Shooting in Conn. School
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
I'm pretty sure my roommate is the only person in the world who bought that game.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Rumor has it Wayne LaPierre wants to have Judas Priest and Dee Smider testify about their music to congress.
Admiral Ackbar
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 25 (100%)
I'm sorry, the idea of having every school have an armed officer is crazy. SHould we also arm shopping malls and churches? What about all playgrounds? Where does it end. It's insane and impractical.
There's this wierd idea that, well, if someone else was there with a gun everything would be okay. It's not as if there has never been a shooter that hasn't been put down by a bystander or off duty cop during an attack. But there are also tons of cases where some bystander was there with a gun and made things worse. For example, in the Gabby Gioffards attack there was someone there with a gun, and he almost killed the wrong person.
The issue is not about guns or violence. The killer in this case and some of the previous cases were nutters. He was crazy! Mentally disturbed. There will always be mentally distrubed people. I watched The Raid the night before thse shooting. One of the bloodiest movies I've seen all year. That did not give me the urge to go out and shoot up a school!
One thing I think we do have an issue is the idea of force. Most americans have little idea of the lethality of guns nor the use of force. And I'm including gun owners.
For those of you who don't know, I'm a Republican and some of my friends are gun owners and hunters. Now, I'm not a gun owner and I have no interest being anywhere near guns, but I believe in the right to own guns. But I was having a discussion with one of my Republican friends over the summer who's a gun and bow hunter. And he told me, flat out, that most people who own guns don't know what the hell they're doing.
I remember his exact quote. He said, "I have knives that are more dangerous than a gun. If you treat a gun the right way it will never hurt you. But if I make one slip while deboning a fish in the kitchen, I could seriously hurt myself. But I know a lot of peole with guns and most of them are stupid. They have no idea of the power of their guns nor what it means when you pull the trigger."
I will say this though, I don't believe video games or movies are corrupting society. Just as rock and roll and comics weren't corrupting our youth in the 50's. But I do believe, we have lost a concept of the use of force. And I think it began after the beginning of the vietnam war. I'm not going to take the time to go into my thinking. But Let me give one example from history.
All of you should have heard of the shootout of the OK Corral. Its one of American history's most famous shootouts. Now we all know there was bad bood between the Earps and the Clantons/McLaury's. But the legal justification that Earp had to confront the Clantons was they they were carrying unauthorized firearms. It was illegal in town to carry firearms. They had to be locked at a hotel or turned into the sherrif after a reasonable period of entering town, at the discretion of the sherrif. Here's a major event, in all the papers, and the basic legal issue was that the criminals were carrying fireams.
Now, was there a major uproar about the second amendment? Is that ever taught in the history books? No. But imagine if a town or city tried to do that today. Passes a statute saying it was illegal, punishable by fine or imprisonment, for carrying a firearm? What do you think the media response would be?
Our entire concept of guns, their capacity for violence, their place in society, has changed.
Edit: And one more thing I just read. "...in the aftermath of the massacre at Columbine High School. That school was guarded by armed sheriff’s deputies, who were unable to stop the massacre."
There's this wierd idea that, well, if someone else was there with a gun everything would be okay. It's not as if there has never been a shooter that hasn't been put down by a bystander or off duty cop during an attack. But there are also tons of cases where some bystander was there with a gun and made things worse. For example, in the Gabby Gioffards attack there was someone there with a gun, and he almost killed the wrong person.
The issue is not about guns or violence. The killer in this case and some of the previous cases were nutters. He was crazy! Mentally disturbed. There will always be mentally distrubed people. I watched The Raid the night before thse shooting. One of the bloodiest movies I've seen all year. That did not give me the urge to go out and shoot up a school!
One thing I think we do have an issue is the idea of force. Most americans have little idea of the lethality of guns nor the use of force. And I'm including gun owners.
For those of you who don't know, I'm a Republican and some of my friends are gun owners and hunters. Now, I'm not a gun owner and I have no interest being anywhere near guns, but I believe in the right to own guns. But I was having a discussion with one of my Republican friends over the summer who's a gun and bow hunter. And he told me, flat out, that most people who own guns don't know what the hell they're doing.
I remember his exact quote. He said, "I have knives that are more dangerous than a gun. If you treat a gun the right way it will never hurt you. But if I make one slip while deboning a fish in the kitchen, I could seriously hurt myself. But I know a lot of peole with guns and most of them are stupid. They have no idea of the power of their guns nor what it means when you pull the trigger."
I will say this though, I don't believe video games or movies are corrupting society. Just as rock and roll and comics weren't corrupting our youth in the 50's. But I do believe, we have lost a concept of the use of force. And I think it began after the beginning of the vietnam war. I'm not going to take the time to go into my thinking. But Let me give one example from history.
All of you should have heard of the shootout of the OK Corral. Its one of American history's most famous shootouts. Now we all know there was bad bood between the Earps and the Clantons/McLaury's. But the legal justification that Earp had to confront the Clantons was they they were carrying unauthorized firearms. It was illegal in town to carry firearms. They had to be locked at a hotel or turned into the sherrif after a reasonable period of entering town, at the discretion of the sherrif. Here's a major event, in all the papers, and the basic legal issue was that the criminals were carrying fireams.
Now, was there a major uproar about the second amendment? Is that ever taught in the history books? No. But imagine if a town or city tried to do that today. Passes a statute saying it was illegal, punishable by fine or imprisonment, for carrying a firearm? What do you think the media response would be?
Our entire concept of guns, their capacity for violence, their place in society, has changed.
Edit: And one more thing I just read. "...in the aftermath of the massacre at Columbine High School. That school was guarded by armed sheriff’s deputies, who were unable to stop the massacre."
[quote name='usickenme']You're right, the FF hatch a brilliant plan
"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"[/QUOTE]
The Federalist papers are far from obscure. People don't know about them?? They cover this stuff in American History greatly in High school, and in even more detail in college and some in American Gov 101. All required classes for any student..
But I suppose people that find history irreverent don't care about them
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October of 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1] The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution.
"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"[/QUOTE]
The Federalist papers are far from obscure. People don't know about them?? They cover this stuff in American History greatly in High school, and in even more detail in college and some in American Gov 101. All required classes for any student..
But I suppose people that find history irreverent don't care about them
The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 articles or essays promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Seventy-seven of the essays were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October of 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.[1] The series' correct title is The Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not emerge until the twentieth century.
The authors of The Federalist Papers wanted to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
spare me the wikipedia...while the Federalist papers have their place, they aren't or were ever intended to take the place of the constitution. Nor do they govern us.
the point is about five miles away from where you're sitting.
p.s. yeah they cover a lot of shit in hs/college. Doesn't mean most people even know about it.
the point is about five miles away from where you're sitting.
p.s. yeah they cover a lot of shit in hs/college. Doesn't mean most people even know about it.
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Admiral Ackbar']
For those of you who don't know, I'm a Republican and some of my friends are gun owners and hunters. Now, I'm not a gun owner and I have no interest being anywhere near guns, but I believe in the right to own guns. But I was having a discussion with one of my Republican friends over the summer who's a gun and bow hunter. And he told me, flat out, that most people who own guns don't know what the hell they're doing.
I remember his exact quote. He said, "I have knives that are more dangerous than a gun. If you treat a gun the right way it will never hurt you. But if I make one slip while deboning a fish in the kitchen, I could seriously hurt myself. But I know a lot of peole with guns and most of them are stupid. They have no idea of the power of their guns nor what it means when you pull the trigger."
[/QUOTE]
no offense to your friend but the knife thing doesn't make sense. If you make one slip with a gun, you could kill or be killed. In both cases, you have to know what your doing and handle them
"the right way".
I have a good friend, a republican, ex-military, who ONLY hunts with a bow. Thinks it's unfair otherwise (although he does bring a gun with him to put an animal out of misery if needed)
For those of you who don't know, I'm a Republican and some of my friends are gun owners and hunters. Now, I'm not a gun owner and I have no interest being anywhere near guns, but I believe in the right to own guns. But I was having a discussion with one of my Republican friends over the summer who's a gun and bow hunter. And he told me, flat out, that most people who own guns don't know what the hell they're doing.
