue, except that now, with very limited exceptions, no one would have any defense.
This is getting a little too doom and gloom for me, so I’ll stop my future scenario there and look at a picture of a puppy.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
“….and look at a picture of a puppy.” Hah! Ya got me. I think I will too.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Joe says – “this site loves to post about the occasional incident where an armed citizen successfully relelled an assailant, but when you look at the big picture, we lose much more than we gain.”
Care to try and defend that stance Joe? Or are you just going to dance away from it?
Specifics ol’ son, specifics.
I ain’t gonna hold my breath.
January 16th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
113 above was me.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
About 11,000 gun deaths a year. That’s my specifics.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
@111 Indeed there will be pain, and I doubt that guns will ever fully be eliminated as you also point out. With the price of 3d printers continuing to drop it won’t be long before a 3d printer that works with metal will be priced for the home market. The current 3d home printers make some pretty unique items.
Once the price of the devices working metal drop, then one-off unique weapons (not necessarily safe or reliable) will be easily created, black marketed and sold to criminals. A potentially interesting outcome for a device never intended for that purpose. And these devices are infinitely hackable/programmable. We all know how honest and reliable hackers are when working with cartels or mobsters…no way those guys could be paid to produce weapons or materials…./sarc
There is always a law of unintended consequences, whether in manufacturing processes or legal ones. I intend to not suffer the consequences of unintended outcomes and will protect myself and my family.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:09 pm
11,000 is a lot but when you look at deaths from other causes it is not all that large. We should ban Doctors first, then cars, alcohol, hands and feet as weapons… hell let’s just make murder illegal.
of the 11000 deaths by guns, over 500 of those were “justifiable shootings” by police and civillians. See those numbers get included in that final number as well. Accidental shootings also.
January 16th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
@115 – Joe
And 1.61 million abortions in the US per year. So it is ok to murder them before they are born…but not after? A-ok to crush them with forceps and tear them limb from limb while pulling them from the womb…but shooting them with a scary black rifle with a large magazine is a tragedy? And legal?
See the silliness in the argument?
January 16th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
He won’t, Jacobite. Because Comrade Joseph, Glorious Hero of Socialist Rock Climbing for Greater Glory Socialist Republic of Durango, cannot.
In 2000, best estimates were that nearly 1,000,000 crimes of violence were prevented annually by the legitimate use of firearms. That is now regarded as a significant underestimate. The current best estimate of the total number of violent crimes prevented annually via legitimate firearms use or threat of same is now on the order of 2.5 million.
Assuming 1% of those crimes of violence would result in a fatality, that’s about 25,000 lives saved by lawful use of firearms. Annually. And yes, that’s realistic – about 1 in 100 violent crimes in the US is a murder according to US crime statistics from the FBI (somewhat over 1.3 million US violent crimes in 2009, approx 13,400 murders.)
Oh, and regarding a woman who is the target of an attempted rape? Without a weapon, she has approx a 1 in 3 chance of actually being raped. If she’s packing heat? Less than a 1 in 33 chance.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/15/why-am-newly-minted-member-nra/
January 16th, 2013 at 4:30 pm
@115: Wrong answer, Joe; that’s all deaths due to violent crime, not just guns. Why don’t you go back and look at how many rifles were used in gun deaths, eh? Of course, that would require you to pull your head out of your ass and get some fresh air.
January 16th, 2013 at 5:02 pm
i’m a vietnam vet, 69-70, 199th infantry bde, HHC MP’s—that being said, i was born in montreal and emigrated here as a schoolboy. i could have gone back to canada when i got drafted, but instead i went to ft lewis, and then the nam. some of the posts these canadians are putting up here, make me sorry for my former home, if that’s the caliber of people that populate a beautiful country. in WW2 the people who wouldn’t voluntarily join the fight were called “zombies” and were not allowed to wear a canada patch on their uniform once they were conscripted. these posters here today are cut from the same cloth, and will one day possibly be known, instead, as “victims”.
January 16th, 2013 at 5:26 pm
I have yet to run into any statistical report that says trying to talk an armed robber out of robbing you will work.
However, there IS more than one statistical report which shows plainly that the majority of guns used in committing crimes of any sort are illegally obtained and used by criminals.
Hmmm…crimes with guns are committed by criminals.
Did I miss something there?
