#51
Posted: 12/16/12 at 6:38pm
Garry Shandling has a twitter account?
And you follow it?
And you follow it?
Debate US gun laws here — Page 3
#52
Posted: 12/16/12 at 6:40pm
Do you not realize it was not the avid gun owner who committed this crime? It was her crazed son who got them illegally. So because she didn't lock up her guns when she should have means that everyone who owns guns legally shouldn't be able to have them anymore?
It's not "because" of any specific individual. Laws that place restriction on gun ownership are common sense and the most recent tragedy merely highlights severe flaws in our current legal system.
It's not "because" of any specific individual. Laws that place restriction on gun ownership are common sense and the most recent tragedy merely highlights severe flaws in our current legal system.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#53
Posted: 12/16/12 at 6:40pm
Damn, PJ already made my point...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#54
Posted: 12/16/12 at 6:53pm
You can take classes, just because it's not required doesn't mean people don't do it. If teachers have a permit they should have to take classes, they shouldn't just give it to them and hope they know what they're doing.
pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues, and have a constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't get near semi-automatic weapons? Or people like me as a conservative? And I'm not so sure you know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are weapons that continue to shoot as long as you have your finger on the trigger. But coming from someone who spouts so much nonsense it doesn't surprise me you don't know jack squat about guns and is probably too afraid to even shoot one.
And it's too late for that, I already own a semi-auto weapon, so if someone breaks into my house I'll be a heck of a lot more prepared than you and will actually survive an attack, unlike you who would have to rely on the police :)
"Laws that place restriction on gun ownership are common sense and the most recent tragedy merely highlights severe flaws in our current legal system."
And how exactly would you have kept the mother of the killer from buying a gun? She wasn't a criminal, she had a clean record. Who could have known her son is a crazed lunatic who was going to shoot up a school? So just make them illegal for everyone and hope no bad guys get a hold of them? That makes a lot of sense.
And theaterdiva, I watch msnbc sometimes for laughs, the things you are saying sound like they're straight out of one of those low rated shows you people watch. So please don't talk to me about fox news, it's old, and not very original. And I have been watching fox news the last few days for updates on the tragedy, and they haven't been talking about gun control at all, at least not when I've been watching, so once again, that's a terribly unoriginal excuse to belittle me.
pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues, and have a constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't get near semi-automatic weapons? Or people like me as a conservative? And I'm not so sure you know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are weapons that continue to shoot as long as you have your finger on the trigger. But coming from someone who spouts so much nonsense it doesn't surprise me you don't know jack squat about guns and is probably too afraid to even shoot one.
And it's too late for that, I already own a semi-auto weapon, so if someone breaks into my house I'll be a heck of a lot more prepared than you and will actually survive an attack, unlike you who would have to rely on the police :)
"Laws that place restriction on gun ownership are common sense and the most recent tragedy merely highlights severe flaws in our current legal system."
And how exactly would you have kept the mother of the killer from buying a gun? She wasn't a criminal, she had a clean record. Who could have known her son is a crazed lunatic who was going to shoot up a school? So just make them illegal for everyone and hope no bad guys get a hold of them? That makes a lot of sense.
And theaterdiva, I watch msnbc sometimes for laughs, the things you are saying sound like they're straight out of one of those low rated shows you people watch. So please don't talk to me about fox news, it's old, and not very original. And I have been watching fox news the last few days for updates on the tragedy, and they haven't been talking about gun control at all, at least not when I've been watching, so once again, that's a terribly unoriginal excuse to belittle me.
#55
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:05pm
Yes, because the are so many other reasons to....
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#56
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:06pm
You can take classes, just because it's not required doesn't mean people don't do it. If teachers have a permit they should have to take classes, they shouldn't just give it to them and hope they know what they're doing.
That's quite a different tune than from what you were singing before when you said it was reasonable that everyone had to get advanced training. I'd like statistics on how many people opt to get training that isn't mandated. My guess is the stats don't exist and the answer is not many.
pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues, and have a constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't get near semi-automatic weapons?
I'm not paljoey but I think that is what he's saying. There is no reason why an ordinary citizen needs to have weapons used for warfare. Nothing in any document says that amendments are unrestricted. The First Amendment is heavily restricted (saying fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech designed to provoke an attack, etc.) and there's no logical reason why the Second Amendment can't be similarly restricted.
