Let's draw parallels between Tim McVeigh and the NRA

[micrometers]

So now you don't care about the 1st amendment much, either. And no, I'm not kidding. What classic rule of law in this country isn't on the table for your progressive sentiments to consider getting rid of? On the one hand you think the 2nd amendment is a silly thing and protection from government a fantasy and on the other you're ok arresting people for just being massive assholes.

I'm not much of a civil libertarian, no. I believe in education and democracy by majority rule. Educate people and then vote based on education.

 

[ivwshane]

I can answer that for you and it really is a rather simple answer but the problem itself is rather complex.

Fix the mental health system.

Done. 95% of mass shootings go away if the psycho would have been recieving treatment for whatever the hell made him psycho or was removed from society due to his psycho-ness not being under control. I am constantly amazed at how this issue is barely given lip service yet a ton of people think that removing a few items will cause psycho people to just give up on their psycho plans.

Excellent, now name a republican that has a mental health bill in the works.

 

[ivwshane]

What fucking rock have you been under the last few weeks? Feinstine's presser days after Newtown should have told you everything. The numerous comments on this board and across the internet calling for confiscation and total bans. The NY law was originally going to be confiscation until they assessed the cost to themselves politically.

And yes... they are elected to represent us, but in NYS they are playing to the throngs in NYC and in the upstate, central and western NY they are ignoring their constituents entirely. When an elected official cites the need for gun control legislation and in their own comments exposes blatant inaccuracies in regard to gun ownership and cherry picked facts, it should be evident we have idiots legislating.

The original comment was made comparing airline safety to guns... you are the one that made the OP there on it. My point was that we allow for a long deliberate investigation by a non-partisan group to determine what was the cause, what would have prevented it, and what actions will prevent it in the future. We never see any of that from the anti-gun crowd. All we get is knee jerk legislation.

State government does not equal federal government so bringing that up is pointless when we are debating gun control at the federal level.


Did you read Feinstein's bill? She isn't taking away anyone's guns. Banning certain types of guns doesn't mean you lose your existing guns.

Again with the airplane analogy, you just aren't getting it. You claim they take a long a deliberative response and I pointed out a very recent incident where they took immediate action. Having said that though, how long should the gun debate conversation be had until there is action? How long has it been since there has been any action (well before Obamas executive orders)?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm sorry you think elected STATE officials should represent your views and not their constituents. I'll ask you again, what have the pro gun crowd proposed?
You are upset that the conversation leans one direction but are oblivious as to why that's happening. One side is discussing actions and the other just complains, that's not a good way to debate nor is it a good way to get good laws passed.

You want better, smarter laws? Step up to the table then.



And with regard to the Dreamliner battery you missed the point. They took action and in this case it was immediate, it may not be permanent but action was taken, you can't say the same when gun related tragedies happen.

Since when did disallowing public input equal following the will of the constituency? When did we in NY have any input into this legislation? It was ramrodded through so we had NO say at all.

 

[ivwshane]

Since when did disallowing public input equal following the will of the constituency? When did we in NY have any input into this legislation? It was ramrodded through so we had NO say at all.

I don't live in new York nor do I know how people feel, vote, act or anything else one would need to discuss each individual state. I tried that with Michigan and the whole union issue and it was pointless because I was unaware of the demographics.

Do you live in New York? Do you know their elected officials? Did you vote in anybof their elections? If you answered no, then you aren't qualified to speak for them either.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'm not much of a civil libertarian, no. I believe in education and democracy by majority rule. Educate people and then vote based on education.

Educated people aren't exempt from the failings of the human condition or from completely disagreeing on many issues. Furthermore flat out democracy is a failure prone style of government that is easily undermined by the failings of said human condition and populist views. Especially when a mob of people will rally to a populist style of democracy to enact atrocities against the minority group who dare dissent be they (the mob) educated or not.

 

[Phokus]

Dont feed the troll.