Oh, yeah — the people who use a gun to murder someone they know — yeah, well, then they are CRIMINALS.
Can you say criminals, Joey-boy? I know that you can!
January 16th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
As fearful as you are, I guess you all must live in crime infested areas. I am sorry about that. I lived in Pinellas County, FL for a while, that had its share of crime, but even then I have never felt as fearful as most of you seem. But I will admit I have never driven a car someone would want to hijack.
January 16th, 2013 at 6:17 pm
@123
I live in a small farm community. The point is…why are YOU so willing to give up your means of personal defense?
Oh…that’s right. You have never had one. And I pray for your sake you never need one. Right now you are a victim in waiting. You have no other option. I like to have options.
January 16th, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Joe the only ones scared are the anti-gun crowd.I might also add jealous of us that can handle firearms safely. I am now “Old Corps” and no longer defend myself in hand to hand fighting.What good would it do me against an gun welding thief?You use greater force than offered by the attacker.Remember seconds count right now not police minutes away.I live in country, we have to call the sheriff office. Drugged out robbers do not debate with you.I am not scared ! I am prepared and trained. I hope to be never be in that situation but Iam prepared. Oh Joey if see a spunk or possum in the daylight please pet it. Odds are it is rabid. A .22 nice now. Joe
January 16th, 2013 at 8:39 pm
Hondo, I had faith he would post exactly what he did.
And Joe, thank you for making our argument for all of us. As the statistics show, you are wrong, again.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:07 pm
@ #95: Cute, but meaningless to this discussion. My weaponry (we are talking ball bats, steak knives, etc) had nothing to do with anything that happened that day. The ball bat stayed quietly where it is always stored, the steak knives remained in their block of wood on the counter, and the shotgun which I have for defense against whatever might threaten me (like bear and foxes and such) did nothing at all except collect dust.
Your comments indicate that you don’t think I should have any of those defensive items and I would guess that it would be your desire to magically make them disappear. And somehow you twist that in your mind to have some relationship to what happened in CT? How does that work exactly?
But the funniest thing you said was in another post where you accused we who support the US Constitution (which most of us here took an actual oath to support) of being afraid. Thanks for making my day. Pardon me because I am still giggling about that one.
PH2 – I really, REALLY like the idea of naming a critter My Gun! I have, in fact, two chickens that need names right now – think one will be called Smith and the other one Wesson.
January 16th, 2013 at 10:16 pm
@#123, Joey-boy, you don’t drive a bicycle that anyone would want to hijack, either.
January 17th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
#128,
Very wrong on that point.
January 17th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Welcome back, Comrade Joseph (HSRCGGSRD).
Fella, we get it that you’re OK with living on your knees vice on your feet. We get it that you’re willing to trade your freedom for the illusion of security. We get it that you tremble at the sight of a gun. We get it that you’re not willing to defend yourself, but are instead willing to literally bet your life and health that better men/women than yourself will be there to protect you when the organic fertilizer impacts the rotating air-movement device.
However, most of the rest of US society is not so craven, nor so pathetic. And the Constitution specifically states that we do not have to be.
Don’t want to own a firearm? Fine. Then don’t. The Second Amendment says you have the right to own one. It doesn’t make it mandatory.
But don’t try to limit the Constitutional rights of others simply because you’re too damn afraid to exercise those same rights yourself.
You’ve said elsewhere that you don’t like the Second Amendment, and feel it should be changed. OK, then: if you don’t like the Second Amendment as it exists, feel free to work for a Constitutional Amendment changing it.
Just don’t hold your breath waiting for your proposed amendment to pass.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Yeah Hondo,
And I recognize that you’ve been brainwashed to equate fire arms with freedom – all that NRA propaganda apparently works on some people. I get that you are willing to literally bet your life and health that some heavily armed wacko won’t shoot you in the back before you ever have a chance to draw your leetle friend.
The 2nd amendment was not divinely inspired – read an interesting piece that said it was a bone thrown to the southern states so that they would ratify the constitution and be able to maintain their “slave patrol militias”. It’s had dire consequences (ask any of the hundreds of thousands [? millions?]of dead Americans who have been murdered by guns in this country) and like any amendment can be repealed. It took a century to end slavery in this country, if we start now maybe we can get the 2nd repealed in a few decades. That’s the direction we should go in.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Brainwashed, coming from Joe. That’s cute.
So I guess all those guys going back to ancient Greece were brainwashed too, Joey?
And yeah, we’ve heard that “piece” too…and it’s a piece of shit, not worth the paper it’s printed on or the bandwidth it wastes.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Joe: if you believe that, you are truly a clueless fool who’s drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid.
Why don’t you research the militia laws of the Massachusettes Bay Colony and then get back to us?
Here’s a hint: they date to 1630. And they were universal, compulsory for free male citizens other than magestrates and ministers – and required citizens to own firearms.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:50 pm
Addendum: as for betting my life, Joey-boy – so are you. But if push comes to shove, someone armed has at least a fighting chance. An unarmed man has zero chance.
A “heavily armed whacko” will be armed regardless of whatever the law says about firearms ownership; ditto most criminals. Why? Because neither gives a damn about following the law, numbnuts.
January 17th, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Oh, here we go.
I have repeatedly stated that I have no wish to own a gun, or a weapon that fires bullets. Not once have I ever said, anywhere, that having firearms equals freedom, nor has anyone else on this board said that.
HOWEVER….and read this carefully, Joe, because I will keep it as simple as possible, so that you can absorb it into that dorman organ you have for a brain:
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution gives US citizens the RIGHT to own arms/weapons/firearms IF WE WANT TO.
Is that simple enough for you?
There is NO requirement that we OWN them, nor is there a guarantee that they will make us any safer with them or without them.
However, since you dislike living in a country where you are FREE to own firearms if you CHOOSE to do so, you have been repeatedly invited to vacate your domicile here and move some place where NO CITIZEN is allowed to have any kind of weapon. There are several countries that have those laws: North Korea and Australia come to mind first.
Probably China, too – not sure about that one, although I keep seeing that little guy with the shopping bags stopping a tank in Tiananmen Square. That was a classic.
Intestinal fortitude is what gives you freedom.
But you wouldn’t know about that, would you, Joey-boy?
No.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
And remember, as Cloud William said: “Freedom is a Yang word. Only Yangs are allowed to use it.”
January 17th, 2013 at 2:13 pm
You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually cares about what you think…
January 17th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
#136: Ex-PH2: is that where we get the term “Damn Yangkis”?
January 17th, 2013 at 2:18 pm
0-4E,
“You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually cares about what you think…”
The converse of that statement is definitely true.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:21 pm
@138 – No, that was from a STar Trek Classic episode, shown in 1968.
#137 – Shouldn’t that read: “You are all under the mistaken impression that Joe actually thinks” ?
January 17th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
I keep forgetting that Joe and others of his ilk are charter members of the Flat Earth Society.
If someone says the sun revolves around the Earth, then it must be so. They clip the wings of birds because they themselves can’t fly. If they see some animal or thing they don’t recognize, they step on it or poke it with a stick and run away.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
@Joe
We have all provided our points of view which you disregard, downplay, dodge or circle around
This issue is like discussing religion or abortion. No amount of debate or arguing is going to change beliefs.
If you want the Constitution changed..feel free to work at it. You will expect no support from this quarter.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:25 pm
@140, Joe doesn’t think, he just emotes.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
@131: Yeah, I’ve read some of that piece you’re referring to, however, I think you aren’t interested in the truth, just your Brady Campaign brainwashing talking points that if guns didn’t exist for civilians, then everyone would live in peace and harmony. If you look back at the 2nd Amendment, it wasn’t thrown in as a truffle for the Southern States, since slavery was still legal everywhere back when the Bill of Rights was being put together. Also, do you know how long it took to get the 2nd Amendment put into the Bill of Rights? 811 days. That’s how long it took to debate it, change it, debate it some more and then get it ratified. You have absolutely no idea the reason it was the 2nd Amendment and not the 4th, 5th, or 10th. You have no idea what the 2nd Amendment means, because you have shown us that with your Brady Campaign talking points how little you know of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers (they describe in writing the reasoning behind each Amendment). I don’t fault you, Joe, for not knowing, but I do fault you for thinking you know and then disparaging those of us that actually know.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
The founding fathers were really smart and prescient on a lot of issues, but they weren’t demigods, and they really screwed up on the 2nd.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Joe: your comment 139 above is logically incorrect, fella. O-4E’s statement is not of the form “If A, then B” – which is the only form of logical statement that has a converse (which would be “If B, then A”). Rather, O-4E’s statement is of the form “A is false”. That form of logical statement has no converse.
