• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gunman shoots 18 people.

I wish any one of the pro-gun posters would have the honesty to say:
"Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence". And please leave out red herrings like knives and motorcars.
 
Last edited:
Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.
 
Last edited:
Skibum said:
Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.
Click to expand...

When you consider the response to 9/11, when 3,000 died, to firearms, which is something like 14,000 each year, you have to wonder though. That response included massive invasions on civil rights and liberties, a monetary cost of about one trillion dollars, and thousands of americans dead and many many more wounded and scarred for life.
 
Last edited:
Wayne LaPIerre seem to be the worst offender when it comes to wackjob rheteoric from A high ranking NRA official, and I wonder why they keep him around. He does nothing but harm.
 
a_unique_person said:
When you consider the response to 9/11, when 3,000 died, to firearms, which is something like 14,000 each year, you have to wonder though. That response included massive invasions on civil rights and liberties, a monetary cost of about one trillion dollars, and thousands of americans dead and many many more wounded and scarred for life.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how your post resembles any sort of response to mine, or are you just using my post as a springboard to post your rhetoric?
 
Last edited:
Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence
 
I see EJ Armstong is using this for his usual "America Is Evil" rant.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
When you consider the response to 9/11, when 3,000 died, to firearms, which is something like 14,000 each year, you have to wonder though. That response included massive invasions on civil rights and liberties, a monetary cost of about one trillion dollars, and thousands of americans dead and many many more wounded and scarred for life.
Click to expand...



How...

H...

How does...

...Are you a Republican strategist?

I don't...

How in the Christ's blue balls does 9/11 fall out of gun ownership?
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I wish any one of the pro-gun posters would have the honesty to say:
"Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence". And please leave out red herrings like knives and motorcars.
Click to expand...

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

So, you were saying?
 
"Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence."

Yeah, that works just fine for me too. :cool:
 
I am not a pro-gun poster, but:

Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

Do I think the policy needs to be amended as previously discussed in this thread? Absolutely. I don't like guns. I'm not comfortable with them, I wouldn't want to live in a house with them, but I will not begrudge a law-abiding, stable person's desire to own one for protection/sport/collection.

A gun makes mass murder a little easier for those without access to some 409 and Clorox.
 
Oh snap he bought his Glock at topglock.com. I've bought a slug plug and the awesome R. Lee Ermey "This is my Glock, there are many like it but this one is mine" t-shirt from there.

ETA: Oh good grief CNN has a woman saying he was probably obsessed with violence and played horrible video games and watched movies like the "sick" "No Country for Old Men."

Suddenly I'm nostalgic for blaming this on guns.

ETAA: LA, Pickles is definitely the coolest 'kloker.
rock.gif
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
ETA: Oh good grief CNN has a woman saying he was probably obsessed with violence and played horrible video games and watched movies like the "sick" "No Country for Old Men."
Click to expand...

Journalism at its finest.

It was bound to happen, anyway. Once journalists run out of facts to report, they go for the emotionally speculative sound bites from the Wal*Mart crowd.

When I heard the first reports, someone said "He was wearing some kind of black beanie." I thought "Yarmulka" and immediately felt sorry for any person who dresses properly for shabbat. I expected someone to start blaming zoinists for the attack. It turns out he was wearing a knitted cap, or "Touque" (spelling check, eh?).

Now I'm waiting for the Jackson-Sharpton team to chime in with "It was a racially-motivated attack" and start a whole 'nuther round of trans-cultural finger-pointing.

ETA: One more thing; yes, in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment, with which I am happy. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence, provided I am armed as well.
 
Last edited:
Fnord said:
I expected someone to start blaming zoinists for the attack. It turns out he was wearing a knitted cap, or "Touque" (spelling check, eh?).
Click to expand...

If anyone tries to blame this on Bob and Doug McKenzie I can't be held responsible for my actions.
fist4su.gif
 
The claim that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that individuals have a right to own firearms is questionable. My understanding is that the courts have generally not interpreted the amendment in this manner, but instead have interpreted it as giving the states the right to have their own militias (now known as the National Guard).
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
The claim that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that individuals have a right to own firearms is questionable.
Click to expand...

Questioned by you...yes. It's not a claim--btw, it is an amendment to the constitution, which reads a certain way...you should look at it a bit.

My understanding is that the courts have generally not interpreted the amendment in this manner, but instead have interpreted it as giving the states the right to have their own militias (now known as the National Guard).
Click to expand...

Your understanding is not interpreted by me to mean a whole lot. The National Guard? Yeah, okay....No not really. That's my best Eddie Izzard impersonation and I'm sticking to it.
 
Normal Dude said:
Yes in the US we have a liberal gun-ownership policy, supported by the Second Amendment which I am happy with. One of the consequences of this is mass murder by firearms. I am willing to accept this consequence.

So, you were saying?
Click to expand...
What I am saying now is when do these repeated massacres become too much? Weekly? Daily? Several times a day? And this is where a Unique Person's analogy with 9/11 is not too far off track. 9/11 was too much and resulted in the War on Terror, right or wrong.
 
TellyKNeassus said:
The claim that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution guarantees that individuals have a right to own firearms is questionable.
Click to expand...
DJW said:
Questioned by you...yes. It's not a claim--btw, it is an amendment to the constitution, which reads a certain way...you should look at it a bit.
Click to expand...
TellyKNeassus said:
My understanding is that the courts have generally not interpreted the amendment in this manner, but instead have interpreted it as giving the states the right to have their own militias (now known as the National Guard).
Click to expand...
DJW said:
Your understanding is not interpreted by me to mean a whole lot. The National Guard? Yeah, okay....No not really. That's my best Eddie Izzard impersonation and I'm sticking to it.
Click to expand...
Sorry if my post was not understandable by you. The first phrase of the 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", and "bear arms" was commonly used during the 18th Century to refer to military service. In part because of these two considerations, the courts have for the most part ruled that the 2nd Amendment refers to a collective rather than individual right. For example, from the US Supreme Court's opinion in United State v. Miller:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom