Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[momeNt]

What are you saying Karmy? That once a man commits violence his message automatically becomes invalidated and must be lumped in with his acts of violence?

MLK protested peacefully, but there were many blacks at the time who were not so peaceful, yet they had the same goals of equality for America?

It's a shame that McVeigh tarnished his message with his act of violence, but there are some of us that can see past the violence and see the truth of his words.

 

[Nebor]

Large ammo purchases were done by James Holmes prior to the shooting.

I just ran home for lunch and found 4,000 rounds of 5.56 on my doorstep. Then I came back to work and found 30,000 rounds of 5.56 in the conference room. Sound the alarms. :biggrin:

 

[Doppel]

"I enjoy steak."

Karmypolitics or adopt hitler?

 

[micrometers]

What McVeigh was saying was that the people killed in OKC were casualties of a war on the government. He didn't hate them, but at the same time he wouldn't feel guilty for taking their lives for his cause.

This thread is trolltastic, btw.

He was also saying that in the big scope of things, their deaths were insignificant.

That's what the NRA implies when it opposes gun restrictions. Massacres you guys argue are insignificant compared to car crashes and swimming pool drownings.

 

[Jaskalas]

What McVeigh was saying was that the people killed in OKC were casualties of a war on the government. He didn't hate them, but at the same time he wouldn't feel guilty for taking their lives for his cause.

The problem I find with that logic of his, is that he 1: committed a terrorist act by directly targeting civilians. 2: Had no state backing him, particularly in declaring a "war".

Also, his effectiveness was lacking. Sure some people died, but so did he. For what? The effective change was null. Our government did not shrink, in fact it has kept expanding more than ever.

He failed, utterly.

 

[Doppel]

"I hate that smell."

Karmypolitics or Timothy McVeigh?

 

[micrometers]

I just ran home for lunch and found 4,000 rounds of 5.56 on my doorstep. Then I came back to work and found 30,000 rounds of 5.56 in the conference room. Sound the alarms. :biggrin:

You see, such purchases should be done like how PA controls liquor: at state approved and supervised gun ranges.

 

[micrometers]

"I hate that smell."

Karmypolitics or Timothy McVeigh?

The smiling female is definitely *not* someone you actually know.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Large ammo purchases were done by James Holmes prior to the shooting.

What do you consider large and what exactly would you do with the information that someone purchased a large amount of ammo? Do you set a limit on the number of rounds a person can buy per month, with each store performing a check before selling to you? Do you just track it and require a mandatory police visit for anyone who buys over the monthly limit? Do you jail people for purchasing over the limit? Do you also tracking reloading supplies to limit the number of rounds someone can reload? What's to stop someone from buying up to the limit each month and hording? Should police enter your house to count your available supply of rounds once a year?

Do you think a crazed person who thinks that going on a rampage is somehow the acceptable and correct thing to do cares whether they have 300 rounds or 5000 and that this will somehow stop them from shooting?

Take the case of Holmes. Yes, he bought several thousand rounds, but he shot maybe 100. A majority of his shots came from a Remington 870 and a Glock 22. These shells and bullets typically come in quantities of 25, 50, or 100. I doubt he reloaded the 870, given that it doesn't have a detachable magazine. So 6+1 12 gauge shells, ~30 .223 rounds, and ~60 .40 rounds. So he could have bought a case of 12 gauge shells, 2 boxes of .40 rounds, and a box of .223 rounds and accomplished the same thing. Do any of these numbers sound like they're over whatever arbitrary limits you think there should be? Do you think that Holmes wouldn't have gone of a shooting spree if he only had 100 rounds?

 

[Doppel]

The smiling female is definitely *not* someone you actually know.

I am married to that person.

Anyway, typical massacres don't use that much ammunition; controlling the purchase of ammo is utterly stupid.

And there I go being stupid thinking that facts matter to karmy.

 

[BoberFett]

You see, such purchases should be done like how PA controls liquor: at state approved and supervised gun ranges.

It's too bad we can't have the same restrictions on reproduction. Your parents defective genetic material would never have passed state inspection and we'd all be spared your bullshit.

 

[Nebor]

He was also saying that in the big scope of things, their deaths were insignificant.

That's what the NRA implies when it opposes gun restrictions. Massacres you guys argue are insignificant compared to car crashes and swimming pool drownings.

And I think people are pointing out to you that you're trying to govern with your feelings instead of with facts or reason. Their deaths are insignificant. I could choke myself to death masturbating tonight, and you might really, really miss me, but that doesn't mean that my death is significant, or that it warrants a governmental ban on autoerotic asphyxiation.

 

[TechBoyJK]

this thread is funny

troll
bait
more bait
more troll
feast

 

[Nebor]

The problem I find with that logic of his, is that he 1: committed a terrorist act by directly targeting civilians. 2: Had no state backing him, particularly in declaring a "war".

Also, his effectiveness was lacking. Sure some people died, but so did he. For what? The effective change was null. Our government did not shrink, in fact it has kept expanding more than ever.

He failed, utterly.

His attack was just part of a broader war between the government and anti-government people in the US. It's been going on for nearly 30 years now, and most of it's very quiet, but consider the fact that more US citizens than foreign nationals are arrested for domestic terrorism plots by the FBI. McVeigh is a hero to some, and his name lives on as a rallying call with his people. There are people that live their lives based around Ruby Ridge, Waco and McVeigh.