Having yet another “bad logic day”, eh Joey-boy?
January 17th, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Hey Joe. Shouldn’t we begin the disarming with the police–Federal, state, and local? Think about it.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:39 pm
@145: That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it, however, as I have stated before, there are a few I don’t like, either; so should we just do away with all of them and start over? Before you answer, remember that that would negate all our existing laws, because they are based off that Constitution thingy.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
@Joe
*sigh*
King George and his men didn’t just up and leave on their own.
And the Militia (made up of armed citizens) and the very small Continental Army didn’t get them to leave through witty repartee.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
@149: They didn’t???? Who woulda thunk it?
January 17th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
I really think Joey-boy would be happier if he were living elsewhere – e.g., in a country with firearms laws more to his liking.
Well, I’d be happier anyway. (smile)
January 17th, 2013 at 2:46 pm
Anyone who thinks that slavery does not still exist in this country needs to have a long, grinding day in one of the sweatshops populating large cities like Los Angeles and New York, or spend some time in line at a day labor office, where you may or may not get a job and it will be for cash, well below the minimum wage and no benefits. And yes, there are parents in this country who sell their daughters into the sex slave trade. Don’t think for one second it doesn’t still exist.
Just because it’s illegal, that don’t mean it don’t happen here and everywhere else on this planet.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:52 pm
@152. Those of us who are married know damn well slavery still exists.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
I think Air Cav just won the internet with that one.
January 17th, 2013 at 2:59 pm
@154: Agreed.
January 17th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
Oh, pity pooh.
Are you guys telling me you’re all butt-hurt because you have to take out the trash and pickup after yourselves cause your mommy isn’t here to do it for you?
January 17th, 2013 at 3:10 pm
@156: Well, duh!!!!!
January 17th, 2013 at 3:28 pm
Wow. I get distracted by puppies for a day an already the argument starts back up.
I miss those pups now.
January 17th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
@153 — Yes. Just ask your wives. “:)
January 17th, 2013 at 3:58 pm
I’d ask, “What’d I miss?” but actually, I spent the last 40 minutes reading from top-to-bottom and I’m all caught up now.
(…and I noticed Joe is back, and brought Bob and Doug McKenzie with him. Are they gone?)
Joe? Check out the “Democratic Underground”. They don’t like us, and we don’t like them – but they’d dig you.
Here we go again.
January 17th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
@160. Joey-boy’s a charter member of DU. That’s where he gets his talking points. Anyone who’s been around TAH for a while knows that Joey-boy has never had an original thought. Or, a thought.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:08 pm
What you guys and girls may not get is that even some conservatives think that the 2nd amendment fanatics and the NRA are whack.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:12 pm
@162, How many Democrats are distancing themselves from this?
January 17th, 2013 at 5:21 pm
@162: Right, Joe; just keep telling yourself that. People like you are walking contradictions; on one side, you argue that we are killing innocents with guns protected by the 2nd Amendment, yet you want to use the same Constitution to continue to kill innocents and call it a “right” with abortion. You can’t have it both ways, numbnuts.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Joe: how about some reputable examples to back your claims here?
And while you’re at it, define “2nd Amendment Fanatics” and give examples there, too. ‘Cause if you’re going to use folks like Alex Jones of “Infowars” fame – well, try again without using a strawman. Folks like Jones “march to the beat of a different drummer” (to be polite). That’s common knowledge among both conservatives and liberals alike.
January 17th, 2013 at 5:39 pm
Old,
I can have it both waysw – a zygote is not a person.
Hondo, look at the NRA’s ads that drag Sasha and Malia Obama into it…..
Along different lines, I’ve been meaning to ask – are OldTrooper, NHSparky and UpNorth all the same person? They sure sound alike.
January 17th, 2013 at 6:33 pm
Joe; have you ever seen what a baby looks like at 12-16 weeks? Maybe if you did, then you wouldn’t talk like a dumbass. Preemies are considered children, yet Obama was all for partial birth abortion and letting a baby born alive during an abortion die in the bucket.