I remember his exact quote. He said, "I have knives that are more dangerous than a gun. If you treat a gun the right way it will never hurt you. But if I make one slip while deboning a fish in the kitchen, I could seriously hurt myself. But I know a lot of peole with guns and most of them are stupid. They have no idea of the power of their guns nor what it means when you pull the trigger."
[/QUOTE]
no offense to your friend but the knife thing doesn't make sense. If you make one slip with a gun, you could kill or be killed. In both cases, you have to know what your doing and handle them
"the right way".
I have a good friend, a republican, ex-military, who ONLY hunts with a bow. Thinks it's unfair otherwise (although he does bring a gun with him to put an animal out of misery if needed)
[quote name='usickenme']spare me the wikipedia...while the Federalist papers have their place, they aren't or were ever intended to take the place of the constitution. Nor do they govern us.
the point is about five miles away from where you're sitting.
p.s. yeah they cover a lot of shit in hs/college. Doesn't mean most people even know about it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry most Americans are stupid and don't care about history.
Spare you the wikipeida.. I figure you didn't want to read a boring longer sources of material that would be acceptable to use as a source.
the point is about five miles away from where you're sitting.
p.s. yeah they cover a lot of shit in hs/college. Doesn't mean most people even know about it.[/QUOTE]
Sorry most Americans are stupid and don't care about history.
Spare you the wikipeida.. I figure you didn't want to read a boring longer sources of material that would be acceptable to use as a source.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
Yeah lets be honest. If most of us remembered everything taught in high school and college we would be geniuses. MOST people forget far more than we retain over our lifetime. Also, just because something is taught in school does not mean that it was a legally binding document. Either the Constitution is the framework and the Supreme Court the gatekeeper or else our system is built on shaky ground. Any "documents" outside of the law are only opinions.
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yeah lets be honest. If most of us remembered everything taught in high school and college we would be geniuses. MOST people forget far more than we retain over our lifetime. Also, just because something is taught in school does not mean that it was a legally binding document. Either the Constitution is the framework and the Supreme Court the gatekeeper or else our system is built on shaky ground. Any "documents" outside of the law are only opinions.[/QUOTE]
"Judicial use
Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]"
"Judicial use
Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]"
h3llbring3r
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 58 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']Rumor has it Wayne LaPierre wants to have Judas Priest and Dee Snider testify about their music to congress.
[/QUOTE]
I smell an Al and Tipper, PMRC reunion tour.
An Inconvenient ERSB, or Love Story 2
[/QUOTE]I smell an Al and Tipper, PMRC reunion tour.
An Inconvenient ERSB, or Love Story 2
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Bioshock Infinite's alternate cover art: Giger's "Penis Landscape".
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Tiako']"Judicial use
Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]"[/QUOTE]
The second part of the section.
"The amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."[30] Madison believed The Federalist Papers were the ideas of the Founders and not just mere expressions. In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, he stated that "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses." [31][32]
So again their use is up for debate. The fact they have been used does not change the opinion IF they should be used.
Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently use the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the framers and ratifiers.[27] They have been applied on issues ranging from the power of the federal government in foreign affairs (in Hines v. Davidowitz) to the validity of ex post facto laws (in the 1798 decision Calder v. Bull, apparently the first decision to mention The Federalist).[28] By 2000, The Federalist had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.[29]"[/QUOTE]
The second part of the section.
"The amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."[30] Madison believed The Federalist Papers were the ideas of the Founders and not just mere expressions. In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, he stated that "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the authority which it possesses." [31][32]
So again their use is up for debate. The fact they have been used does not change the opinion IF they should be used.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']No I simply believe that arming the populace was tied to a specific purpose (by a comma ). Clearly it was a different time. So reading all of Jefferson's gun quotes might give one a warm fuzzy for their weapon, it's barely relevant. I mean no one his holding out Jefferson's thoughts on women to how we should treat them today.[/QUOTE]
Were we not debating the meaning of the second amendment? You can claim all day long that our constitution isn't relevant in today's age all you want, but that's not the discussion we were having. We were talking about their intent when writing it and I'm pointing to supporting evidence that shows their expectations for the second amendment.
