Political & Elections

Not sure I'm following you, razor.

If you're bringing the Supreme Court and constitutional law in, we can drop the seniors, since they're just a greedy lobby subsisting on voting strength and sympathy.

That the abortion lobby can't make any concessions, being barred by the Supremes, seems an odd way of putting it, since they litigate every single attempt to place any limits on what they consider their constitutional rights - one's that were winkled out as a 'right to privacy', I might add, rather than something a good bit plainer. Right to bear arms, I mean.

The diference between Auto and Semi-auto isn't one that can be legally whiskered away but that "bump firing" thing was something I've never heard of. Other than giving people who like to make YouTube vids something else to cover it seems pretty useless, least the ones I watched. Firing from the hip, just like they do in the movies, and burning up those horrid high-capacity magazines. Other than getting after a troop of Girl Scouts penned up in a closet, they might as well be shooting up at the ceiling -- better yet, aiming up under their own chin -- because after they get through Ramboing, those Girl Scouts are going to strangle them with their merit sashes.

The NRA is not much different.  They are a smaller group of paranoid gun nuts who can't imagine how anyone would want to limit rapid fire weapons or unlimited amo supplies.  Even the most reasonable attempt to regulation gun ownership is major constitutional violation in their minds.

Substitute "abortion" for "gun ownership" and you'll have another, take-no-prisoners, make-no-concessions, group to despise, razor.

I can't wait until Rush becomes a member of the AARP. 

Best meal deal is Denny's AARP 20% discount. Locations and times may vary. 

busdriver11 wrote:

---

Dang, razorsharp, you have some vehement hatred towards members of the NRA. This, " If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit," is pretty vicious.

---

 There are two political groups I truly despise -- the AARP and the NRA.  Even the slighest attempt to limit the amount of income redistributed to seniors is met with absolute outrage and condemnation.  Seniors have it better than any other group and receive far more government benefits than they have paid for during their lives.  They rarely take a reasonable approach to any solving any problem.  Just yesterday the dems would not go along with even the slightest adjustment to social security cost of living increases for fear of the AARP.

The NRA is not much different.  They are a smaller group of paranoid gun nuts who can't imagine how anyone would want to limit rapid fire weapons or unlimited amo supplies.  Even the most reasonable attempt to regulation gun ownership is major constitutional violation in their minds. 

I hope no one's children are ever killed like the children in Newtown or at the movie theater or at Va tech.  But if there are going to be children who die, I hope it is not the children of people who want to impose reasonable gun restriction and it is the children of member of the NRA.  If there are to be consequences of bad government policy let it fall on those who supported the bad government policy, not those who opposed it.  It's pretty simple. 

 

-- Edited by Razorsharp on Monday 31st of December 2012 08:08:04 AM

Back when I first learned to drive, I was taught the etiquette that when you see a driver without their headlights on, to flash your lights at them as a warning to them to help them be safe. Then, the gangs in some parts of town started shooting at the cars that flashed their lights at them. It was an initiation rite into their gang. There are driveway shootings, too. It isn't the NRA members doing this, and my guess is those guns used in these gang crimes aren't registered, or stolen. I live close enough to the site of the LA Riots to know that guns are dangerous. I also know that I feel a lot safer having one in my home if another riot breaks out. I am not an NRA member. I have been to the range once. I don't live guns, not a gun nut. I have a healthy respect for them. If my workplace asked me to go to training to carry on campus, I would in a second. I have had conversations with school staff about "what if" scenarios. Let's just say, in one of those scenarios, I am an easy target for a disgruntled person, and it won't go well for me. Security in most schools is ****ty.

No, the race card in connection to gun control isn't usually pulled out at all, since it's a damned embarrasing one - check out the current murder tallies in Chicago, St. Louis, etc., and it's laughable to think they all occurred in a spree shooting or two. Trading out every semi-auto for a single shot derringer wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference.

If you have ever been to any of the gun shows, what you see is largely male group of paranoid men.  I would not surprise me if most of those men were bullied as children and disdained by girls.  Now that they have their weapons they can envision themselves as "real men" and no longer the weaklings they are.  If you listen to the discussion among them you often hear endless comments about how the government is about to knock their doors down and take their guns and they better buy as many guns and amo as possible to prepare for the government takeover.  Their paranoia is a form of mental illness.