 

[Nebor]

You see, such purchases should be done like how PA controls liquor: at state approved and supervised gun ranges.

.... so under your system, would I be able to purchase alcohol and firearms at the same establishment? :biggrin:

 

[micrometers]

And I think people are pointing out to you that you're trying to govern with your feelings instead of with facts or reason. Their deaths are insignificant. I could choke myself to death masturbating tonight, and you might really, really miss me, but that doesn't mean that my death is significant, or that it warrants a governmental ban on autoerotic asphyxiation.

That's a stupid analogy. I don't care about you harming yourself. I do care about you harming innocent strangers.

Their deaths *do* matter. For starters, they were going about on their everyday business when it happened. Left alone, they would have gone on to live long lives for the most part.

Secondly, it is utterly insane to just *not* do anything in response to such events which is what you recommend. Drunk driving happens. But we still have measures meant to reduce drunk driving. Same principle.

Yes, not being able to drive around with an open container is an infringement on liberties, and a responsible person probably could manage to drink and drive.

But it's still against the law. and drunk driving fatalities have gone down.

 

[Doppel]

Karmy, you drive a car right? Do you ever drink? Hmm, so do guys who get drunk and plow into a family, killing them all.

 

[xj0hnx]

#postinginatrollthread

ib4tl

 

[chucky2]

#postinginatrollthread

ib4tl

Come on now, it's entertaining at least. We have less Moonie posts lately, JKWhiteGuilter isn't around anymore, Craig has been long gone, somehow the country is perfect once Bummer was elected so no more non-partisan Macro postings, and the 'It'd be funny if we didn't have to pay for it ''spend spend spend and spend some more and at some point we'll never really not spend''' (Yes, I just tripled those) crowds schtick has grown old, if not religous in its mantra.

What else would P&N be good for if it wasn't for the laughs?

 

[Nebor]

That's a stupid analogy. I don't care about you harming yourself. I do care about you harming innocent strangers.

Their deaths *do* matter. For starters, they were going about on their everyday business when it happened. Left alone, they would have gone on to live long lives for the most part.

Secondly, it is utterly insane to just *not* do anything in response to such events which is what you recommend. Drunk driving happens. But we still have measures meant to reduce drunk driving. Same principle.

Yes, not being able to drive around with an open container is an infringement on liberties, and a responsible person probably could manage to drink and drive.

But it's still against the law. and drunk driving fatalities have gone down.

It's insane to overreact to everything that happens in this big, random world. You're not going to ban swimming pools because so many people drown. You're not going to ban cars because so many people die in accidents. Because the people killed in those ways are insignificant, and to ban them would be a ridiculous inconvience on the vast majority of society that aren't negatively effected by them.

60 times more people die of heart disease every year than die from gun fire. And we know EXACTLY what causes it and how to stop it. Why don't you work on that rather than try to solve the nebulous problem of why .0001% of our population occasionally thinks it's a good idea to murder a whole gaggle of school children? Because we don't know what causes it, and we don't know how to stop it.

 

[micrometers]

It's insane to overreact to everything that happens in this big, random world. You're not going to ban swimming pools because so many people drown. You're not going to ban cars because so many people die in accidents. Because the people killed in those ways are insignificant, and to ban them would be a ridiculous inconvience on the vast majority of society that aren't negatively effected by them.

60 times more people die of heart disease every year than die from gun fire. And we know EXACTLY what causes it and how to stop it. Why don't you work on that rather than try to solve the nebulous problem of why .0001% of our population occasionally thinks it's a good idea to murder a whole gaggle of school children? Because we don't know what causes it, and we don't know how to stop it.

Tim McVeigh put your argument more succinctly:

To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball and cry just because the victims want me to do that.

 

[chucky2]

OK? And from his perpective he was at war, and he'd be right. Who are lawful gun owners at war with? No one. So why would they be wrong in pointing out your looney logic since you're trying to use that to infringe upon their hobby needlessly? And, it is needless, given how your LL (what a coincidence huh?) does absolutely nothing to prevent the other crazies from committing horrible acts.

In short: You're freaking out over something that cannot be fixed, chasing solutions that solve nothing, for a problem that doesn't exist. Do you work for the Gov? Raised by people who worked for the Gov?

 

[Nebor]

Tim McVeigh put your argument more succinctly:

So now you're just repeating yourself? We already discussed that quote, it makes sense from his perspective. Similarly, I didn't shed any tears over the kids who died at Sandy Brook, I shook my head at the sort of twisted person that would kill children en mass.

Those kids are insignificant in the scheme of things. Are you going to ban people living on the coast lines because they're occasionally decimated by tidal waves or earthquakes?

There could be a Sandy Hook-esque shooting every day for a month and it wouldn't change my mind on gun control. Because gun control can't stop those shootings. You need better "bad guy" control, and if that's too difficult to work out, you need to harden the targets that they're choosing. It's just common sense, with no senseless emotion involved.

 

[BoberFett]

"I know you love your children, but I love your children more than you do."

karmypolitics or a pedophile?



Trick question! Both answers are correct!

 

[micrometers]

There could be a Sandy Hook-esque shooting every day for a month and it wouldn't change my mind on gun control.

that's utterly monstrous.