[quote name='usickenme']
And quite frankly, I am baffled you brought up the old "disarming the public" red herring. Look, I'm not some pie-in-the-sky hippie. I recognize the value and necessity of (some) guns in the hands of (some) people. My dad is a former cop, he taught me to respect and fear guns.[/QUOTE]
What red herring? We aren't talking in absolutes. I held no belief that you wanted to ban all guns, but look all throughout history and you'll send plenty of examples of slow erosion of people's rights. Just look at NY. We're stuck with 10 round magazines and have been ever since the AWB. Now they're talking about kicking us down to 7 rounds. In a couple years it will be 5 and then no magazines, etc, etc. It's the same thing that happened in the UK and Australia.
[quote name='mykevermin']Spend a few minutes reading back through this thread and you'll see a history of not engaging in arguments, but moving goalposts (eg, turning a discussion on fun control into your aforementioned red herring).[/QUOTE]
:lol: Ah, I must have struck a nerve. Now you've devolved into making shit up. What goalposts were moved exactly?
[quote name='mykevermin']
Don't be shocked. I cite us v miller, where the Supreme Court agreed to reverse a decision about individual rights to gun ownership (since he asked to find one case, I did). He pithily dismisses it and goes about crying.[/QUOTE]
It was a shit example and you know it, that's why you haven't addressed my reply to it. There was no reversal. You can still get those items, they simply changed to a different classification. There were no mentions of militias and there are no requirements beyond a $200 tax stamp. I ask you for an example, from between 1776 and 1970ish (you said 40 years, right? Whatever) where somebody was denied a certain type of weapon because they weren't part of a militia. YOUR CLAIM was that during that time period, the second wasn't considered an individual right like it is today, and instead, was treated as the militia clause. So, in alllllll that time, there must have been one, at least ONE case, where somebody had a weapon that they couldn't legally own because they weren't part of a militia.
Then, you site a case that had nothing to do with militias, but simply set up a classification system that requires an extra step towards ownership.
SHIT EXAMPLE!
[quote name='mykevermin']
Look at it this way: he's arguing about unbridled, indisputable certainty of the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I've presented you with how I see it and I've included the evidence that supports it. What have you done besides site one shitty example of an unrelated case?
[quote name='mykevermin']
And he's arguing that there is no room for interpreting it any way but the way he has...by fighting over the meaning of words, the order of clauses and placement of clauses.[/QUOTE]
You can interpret it any way you'd like, but unless you provide some sort of solid evidence that supports your interpretation, I'm going to call bullshit. Who the
said anything about order and placement of clauses?
[quote name='mykevermin']
Oh, while LaPierre was arguing that we should spend billions of dollars to militarize our schools, this happened: http://m.gawker.com/5970497/while-t...d-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people
[/QUOTE]
Oh my god, somebody committed a crime? And they used a gun? Oh I can't believe it. If only we had a law against committing crimes, nobody would commit them!
[quote name='mykevermin']
Or, perhaps to satisfy temp, well put these soldiers a few hundred yards away from the roads. You know, in outposts. Because the difference between a police state and a free society is only a few hundred yards.
[/QUOTE]
Hyperbole at its finest. Police have substations all over the place. To have a substation built near a school with one officer staffing it during school hours hardly equates to a police state.
Outposts on roads? Nah. How about we just let people defend themselves? If we can't defend ourselves against those who will get guns no matter what the law says, who else will?
). Clearly it was a different time. So reading all of Jefferson's gun quotes might give one a warm fuzzy for their weapon, it's barely relevant. I mean no one his holding out Jefferson's thoughts on women to how we should treat them today.[/QUOTE]Were we not debating the meaning of the second amendment? You can claim all day long that our constitution isn't relevant in today's age all you want, but that's not the discussion we were having. We were talking about their intent when writing it and I'm pointing to supporting evidence that shows their expectations for the second amendment.
[quote name='usickenme']
And quite frankly, I am baffled you brought up the old "disarming the public" red herring. Look, I'm not some pie-in-the-sky hippie. I recognize the value and necessity of (some) guns in the hands of (some) people. My dad is a former cop, he taught me to respect and fear guns.[/QUOTE]
What red herring? We aren't talking in absolutes. I held no belief that you wanted to ban all guns, but look all throughout history and you'll send plenty of examples of slow erosion of people's rights. Just look at NY. We're stuck with 10 round magazines and have been ever since the AWB. Now they're talking about kicking us down to 7 rounds. In a couple years it will be 5 and then no magazines, etc, etc. It's the same thing that happened in the UK and Australia.