Nah, I've been to one or two, and I've seen a more diverse cross-section than what you've heard about, razor. Can't say I managed to evaluate anybody's mental health, even though I was actually there, but I'd be suprised if more than a few of them were there for anything other than picking up a gun for their wives (single guys, anyway) or beating the investment rush.

Clinton was a pretty good buy opportunity, if you weren't sleeping, just as Obama's turning out to be.

Intrepid1 wrote:

---

I am surprised you didn't toss out the "race card" also.

---

 I don't know your race.  Is "redneck" a race?  If you have ever been to any of the gun shows, what you see is largely male group of paranoid men.  I would not surprise me if most of those men were bullied as children and disdained by girls.  Now that they have their weapons they can envision themselves as "real men" and no longer the weaklings they are.  If you listen to the discussion among them you often hear endless comments about how the government is about to knock their doors down and take their guns and they better buy as many guns and amo as possible to prepare for the government takeover.  Their paranoia is a form of mental illness.  

Nothing in the second amendment prohibits the government from providing reasonable regulation of weapons.  They way gun nuts interpret the second amendment, they should be permitted to own machine guns, Rocket Propelled Grenades and any weapon of their choice regardless of how extreme.

Need is a fundamental consideration for implementing regulation.  People who have access to handguns and rifles for personal security from robbers etc. do not need assault weapons to protect themselves.  People who have access to handguns and rifles for hunting do not need assault weapons for hunting.  The only need for assault weapons is the need of a gunowner to compensate for his small penis, small brain, or some psychological paranoia or inadequacy.  

The need to get rid of assault weapons is overwhelming as demonstrated by a Batman movie premier, an assault at a major univeristy, and now at Newtown.  We cannot stop the mentally ill from getting weapons and shooting people.  What we can do is increase the odds that more of the people who are targets have a chance to runaway and escape.  The way to to do this is to limit weapons that have rapid fire features and large amo clips.  If a shooter has to pull a trigger every time he shoots a bullet and has to reload frequently, people in an audience can run before he kills them.  It's pretty simple.  Unfortunately, the gun nuts are so unreasonable and extreme that these type of murders are likely to continue.  If more children have to die from these assault weapons, I can only hope it is the children of NRA members who are hit.  

"That always lurking threat -That the 47 percent will rise up and set things straight if their guns are cut off.. " Love it.

Thanks Razor. I always appreciate it when someone is so concerned about me that they suggest some cardiovascular exercise to improve my health. Rather than address the information in the article I referred to, you chose a different tact. I am surprised you didn't toss out the "race card" also.

The simple fact is that you nor anyone else seems to have a great definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon". And you along with nobody else in this country gets to determine what I or anyone else "needs". But the political class and a large percentage of the sheeple certainly will and in doing so will play to the uneducated fears of the general populace in an effort to sway them.

How about a 6,000 pound pickup truck? Is that an assault weapon? If driven while under the influence at an uncontrollable speed, it certainly could create plenty of havoc, why even death. But then again, it is just an inanimate object functioning at the whim of an out-of-control individual. But we can't blame the driver now can we, it is the large vehicle that inflicted the damage.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-control-thought-control-and-people.html

"The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli."

You want massive regulation.......it has been done before, bone up on your history.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/assault-weapons-ban/?singlepage=true

"Few laws ever passed have been as idolized — and misunderstood — as Title XI of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Subtitle A (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act).

To listen to the Obama administration, the media, or the nominated head of the ATF spin it, the ban made it illegal to purchase machine guns, and outlawed the ownership or use of high-capacity magazines, saving billions, perhaps trillions, of lives.

That mischaracterization is as wrong as it is laughable. The law had nothing to do with machine guns and real military-issue assault rifles, and did nothing to measurably impact violent crime.

The purpose of the law was to ban the sale and importation of certain semi-automatic (one bullet fired per trigger pull) firearms by name, and a wider group of firearms that had an arbitrarily selected list of largely cosmetic features. These features did not affect the rate of fire, accuracy, or range of the firearms impacted. Firearms were determined to be “assault weapons” – a term that was created by the law itself – if it had two or more of the following features:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine"

The Second Amendment is extremely clear and has been further upheld by the USSC. Again, "need" is not mentioned.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment

Why do people need guns? Maybe this short video will easily demonstrate why:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b8b_1355643365

Had to go to Beach House. Beautiful Sunday, 30 Dec 2012. Clear, windless. Black ice. Got the pellet stove working reliably and installed replacement electric wall heater. Tried out antennas for bedroom TV's. 

