I'm sure that thought will help the parents of 20 dead kids sleep better.
CT: 27 dead including 18 kids in CT school shooting. There are no words - WTF?!
- Thread starter stoney
- Start date
When Rupert Murdoch calls you crazy, you had better get measured for a straitjacket...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/new-york-post-_n_2352203.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/new-york-post-_n_2352203.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
Is that the point I'm trying to make? That it will make the parents feel better? Don't even talk
I don't actually know, you don't make a lot of sense.
What point do you think I'm trying to make? Is that to hard?
Amazon - let's summarize what everyone is saying.
1. The second amendment is correct in its place and need not be changed.
2. The expansion of the use and ownership of assault weapons has become prolific
3. The only purpose of an assault weapon is the shooting of another human being
4. The need for armor piercing rounds and high capacity clips is unnecessary outside of a war zone.
5. Hunting is fun and has a purpose, but you don't need an assault rifle for that
6. Most NRA funding comes from gun manufacturers
7. Restrictions about who can own weapons is not in place well enough to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.
7b. If a household has an individual with known mental illness, then guns should not be allowed in those households.
8. The US has more gun related deaths by percentage of population and number of guns than the rest of the Western world combined.
8b. After Australia outlawed assault weapons, their shooting accident and murder rates dropped drastically. *note - hunting rifles are still legal*
Let me know if I missed anything here. The only reason to have an assault weapon is to shoot other human beings. There is no reason those need to be in inividual hands. Unless you think the US government is going to try and make US prisoners within our own homes.
You let us know which part about this that you are arguing against, because it sure sounds like you are just raving about 'taking my rights' without actually looking at the context in which those rights were given.
Last edited:
^^^^^^
Commie.
Commie.
I am willing to bet also that amazon has never spent a day in unifom or in service to anyone but himself, yet his rights are sacred. Because he shed so much sweat and blood for them...
Well said. I think it should be added assault rifles have been designed and optimized as offensive weapons with rounds designed specifically for the efficient killing of people. They are not good or even legal hunting rifles in most places and they are not good for home defense unless you like to have bullets over-penetrate and shoot your neighbors.
Handguns also pose a serious problem but they do at least have a valid use in self defense. Some states do a pretty good job of regulating handguns, it makes perfect sense to simply apply "best practices" nationwide and apply these regulations to rifles with high capacity potential.
Worth watching rights vs privileges with George Carlin
Pick a state and copy/paste the regulations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_York
Basing most of what I know from when I lived in New York. It does seem however that even in NY application of the law varies by region. From what I remember where I grew up it was rather difficult to get a permit. It would make sense to universally apply some of the more sensible restrictions.
Your right JohnE I haven't. I am in school. Just because I have not means I shouldn't be allowed to have rights?. Dumb bit.ch
I am seeing things where only pistols were used in the shooting.
I am seeing things where only pistols were used in the shooting.
Last edited:
5th, 6th grade? Were I too hazard a guess, I'd peg your reading, writing, and comprehension skills at about that level, along with the maturity you display.
Makin friends!
As somebody who has a mentally ill brother (schizophrenic) I've got issues with blanket statements like this.
The NRA's calling for a National Registry of the Mentally Ill, like that which exists for sex offenders, makes my blood boil. Being mentally ill is not a crime and should not be viewed as such. Ever.
Should there be restrictions on gun ownership in relation to mental illness? Absolutely.
Should households with mentally ill family members be categorically prevented from owning guns? Absolutely not.
All the weapons in my mom's house, mostly bird guns and a few deer rifles, are secured in a gun safe within a locked room. That's more for peace of mind with my sons and niece than my brother, however. I can't recall in time in the 20yrs since he was diagnosed nor the 19 years before that, where he acted out violently in any way. It simply isn't in his character.
I dont think its about individual cases... That would be impossible to monitor.
In cases like this you have to draw a line.
Just like there is no such thing as allowing guns only for "responsible gunowners".
The real world simply doesnt work like that.
Last edited:
had a friend who was schizophrenic in high school.
he wasn't a fan of whatever meds he was on.
preferred mushrooms/acid instead.
interesting to deal with at times.
good lord this thread is still going?
why hasn't he been banned yet? He's violated all kinds of terms and conditions....
Entertainment value?
I doubt it will have the long term staying power of "the bird is the word" thread.
Same here. I wouldn't want a gun anywhere near that guy.
More than one tragedy in this thread