And it's too late for that, I already own a semi-auto weapon, so if someone breaks into my house I'll be a heck of a lot more prepared than you and will actually survive an attack, unlike you who would have to rely on the police.
I hope for your sake no one breaks into your house then because if the person was unarmed and or trying to escape and you shot and killed them there would be a good chance you'd land yourself in jail for murder. Self-defense does not permit use of a deadly force when one's life isn't in imminent danger. Also, why would you need a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself? Would the ordinary burglar stay in your house if you brandished any sort of gun?
And how exactly would you have kept the mother of the killer from buying a gun? She wasn't a criminal, she had a clean record. Who could have known her son is a crazed lunatic who was going to shoot up a school? So just make them illegal for everyone and hope no bad guys get a hold of them?
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. There is no reason why any ordinary citizen (not in law enforcement or not in the military) would need to have multiple (or any) semi-automatic weapons. Of course no one could have predicted but why not have laws on the books that attempt to prevent it. No law is perfect and again people inevitably break every law there is but that doesn't mean laws shouldn't exist. You completely ignored my earlier argument about why we have laws against murder. Since she was an ordinary, law-abiding citizen from all indications, my guess is if semi-automatic weapons were illegal she wouldn't have had any of them and maybe her son still would've had access to another one of her weapons and may have been able to kill her (again no law is perfect) but I know for certain he wouldn't have been able to kill 26 others in a matter of seconds.
That's quite a different tune than from what you were singing before when you said it was reasonable that everyone had to get advanced training. I'd like statistics on how many people opt to get training that isn't mandated. My guess is the stats don't exist and the answer is not many.
pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues, and have a constitutional right to bear arms shouldn't get near semi-automatic weapons?
I'm not paljoey but I think that is what he's saying. There is no reason why an ordinary citizen needs to have weapons used for warfare. Nothing in any document says that amendments are unrestricted. The First Amendment is heavily restricted (saying fire in a crowded theatre, hate speech designed to provoke an attack, etc.) and there's no logical reason why the Second Amendment can't be similarly restricted.
And it's too late for that, I already own a semi-auto weapon, so if someone breaks into my house I'll be a heck of a lot more prepared than you and will actually survive an attack, unlike you who would have to rely on the police.
I hope for your sake no one breaks into your house then because if the person was unarmed and or trying to escape and you shot and killed them there would be a good chance you'd land yourself in jail for murder. Self-defense does not permit use of a deadly force when one's life isn't in imminent danger. Also, why would you need a semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself? Would the ordinary burglar stay in your house if you brandished any sort of gun?
And how exactly would you have kept the mother of the killer from buying a gun? She wasn't a criminal, she had a clean record. Who could have known her son is a crazed lunatic who was going to shoot up a school? So just make them illegal for everyone and hope no bad guys get a hold of them?
Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. There is no reason why any ordinary citizen (not in law enforcement or not in the military) would need to have multiple (or any) semi-automatic weapons. Of course no one could have predicted but why not have laws on the books that attempt to prevent it. No law is perfect and again people inevitably break every law there is but that doesn't mean laws shouldn't exist. You completely ignored my earlier argument about why we have laws against murder. Since she was an ordinary, law-abiding citizen from all indications, my guess is if semi-automatic weapons were illegal she wouldn't have had any of them and maybe her son still would've had access to another one of her weapons and may have been able to kill her (again no law is perfect) but I know for certain he wouldn't have been able to kill 26 others in a matter of seconds.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#57
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:13pm
Well if guns are outlawed to citizens, there will be an uproar. No one will give up their guns they acquired legally without a fight, believe me. I know I'm not going to, no one I know will. Just because you're afraid of guns, doesn't mean the rest of Americans are cowards. 47% of Americans own guns, do you really think you're going to take them away from everyone without a fight? It's not gonna happen.
#58
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:14pm
AbbyNormal - your arguments are self-contradictory, give it up
PJ - legal civilian post-ban semi-automatic weapons do not have fire rates of 100s of rounds per minute. Those high rates of fire are for the fully automatic military versions.
Police firepower has everything to do with gun control. The Second Amendment is the strongest amendment for defense against a corrupt government. Bloomberg's already shown disregard for citizens' rights with stop and frisk. His strong demands for further restrictions on citizens while not stepping down his own forces should prompt caution. Even if one argues that Bloomberg isn't like that, laws don't lose force when Bloomberg leaves office.