Ok i won't feed you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't live in new York nor do I know how people feel, vote, act or anything else one would need to discuss each individual state. I tried that with Michigan and the whole union issue and it was pointless because I was unaware of the demographics.

Do you live in New York? Do you know their elected officials? Did you vote in anybof their elections? If you answered no, then you aren't qualified to speak for them either.

Yes to all. Cuomo and the Assembly rushed this through in days which prevented proper examination and debate. No citizen input. I don't know how it is where you live, but people here haven't expressed a positive sentiment about being excluded.

 

[OCNewbie]

He's using the same basic argument: in the big scheme of things, their deaths are insignificant compared to death across society as a whole.

McVeigh was/is right, technically: 168 dead people compared to the ~310 million that live here today (unsure of the population at that time) was a statistically insignificant number.

What was banned as a response to McVeigh's actions?

 

[xj0hnx]

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.

No, that's not what they, or anyone else is implying at all. Massacres are not significant reason to strip citizens of their rights, and the ability to successfully defend themselves against robbers, murderers, rapist, etc ... I have a son about the same age as the children at Sandy Hook, and even if he had been one of those poor children I wouldn't blame guns, or want to restrict them because they did not kill them, a psychopath did. Considering his target, even if he had a bolt action he would have been able to inflict as much damage.

 

[davmat787]

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

And no one ever drives drunk with liquor purchased in that manner, right?

And when someone uses ammo sourced in this method to commit violence then what? Hold the state liable? I am guessing the thought of holding the state liable as you grant more and more powers to it is an utterly foreign and then disturbing thought to your ever growing authoritarian streak?

 

[davmat787]

I'm not much of a civil libertarian, no. I believe in education and democracy by majority rule. Educate people and then vote based on education.

If you are not much for civil liberties, then you probably don't want this education that you supposedly prize to teach people to think for themselves, do you?

It isn't education that you are really after, you want to program people to think and vote as you do, not based on what each person feels is best for their personal situation and local/national/world view.

 

[ivwshane]

If you are not much for civil liberties, then you probably don't want this education that you supposedly prize to teach people to think for themselves, do you?

It isn't education that you are really after, you want to program people to think and vote as you do, not based on what each person feels is best for their personal situation and local/national/world view.

Are you projecting? It sure seems like it.

 

[davmat787]

Are you projecting? It sure seems like it.

Oh, I thought that is what this thread was about, other than the obvious OP troll. Would you prefer I change the projection from "It isn't education..." to "IMO, it appears that it is not education..."

Would that unbunch your knickers? :awe:

 

[TallBill]

I'm actually not that leftist believe it or not. I'm just mocking you guys. It is offensive reading about how you guys want to sell AR15's in Walmart parking lots and think that it's like freedom.

Well the fact that you're afraid of specific weapons just continues to prove that you don't get it. Blame the men, not the tool.

 

[xj0hnx]

I get karmys point.

LOL, no surprise there.

When an airline crashes (which not only is very unlikely but it also kills less people per year than guns), we investigate and if necessary take immediate action, such as grounding all similar planes. In some instances more drastic measures are taken and new rules and regulations are created.

When a tragedy happens because of a gun nothing happens, not even a rational discussion.

When an airplane crashes, they investigate, and fix the cause. A gun doesn't cause a lunatic to go on a shooting spree. What the anti-gun nut jobs want is the equivalent of banning wrenches because a mechanic screwed up and forgot to install a part, skipped proper maintenance, etc ... causing the plane to crash.

It's my understanding that anyone can ask for their own thread to be closed at any time, for any reason. I asked for mine to be closed because I was utterly pissed off at the complete lack of rationality of several posters, and I had already spent too many hours dealing with it.

And don't push me or I'll post here how I REALLY feel about how you and a couple of others acted in that thread yesterday.

The only thing I saw was your inability to accept reality.

You claim that the only discussion being had is only from the anti gun crowd and they aren't compromising, that is incorrect and exhibit A would be the presidents own executive orders. On the other hand what has the pro gun side proposed?