[quote name='mykevermin']Spend a few minutes reading back through this thread and you'll see a history of not engaging in arguments, but moving goalposts (eg, turning a discussion on fun control into your aforementioned red herring).[/QUOTE]
:lol: Ah, I must have struck a nerve. Now you've devolved into making shit up. What goalposts were moved exactly?
[quote name='mykevermin']
Don't be shocked. I cite us v miller, where the Supreme Court agreed to reverse a decision about individual rights to gun ownership (since he asked to find one case, I did). He pithily dismisses it and goes about crying.[/QUOTE]
It was a shit example and you know it, that's why you haven't addressed my reply to it. There was no reversal. You can still get those items, they simply changed to a different classification. There were no mentions of militias and there are no requirements beyond a $200 tax stamp. I ask you for an example, from between 1776 and 1970ish (you said 40 years, right? Whatever) where somebody was denied a certain type of weapon because they weren't part of a militia. YOUR CLAIM was that during that time period, the second wasn't considered an individual right like it is today, and instead, was treated as the militia clause. So, in alllllll that time, there must have been one, at least ONE case, where somebody had a weapon that they couldn't legally own because they weren't part of a militia.
Then, you site a case that had nothing to do with militias, but simply set up a classification system that requires an extra step towards ownership.
SHIT EXAMPLE!
[quote name='mykevermin']
Look at it this way: he's arguing about unbridled, indisputable certainty of the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I've presented you with how I see it and I've included the evidence that supports it. What have you done besides site one shitty example of an unrelated case?
[quote name='mykevermin']
And he's arguing that there is no room for interpreting it any way but the way he has...by fighting over the meaning of words, the order of clauses and placement of clauses.[/QUOTE]
You can interpret it any way you'd like, but unless you provide some sort of solid evidence that supports your interpretation, I'm going to call bullshit. Who the
said anything about order and placement of clauses?[quote name='mykevermin']
Oh, while LaPierre was arguing that we should spend billions of dollars to militarize our schools, this happened: http://m.gawker.com/5970497/while-t...d-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people
[/QUOTE]
Oh my god, somebody committed a crime? And they used a gun? Oh I can't believe it. If only we had a law against committing crimes, nobody would commit them!
[quote name='mykevermin']
Or, perhaps to satisfy temp, well put these soldiers a few hundred yards away from the roads. You know, in outposts. Because the difference between a police state and a free society is only a few hundred yards.
[/QUOTE]Hyperbole at its finest. Police have substations all over the place. To have a substation built near a school with one officer staffing it during school hours hardly equates to a police state.
Outposts on roads? Nah. How about we just let people defend themselves? If we can't defend ourselves against those who will get guns no matter what the law says, who else will?
[quote name='usickenme']You're right, the FF hatch a brilliant plan
"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"[/QUOTE]
The founders couldn't agree on anything except Madeira is an excellent drink. There is also for example, the anti-federalist papers. Also it has been like over a hundred years...
"Hey everyone lets put the REAL meaning of what we intend, not in the document we are crafting, deliberating, and signing but some obscure, non-binding side documents, that most people won't even know about"[/QUOTE]
The founders couldn't agree on anything except Madeira is an excellent drink. There is also for example, the anti-federalist papers. Also it has been like over a hundred years...
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='usickenme']forget it,
If you are to continuously attribute things to me that I never said there is no point.[/QUOTE]
I apologize if I did that, but can you give me an example so I can make sure not to do it in the future?
Shoot rounds in the air? I don't treat my guns like toys, nor do I waste ammo. At least, I try not to waste it.
If you are to continuously attribute things to me that I never said there is no point.[/QUOTE]
I apologize if I did that, but can you give me an example so I can make sure not to do it in the future?
Shoot rounds in the air? I don't treat my guns like toys, nor do I waste ammo. At least, I try not to waste it.