PJ - legal civilian post-ban semi-automatic weapons do not have fire rates of 100s of rounds per minute. Those high rates of fire are for the fully automatic military versions.
Police firepower has everything to do with gun control. The Second Amendment is the strongest amendment for defense against a corrupt government. Bloomberg's already shown disregard for citizens' rights with stop and frisk. His strong demands for further restrictions on citizens while not stepping down his own forces should prompt caution. Even if one argues that Bloomberg isn't like that, laws don't lose force when Bloomberg leaves office.
Updated On: 12/16/12 at 07:14 PM
#59
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:20pm
^abby
Ad hominem attacks are usually the perfect indication that you've lost an argument since you didn't respond to any of the points I and others made with any reasoning rebuttals.
Interesting that I'm a coward for wanting to pass laws that protect people. I'm also a bit perplexed as to why one shouldn't fear a semi-automatic weapon that can kill dozens of people in seconds.
47% of Americans own guns, do you really think you're going to take them away from everyone without a fight?
This has the ring of desperation to it. What percentage of Americans own semi-automatic weapons? It's a lot less than 47%. Three quarters of NRA members support increased gun regulation on certain weapons.
Ad hominem attacks are usually the perfect indication that you've lost an argument since you didn't respond to any of the points I and others made with any reasoning rebuttals.
Interesting that I'm a coward for wanting to pass laws that protect people. I'm also a bit perplexed as to why one shouldn't fear a semi-automatic weapon that can kill dozens of people in seconds.
47% of Americans own guns, do you really think you're going to take them away from everyone without a fight?
This has the ring of desperation to it. What percentage of Americans own semi-automatic weapons? It's a lot less than 47%. Three quarters of NRA members support increased gun regulation on certain weapons.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#60
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:24pm
You've confused "semi-automatic" with "assault".
#61
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:45pm
But you didn't answer my question: Should citizens have a the right to own Bushmaster .223's?
And, as for Abby saying pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues...
I'd have some things checked before making that claim.
And, as for Abby saying pal joey do you mean people like me, who haven't committed any crimes, don't have mental issues...
I'd have some things checked before making that claim.
#62
Posted: 12/16/12 at 7:46pm
The Second Amendment is the strongest amendment for defense against a corrupt government. Bloomberg's already shown disregard for citizens' rights with stop and frisk. His strong demands for further restrictions on citizens while not stepping down his own forces should prompt caution. Even if one argues that Bloomberg isn't like that, laws don't lose force when Bloomberg leaves office.
the fallback that weapons are needed to resist the government is an especially sad one. it always rings of tremendous ignorance of how lucky we are to live in these times.
i bet the vast majority of gun owners went out and voted. throughout history, probably < 1% of humans have had the right to vote to have a say in who governed them. this is still true of very large tracks of the world. we are very far from a syria or iran or north korea, and it's, well, SAD and smacks of ingratitude when people speak as if we're not. it's true that there were disturbing trends with the patriot act and whatnot, but that is why the huge masses that abstain need to be encouraged to use the rights that were won for them by blood.
the fallback that weapons are needed to resist the government is an especially sad one. it always rings of tremendous ignorance of how lucky we are to live in these times.
i bet the vast majority of gun owners went out and voted. throughout history, probably < 1% of humans have had the right to vote to have a say in who governed them. this is still true of very large tracks of the world. we are very far from a syria or iran or north korea, and it's, well, SAD and smacks of ingratitude when people speak as if we're not. it's true that there were disturbing trends with the patriot act and whatnot, but that is why the huge masses that abstain need to be encouraged to use the rights that were won for them by blood.
Updated On: 12/16/12 at 07:46 PM
#63
Posted: 12/16/12 at 8:21pm
Abby.
NO ONE here has said that all guns should be banned- or if someone did, their posts were buried by other saying they only want restrictions.
NO ONE is saying people are going to have their guns taken away. But that is your fallback argument- that guns can't be taken away. You are arguing against nothing.
By all means, own a gun. Own a revolver. Sleep with it under your pillow and carry it in your purse. Go to the shooting range twice weekly. But no civilian needs an instrument created to kill or maim many targets in the most efficient manner possible.
I have never in my life felt the need to protect myself or my loved ones with a firearm. I'd say the only coward in this thread is you- who needs and demands a gun to protect themselves from... what?
NO ONE here has said that all guns should be banned- or if someone did, their posts were buried by other saying they only want restrictions.
NO ONE is saying people are going to have their guns taken away. But that is your fallback argument- that guns can't be taken away. You are arguing against nothing.
By all means, own a gun. Own a revolver. Sleep with it under your pillow and carry it in your purse. Go to the shooting range twice weekly. But no civilian needs an instrument created to kill or maim many targets in the most efficient manner possible.
I have never in my life felt the need to protect myself or my loved ones with a firearm. I'd say the only coward in this thread is you- who needs and demands a gun to protect themselves from... what?
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#64
Posted: 12/16/12 at 8:26pm
Ownership is a right. Except I lose that right if a judge grants a restraining order against me. Totally legal, but takes away my right as long as the order I'd in place. Abby, what do you say about that?
Life and freedom are also rights but look what the second amendment did to those children. Their right to life should've come first.
State funded executions also happen every year. Right to life, as long as you behave.
Life and freedom are also rights but look what the second amendment did to those children. Their right to life should've come first.
State funded executions also happen every year. Right to life, as long as you behave.
#65
Posted: 12/16/12 at 8:31pm
Bethnor you don't have to look very far back to see government abuse at the city level in the US.
PJ I don't have trouble with someone owning a civilian Bushmaster .223 because it's not the big, bad weapon you seem to think it is. Most civilian assault weapon look-a-likes don't have performance much better than a skilled shooter with a handgun has - and most handguns are larger caliber. You're being faked out by the packaging.
There is no need, however, for large capacity magazines.
PJ I don't have trouble with someone owning a civilian Bushmaster .223 because it's not the big, bad weapon you seem to think it is. Most civilian assault weapon look-a-likes don't have performance much better than a skilled shooter with a handgun has - and most handguns are larger caliber. You're being faked out by the packaging.
There is no need, however, for large capacity magazines.
Updated On: 12/16/12 at 08:31 PM
#66
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:08pm
There is no need, however, for large capacity magazines.
I will take that as common ground between is, for which I am very happy. Thank you for saying that.
I will take that as common ground between is, for which I am very happy. Thank you for saying that.
#67
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:18pm
Or guns that shoot more rounds than needed.
These poor kids were slaughtered. Not just shot, SLAUGHTERED.
There is NO NEED for the types of weapons. None.
These poor kids were slaughtered. Not just shot, SLAUGHTERED.
There is NO NEED for the types of weapons. None.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#68
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:24pm
Or guns that shoot more rounds than needed
And how many is that?
Choose wisely - if you choose wrong you'll just piss off your assailant more instead of stopping him.
And how many is that?
Choose wisely - if you choose wrong you'll just piss off your assailant more instead of stopping him.
#69
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:25pm
I was struck by Bob Schieffer's comments on this morning's 'FACE THE NATION':
By now, the pros and cons of the gun issue are well- known, but here is the question that must be asked: Is what happened Friday the new normal? Of course, there are legitimate reasons for both pleasure and protection to own guns, but if the slaughter of innocent children is not bad enough to make us rethink what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, what is bad enough? To what depths of horror must we sink before we say this cannot be tolerated? Are we willing to settle for a culture in which Kindergarten children are no longer safe in the classroom and a visit to a mall or a movie is a life-threatening experience?
In recent years there has been no serious effort to address this problem, no piece of gun legislation was seriously considered during this session of Congress. It is a subject no one wants to talk about for fear of offending the powerful gun lobby. Perhaps it is time to remember what Ed Murrow told us, that we are not descended from fearful people. Our forefathers had the courage to tell the most powerful country of their day, you have gone too far, we can tolerate this no more. And upon this courage America was built. Have we, their descendants, become so afraid of the possible political consequences that we are unwilling to explore ways to make a safer world for our children? I cannot believe we have. I think we are better than that.
I'm not sure which thread this fits best in, but decided to post it here. I was moved by it.
I think we are better than that, also.
By now, the pros and cons of the gun issue are well- known, but here is the question that must be asked: Is what happened Friday the new normal? Of course, there are legitimate reasons for both pleasure and protection to own guns, but if the slaughter of innocent children is not bad enough to make us rethink what we can do to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, what is bad enough? To what depths of horror must we sink before we say this cannot be tolerated? Are we willing to settle for a culture in which Kindergarten children are no longer safe in the classroom and a visit to a mall or a movie is a life-threatening experience?