So, no; you don’t get it both ways when it comes to who has “rights”, since my purchasing a firearm in no way endangers anyone, unless they somehow decide to do something to me that would cause them to be in danger. Your logical failures aren’t holding up and your being fearful of someone owning a firearm doesn’t constitute you being able to dictate if I can have one, or not and whether it can hold 5 rounds or 30.
Suck it up, buttercup.
January 17th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
@166 Joe
So you alone can pick and choose what a person is…my kids came from zygotes…as did you and I.
Once again..people of your ilk think it is A-OK for a person (the mother) to serve a death sentence to that child (with or without the father’s consent..or even a good reason)…but 1/100th of a second after it is out of the birth canal it is a tragedy if someone with a black scarry rifle shoots it. It’s Ok to kill a baby in the womb…but not ok when it is out of the womb? WTF? Seriously.
Using your train of thought you should be concerned about crazy people having guns…not guns themselves…or responsible owners who have a Constitutional right to have them.
Obama’s kids? Yep…protected. Very well. I want the ability to protect my own children and family since the US taxpayer isn’t going to do it for me. And I have that ability. Unless you and your kind get their way. What concern are my guns to you?
January 17th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
BTW, Joe, you still haven’t come back with real numbers on gun murders and those gun murders committed with rifles or those committed with the dreaded “assault rifle”. Why? Do you need some help? Ok, I will help you.
These are the FBI numbers for 2011:
8,583 total murders with guns.
323 with rifles of all flavors.
496 with hammers and clubs.
1,694 with knives.
By these numbers; you should be out there petitioning for a ban on knives over “assault rifles”, considering that of the rifles murders, only a very small percentage were committed with an “assault rifle” with a “high capacity magazine”.
Of all gun murders, “assault rifles” with “high capacity magazines” were used .6% of the time (based on the data that since the AWB expired in 2004, there has been 385 murders using “assault rifles” and extrapolated over that period of time equals an average of 48 per year).
Now; maybe people would take you serious if you left your emotional metro-sexual proclivities out of the conversation and stick to logic and common sense. Ack, who am I kidding, that’s all you have.
January 17th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Sorry to disappoint, Joey. I’m just me. No sockpuppets.
But who I am is one of those guys you pissed your pants over because I had one of those “evil scary guns” in the rifle rack in the back of my truck that I used to go hunting before/after school back in the day.
Funny how we never had school shootings nearly as often back then, ain’t it? Almost never even heard of them, come to think of it.
January 18th, 2013 at 8:53 am
@170 – While in high school in N. Texas years ago, kids would routinely have shotguns/rifles in the back of their truck and we’d routinely get a group together and go hunting after school. Some would just ditch class altogether.
Of about 30 of us that regularly kept a firearm in a truck or car, none of us even THOUGHT about using the gun in school or against each other.
Of course, back then if we had a dispute, we’d settle it elsewhere and without weapons because we were taught different coping skills than most folks have today, and respected the law.
January 18th, 2013 at 9:12 am
@171: Yep, we did that, too, and no one was even remotely thinking of using their shotgun, out in the truck, for anything other than hunting after school. In fact, some of the teachers had theirs with them, also.
As for Joe; where did ya go? Why don’t you come back and argue that viscous pack of facts that I presented to you? Are you still waiting for your next talking points from the Brady Campaign? I want to read all your emotional drivel as you attempt to dismiss the facts. If nothing else, it’s entertaining watching you get your underoos all twisted up.
January 18th, 2013 at 9:24 am
Joey-boy: that’s rich. If that’s the best example you can come up with of “extremist” stuff, you’re dead meat in this argument. You might as well STFU. Your claim is so obviously BS it’s not worth debunking.
Whether or not you realize it, you’re also being both despicable and hypocritical. You use openly admit you’re OK with using murdered innocents – the responsibility for whose death is due to liberal-backed laws barring involuntary commitment of lunatics – for political gain. Yet you have the freaking gall to complain about anyone pointing out the fact that the POTUS’s kids go to a school with armed security?
Do you have absolutely no shame whatsoever? Geez, are you even freaking smart enough to look up the word “hypocrite”?
January 18th, 2013 at 9:26 am
Sales are still increasing.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/18/16570552-gun-stores-running-low-on-weapons-as-sales-surge-owners-say?lite
Joey-boy strikes me as the kind of person who doesn’t give a crap about anyone but himself, but will block traffic at a horrific accident (gaper’s block) just to get a chance to see how much blood is on the pavement.