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
I'm sure it's been posted here, NRA calls for armed school guards? Are you ing kidding? Do we really want the entire country to become a prison? Not to mention, there are so many schools out there, who's going to pay for all these new employees?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221
What's next, armed guards at libraries? What about armed guards on every sidewalk in America? I mean shit, more shooting happen out there than in schools.
ing kidding? Do we really want the entire country to become a prison? Not to mention, there are so many schools out there, who's going to pay for all these new employees?http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221
What's next, armed guards at libraries? What about armed guards on every sidewalk in America? I mean shit, more shooting happen out there than in schools.
The NRA's position is unworkable and cost prohibitive, and blaming media violence makes no sense, but I do admire that they did not budge an inch on gun control. The NRA is quite an impressive organization and I don't think they do anything illegal or immoral. As long as they hinder reactionaries from strengthening gun control they are alright in my book.
Like most organizations, they remain politically correct, but to do anything else would erode their power I suppose.
Like most organizations, they remain politically correct, but to do anything else would erode their power I suppose.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Blaster man']I'm sure it's been posted here, NRA calls for armed school guards? Are you ing kidding? Do we really want the entire country to become a prison? Not to mention, there are so many schools out there, who's going to pay for all these new employees?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221
What's next, armed guards at libraries? What about armed guards on every sidewalk in America? I mean shit, more shooting happen out there than in schools.[/QUOTE]
Chapter 172521652879346523647 in Conservatives Propose Statist Solutions, Volume 476327956237
ing kidding? Do we really want the entire country to become a prison? Not to mention, there are so many schools out there, who's going to pay for all these new employees?http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-connecticut-idUSBRE8BI1BV20121221
What's next, armed guards at libraries? What about armed guards on every sidewalk in America? I mean shit, more shooting happen out there than in schools.[/QUOTE]
Chapter 172521652879346523647 in Conservatives Propose Statist Solutions, Volume 476327956237
ElwoodCuse
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Spokker']As long as they hinder reactionaries from strengthening gun control they are alright in my book.
[/QUOTE]
OK, let them keep scaring people in order to make money for gun manufacturers
[/QUOTE]
OK, let them keep scaring people in order to make money for gun manufacturers
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
Here's a legitimate question: Which states/school systems in the US don't have cops on school grounds during the regular school day?
When I went through public school around Charlotte, it's always been there, even before Columbine. So maybe it's not as common as I think it is.
When I went through public school around Charlotte, it's always been there, even before Columbine. So maybe it's not as common as I think it is.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
I found this to be amusing...and telling.
Neil deGrasse Tyson @neiltyson
Apparently, in Walmart the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is stronger than the right to freedom of speech (1st Amendment)
Neil deGrasse Tyson @neiltyson
In Walmart, America's largest gun seller, you can buy an assault rifle. But company policy bans pop music with curse words.
Neil deGrasse Tyson @neiltyson
Apparently, in Walmart the right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is stronger than the right to freedom of speech (1st Amendment)
Neil deGrasse Tyson @neiltyson
In Walmart, America's largest gun seller, you can buy an assault rifle. But company policy bans pop music with curse words.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
I'm just surprised that Walmart is the largest gun seller. The three Walmarts in my area don't even sell guns.
eldergamer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']I have to say, walmart policy seems to reflect the way a good number of people think in this country. That nudity and swearing is horrible and should be censored, but Damn if guns aren't a-ok.[/QUOTE]
And that's wrong? Just because they may not have the same interests as you doesn't make their likes any less valid.
I like nudity and swearing. Could really care less about guns. But if people who shop at Wal-Mart perfer the opposite, that's fine. I'm not going to limit their chocies or look down my nose at them.
And that's wrong? Just because they may not have the same interests as you doesn't make their likes any less valid.
I like nudity and swearing. Could really care less about guns. But if people who shop at Wal-Mart perfer the opposite, that's fine. I'm not going to limit their chocies or look down my nose at them.
[quote name='eldergamer']And that's wrong? Just because they may not have the same interests as you doesn't make their likes any less valid.
I like nudity and swearing. Could really care less about guns. But if people who shop at Wal-Mart perfer the opposite, that's fine. I'm not going to limit their chocies or look down my nose at them.[/QUOTE]
Yeaaahhhh, think you missed my point. Then again, maybe you didn't. Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in censoring music for example, sold at walmart, yet they're selling objects whose sole purpose is to kill. Hell, walmart is one of the few places where you can buy alcohol to get drunk off your ass, and guns and ammo all in the same store. But again, they won't sell music with certain language.
Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you think it makes perfect sense, it obviously does to some people. I'm sorry if you can't see the hypocrisy.
I like nudity and swearing. Could really care less about guns. But if people who shop at Wal-Mart perfer the opposite, that's fine. I'm not going to limit their chocies or look down my nose at them.[/QUOTE]
Yeaaahhhh, think you missed my point. Then again, maybe you didn't. Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in censoring music for example, sold at walmart, yet they're selling objects whose sole purpose is to kill. Hell, walmart is one of the few places where you can buy alcohol to get drunk off your ass, and guns and ammo all in the same store. But again, they won't sell music with certain language.
Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you think it makes perfect sense, it obviously does to some people. I'm sorry if you can't see the hypocrisy.
Was also thinking about what schools will be like for future children. Really giving thought to either private schooling or home schooling for any kids my fiance and I may have in the future. Between a law passed here recently which moves another step closer to teaching creationism in schools, and security issues (stemming from outsiders and also whatever the this state may do itself) it makes me not want to put a kid in that environment.
this state may do itself) it makes me not want to put a kid in that environment.
eldergamer
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']Yeaaahhhh, think you missed my point. Then again, maybe you didn't. Maybe you don't see the ridiculousness in censoring music for example, sold at walmart, yet they're selling objects whose sole purpose is to kill. Hell, walmart is one of the few places where you can buy alcohol to get drunk off your ass, and guns and ammo all in the same store. But again, they won't sell music with certain language.
Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you think it makes perfect sense, it obviously does to some people. I'm sorry if you can't see the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
It's a bit of a stretch to link selling "censored" music and selling guns. One doesn't have shit to do with the other. Howbout the hypocritical nature in selling things "whose sole purpose is to kill" and having a health care section?
Wal-Mart how dare you sell TheraFlu and Tylenol and guns! You murdering hypocrites! (That at least fits slightly better than guns and music)
OT: Wal-Mart isn't censoring the music. They artists and the labels are. The music is still avalialbe in a non-censored form at a myriad of other places. People are choosing to buy the censored or edited version.
Maybe you're fine with that, maybe you think it makes perfect sense, it obviously does to some people. I'm sorry if you can't see the hypocrisy.[/QUOTE]
It's a bit of a stretch to link selling "censored" music and selling guns. One doesn't have shit to do with the other. Howbout the hypocritical nature in selling things "whose sole purpose is to kill" and having a health care section?
Wal-Mart how dare you sell TheraFlu and Tylenol and guns! You murdering hypocrites! (That at least fits slightly better than guns and music)
OT: Wal-Mart isn't censoring the music. They artists and the labels are. The music is still avalialbe in a non-censored form at a myriad of other places. People are choosing to buy the censored or edited version.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='eldergamer']OT: Wal-Mart isn't censoring the music.[/QUOTE]
Monopsony.
Monopsony.
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I'm just surprised that Walmart is the largest gun seller. The three Walmarts in my area don't even sell guns.[/QUOTE]
Depends on your state. Those who live in California wonder about the Wal-Mart/gun connection. I've never seen a Walmart that sells guns.
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']OK, let them keep scaring people in order to make money for gun manufacturers[/QUOTE]
Fear is a sales tactic used by many seemingly innocuous industries.
Depends on your state. Those who live in California wonder about the Wal-Mart/gun connection. I've never seen a Walmart that sells guns.
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']OK, let them keep scaring people in order to make money for gun manufacturers[/QUOTE]
Fear is a sales tactic used by many seemingly innocuous industries.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
So if some kind of ban were to go into effect, what would the government likely do about the stuff that's already out there and legally owned at this point in time?
Do they just put in a grandfather clause? Or are there some other feasible methods for handling that without hurting people who hadn't done anything wrong?
Do they just put in a grandfather clause? Or are there some other feasible methods for handling that without hurting people who hadn't done anything wrong?
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 197 (100%)
[quote name='ID2006']So if some kind of ban were to go into effect, what would the government likely do about the stuff that's already out there and legally owned at this point in time?