In recent years there has been no serious effort to address this problem, no piece of gun legislation was seriously considered during this session of Congress. It is a subject no one wants to talk about for fear of offending the powerful gun lobby. Perhaps it is time to remember what Ed Murrow told us, that we are not descended from fearful people. Our forefathers had the courage to tell the most powerful country of their day, you have gone too far, we can tolerate this no more. And upon this courage America was built. Have we, their descendants, become so afraid of the possible political consequences that we are unwilling to explore ways to make a safer world for our children? I cannot believe we have. I think we are better than that.
I'm not sure which thread this fits best in, but decided to post it here. I was moved by it.
I think we are better than that, also.
"Two drifters off to see the world. There's such a lot of world to see. . ."
Updated On: 12/16/12 at 09:25 PM
#70
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:34pm
Why does the media always push the gun control line instead of addressing mental health issues? The millions of stable, responsible gun owners have to cede rights because the mental health issue has been so ignored in this country that a handful of psychopaths can't be identified and intercepted? Put funding into brain chemistry research and access to healthcare instead of having the military screw around overseas killing people we shouldn't be messing with and maybe the nation will get somewhere!
#71
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:35pm
Why is it that the only time people want to have a discussion about the poor mental health care system is when people are trying to deflect from a debate about gun safety regulations?
#72
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:39pm
"And how many is that?
Choose wisely - if you choose wrong you'll just piss off your assailant more instead of stopping him."
Not if you had the proper training...
Choose wisely - if you choose wrong you'll just piss off your assailant more instead of stopping him."
Not if you had the proper training...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Updated On: 12/16/12 at 09:39 PM
#73
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:40pm
Put funding into brain chemistry research and access to healthcare instead of having the military screw around overseas killing people we shouldn't be messing with and maybe the nation will get somewhere!
Brilliant! I wholeheartedly agree.
However, mental healthcare is not mutually exclusive with gun control. Both of them are major issues and we hardly solve anything by deflecting discussion we don't want to have.
Brilliant! I wholeheartedly agree.
However, mental healthcare is not mutually exclusive with gun control. Both of them are major issues and we hardly solve anything by deflecting discussion we don't want to have.
Scratch and claw for every day you're worth!
Make them drag you screaming from life, keep dreaming
You'll live forever here on earth.
#74
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:44pm
yet many pooh-pooh the mental health aspect while raging about gun control - the media stokes gun control essentially to the exclusion of all else because it's far easier to blame the inanimate tools than look at the humans using them
#75
Posted: 12/16/12 at 9:59pm
How about this.
Force people who own guns/want to buy guns take a psych exam. It's a friggin start. Also, don't let people own a gun such as the rifle that was used Friday.
No gun that can carry out this amount of carnage should be allowed. That is a fact. I'm sorry, but why the hell does a person need a gun of that nature? Answer that Abby. Why? Because the "Right to Bare Arms" says so? Guess what...that was created BEFORE we had the weapons that were seen on Friday existed.
I'm not expecting much of a response from you. It will probably be the same nonsense you spout all the time. You will run around in circles screaming about how "Lib'rals gonna be taking my precious gun away" because that is what you do best.
Get a grip on reality. These guns are made to kill many lives, in very little time.
Side note. Anyone else notice how dear Abby has an anecdote for EVERYTHING? "My high school had a teacher" "I go to a shooting range" "I know several small business owners"
Highly suspicious if you ask me.
I can't wait to see her reply. I'm sure it is going to amuse me to no end
Force people who own guns/want to buy guns take a psych exam. It's a friggin start. Also, don't let people own a gun such as the rifle that was used Friday.
No gun that can carry out this amount of carnage should be allowed. That is a fact. I'm sorry, but why the hell does a person need a gun of that nature? Answer that Abby. Why? Because the "Right to Bare Arms" says so? Guess what...that was created BEFORE we had the weapons that were seen on Friday existed.
I'm not expecting much of a response from you. It will probably be the same nonsense you spout all the time. You will run around in circles screaming about how "Lib'rals gonna be taking my precious gun away" because that is what you do best.
Get a grip on reality. These guns are made to kill many lives, in very little time.
Side note. Anyone else notice how dear Abby has an anecdote for EVERYTHING? "My high school had a teacher" "I go to a shooting range" "I know several small business owners"
Highly suspicious if you ask me.
I can't wait to see her reply. I'm sure it is going to amuse me to no end
"Life in theater is give and take...but you need to be ready to give more then you take..."
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $71