We have proposed plenty, you just don't like them because they don't involve the anti-gun nut job progressives end goal, banning guns.

The pro gun nuts have all ate up the NRA propaganda that the left wants to take your guns.

You keep talking about the NRA and their propaganda as if they are the end all, be all sum of gun ownership in America, here's a protip: They are not. Many, many, many of us are not members, do not listen to, nor care what they are saying. Every time you blurt out this mindless dribble it further detracts from any rational point you may have had.

One side is indeed to for compromise.

Engrish?

 

[xj0hnx]

wow, guys, have you ever heard this online store? they say they sell the lowest price and best quality, if someone sell lower than them, they will refund us. is it true? can you help me make sure? this way please: http://zzmzd.com\156

Kill yourself.

 

[ivwshane]

LOL, no surprise there.



When an airplane crashes, they investigate, and fix the cause. A gun doesn't cause a lunatic to go on a shooting spree. What the anti-gun nut jobs want is the equivalent of banning wrenches because a mechanic screwed up and forgot to install a part, skipped proper maintenance, etc ... causing the plane to crash.



The only thing I saw was your inability to accept reality.



We have proposed plenty, you just don't like them because they don't involve the anti-gun nut job progressives end goal, banning guns.



You keep talking about the NRA and their propaganda as if they are the end all, be all sum of gun ownership in America, here's a protip: They are not. Many, many, many of us are not members, do not listen to, nor care what they are saying. Every time you blurt out this mindless dribble it further detracts from any rational point you may have had.



Engrish?

More dribble with no substance. Feel free to provide some substance next time, I'll need citations for anything you post

 

[xj0hnx]

More dribble with no substance. Feel free to provide some substance next time, I'll need citations for anything you post

You calling someone else's post dribble? Clownshoes.

 

[TallBill]

More dribble with no substance. Feel free to provide some substance next time, I'll need citations for anything you post

John Lott wrote an entire book on the subject called "More Guns, Less Crime" which has been updated and revised several times to reflect new data as it becomes available.

Information in the book is what has caused concealed carry rights to skyrocket over the past two decades, even before the recent Supreme Court rulings. Its about 500 pages of well said arguments that point out that letting people defend themselves is a good thing.

I got it for like $6 on Amazon, you should read it.

 

[micrometers]

John Lott wrote an entire book on the subject called "More Guns, Less Crime" which has been updated and revised several times to reflect new data as it becomes available.

Information in the book is what has caused concealed carry rights to skyrocket over the past two decades, even before the recent Supreme Court rulings. Its about 500 pages of well said arguments that point out that letting people defend themselves is a good thing.

I got it for like $6 on Amazon, you should read it.

You could probably do a decent job at deterring crime with a six-shooter. No need for guns like the 5-7.

 

[TallBill]

You could probably do a decent job at deterring crime with a six-shooter. No need for guns like the 5-7.

He explains this in the book. Both parts. How people need more rounds and how bans don't stop criminals from carrying more.

In new York, they had to amend their piece of shit law to allow police to carry more than 7 rounds so that criminals don't outgun them. I guess regular citizens are just supposed to be outgunned.

 

[boomerang]

I get karmys point.

Well of course you do...

 

[irishScott]

Alright, just to chime back in, I think the whole "the left is not going to take your guns" thing was recently laid to rest by New York. Given the opportunity, the left will take our guns. Maybe not all lefties, but there's a substantial collection of left-wing elected officials that have that very goal in mind.

 

[boomerang]

Alright, just to chime back in, I think the whole "the left is not going to take your guns" thing was recently laid to rest by New York. Given the opportunity, the left will take our guns. Maybe not all lefties, but there's a substantial collection of left-wing elected officials that have that very goal in mind.

They'll strip away that right and every one they can for the good of the collective. Let them lambaste, belittle and berate us all they wish. Lefties think that the .gov backed down out of the kindness of their hearts. The rest of us know it was because we flexed a little muscle.