Do they just put in a grandfather clause? Or are there some other feasible methods for handling that without hurting people who hadn't done anything wrong?[/QUOTE]
Not that it would happen, but they've had events where you "turn in guns with no questions asked" before.
Do they just put in a grandfather clause? Or are there some other feasible methods for handling that without hurting people who hadn't done anything wrong?[/QUOTE]
Not that it would happen, but they've had events where you "turn in guns with no questions asked" before.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
voluntary buybacks. You can do one of these on very short notice and people come out of the woodwork like crazy to turn in their guns.
OregonFirefighter
Banned
If they try to deny us our 2nd amendment, I hope more of this happens to teach people a lesson that gun control isn't the problem.
elessar123
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 197 (100%)
[quote name='OregonFirefighter']If they try to deny us our 2nd amendment, I hope more of this happens to teach people a lesson that gun control isn't the problem.[/QUOTE]
Jackass.
Jackass.
OregonFirefighter
Banned
Banned for what? This is a political thread. You all think that those shootings affect your life when in 30 days you will forget about it. Just like the batman one.
Im stating my opinion and expressing my right to free speech. Without making a change to the constitution, they cannot take our guns away.
Just give it a few weeks for the knee jerk reactions to die down.
Im stating my opinion and expressing my right to free speech. Without making a change to the constitution, they cannot take our guns away.
Just give it a few weeks for the knee jerk reactions to die down.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='OregonFirefighter']Banned for what? This is a political thread. You all think that those shootings affect your life when in 30 days you will forget about it. Just like the batman one.
Im stating my opinion and expressing my right to free speech. Without making a change to the constitution, they cannot take our guns away.
Just give it a few weeks for the knee jerk reactions to die down.[/QUOTE]
Show me where they are saying "taking the guns away". How is regulation the same as "taking them away"?
Im stating my opinion and expressing my right to free speech. Without making a change to the constitution, they cannot take our guns away.
Just give it a few weeks for the knee jerk reactions to die down.[/QUOTE]
Show me where they are saying "taking the guns away". How is regulation the same as "taking them away"?
OregonFirefighter
Banned
[quote name='cancerman1120']Show me where they are saying "taking the guns away". How is regulation the same as "taking them away"?[/QUOTE]
Okay, I wouldn't exactly say take them away. But even to regulate them. This kid didn't even purchase them. It was his mother's. Could regulation have stopped him? No.
For the NRA to blame movies, and video games now is completely absurd as well.
Okay, I wouldn't exactly say take them away. But even to regulate them. This kid didn't even purchase them. It was his mother's. Could regulation have stopped him? No.
For the NRA to blame movies, and video games now is completely absurd as well.
OregonFirefighter
Banned
I know I may have sounded like an asshole, and I am sorry. But it just bugs me when people have these knee jerk reactions to such events. Editing movies because they have a violent scene, or blaming video games and the violence. It just gets annoying. We dont need armed guards either.
Virginia Tech has their own police personnel and that didn't stop him.
Fort Worth is a military base and that didn't stop him.
Columbine had guards as well.
To be honest, I have no clue what is going to help us.
Virginia Tech has their own police personnel and that didn't stop him.
Fort Worth is a military base and that didn't stop him.
Columbine had guards as well.
To be honest, I have no clue what is going to help us.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='OregonFirefighter']Okay, I wouldn't exactly say take them away. But even to regulate them. This kid didn't even purchase them. It was his mother's. Could regulation have stopped him? No.
For the NRA to blame movies, and video games now is completely absurd as well.[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of that. There needs to be a change in our relationship with guns in this country though.
For the NRA to blame movies, and video games now is completely absurd as well.[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of that. There needs to be a change in our relationship with guns in this country though.
[quote name='Clak']Was also thinking about what schools will be like for future children. Really giving thought to either private schooling or home schooling for any kids my fiance and I may have in the future. Between a law passed here recently which moves another step closer to teaching creationism in schools, and security issues (stemming from outsiders and also whatever the this state may do itself) it makes me not want to put a kid in that environment.[/QUOTE]
Maybe by the time you have kids life will have an "ignore" button
this state may do itself) it makes me not want to put a kid in that environment.[/QUOTE]Maybe by the time you have kids life will have an "ignore" button
bread's done