Did I miss anything? 

Well, I suppose it would certainly be handy if we could all go **** ourselves. Just sayin, not getting in the middle of anything.

That's the same thing my son said. What is an assault rifle? Define it. Basically it is all political bs to pretend that congress is doing something. Ie, ban things that sound or look scary. Like bayonnets. Hello, how many people can be killed rapidly with bayonnets?

If we just ban assault rifles, everything will be fixed.

oops.

You know, I'm still pissed off at that crazy, McVeigh, for getting things like ammonium nitrate put on the "do-not-sell" list -- googled it, along with "stump removal", today (accelerated decay, not speedy reaction) and figure Homeland Security stored my IP address for a rainy day -- so you won't be surprised I tend to blame the agent in Newtown, rather than what he used.

Exactly how many lawyers do you think are going to be needed to nursemaid whatever the sure to be changing definition of 'assault weapon" is at the political moment, razorsharp?

It's time for massive regulation of assault weapons. No one needs an assault weapon. People who think they do are nuts. Permitting assault weapons means when crazy people enter schools to kill, no one has time to escape. Banning assault weapons would not have prevented deaths at Newtown but if the killer at least had to take time to reload, more kids could have escaped.

The schools here in my district already have sherrifs deputies on campus. Over the years, as they showed up, I had always assumed it was part of a nationwide trend but...

Feinstein's solution seems to include, along with doing away with the types of guns that enable people to commit these types of crimes, registering every gun out there while fingerprinting all their owners.

Nonsensical.

That is the liberal way: seize on a solution and go for it full speed ahead. Whether or not the solution is based in reality.

A healthy dose of delusion is neccessary to even begin to think there's a solution for this.

Fantasies are just that for millions of young males but for the ones bent enough to move to the planning stage and beyond, restricting ammunition sales (probably the best I've heard) isn't going to be much of a bump to get over.

The issue of pro gun is that somewhere and sometimes, someone will get a weapon and klll someother person and thereby abridge that person's rights. In a preverse way, the arguement works for weapon control. 

I wish that my last reason for buying DS's life insurance would not be for some-else's mental stablity.  I know that it is bad luck but I see no alternative, and if the unthinkable would happen, I swear that I will make someone pay in retribution to the fullest. I would not be surprised that one of the 26 families will seek the solution. 

I don't know where you live but in Newtown, CT most people are definitely not progun.

That is the liberal way: seize on a solution and go for it full speed ahead. Whether or not the solution is based in reality.

Nope.  It's personalities vulnerable to our present day culture.  Including the culture of our schools. Which are sick unto themselves.

But that's too complicated for liberals. Go for the guns, and put an armed cop in every school.

Yep, makes sense.

So, at what level will US Citizens tolerate mass killings? 

I would predict that we will see some type of greater control, not necessarily gun control, but increased purchaser control. However, backround checks cost money and the costs will be placed on local law enforcement, who have limited dollars. It is my understanding that this guy tried to purchase a weapon but eventually declined because of the timeframe of getting the backround check. Further, he tried to use his older brother's ID.  Families of the of the 26 deceased, will be seeking civil action on the retailer who did not sell a product to the shooter. Families will eventually lose but the retailers will certainly need to beef up legal contingencies.

Another mass killing in a mall, a statium, a concert, or a school, could very much harm anti-gun control.

As for mental health-see no action but a lot of words.  

Local police will be highly visible near schools and malls thru late January.  Very little personel will be devoted towards traffic enforcement. 

Don't know the answer(s). I am pro gun/weapon. 

Question is at what point, if any, will "control" be implemented. 

I just got DS's life insurance notice. It's been nearly ten years since I purchased this insurance.  He was a senior in hs and  college applications submitted. It was alot of insurance for someone with no income and I had to explain to the insurance co. that DS was going to incur a lot of student loans and is a high proforming student. Other than the usual reasons for LI, the last reason was that some one else would do the unthinkable.which is a really poor reason but becoming more realistic every year. 

So on CC-PCafe, there is a thread,  Are the elites ignoring the unconventionally brilliant? Do you want to take the chance for your conventional student in a college that has admitted the unconventional brilliant?

-- Edited by longprime on Monday 17th of December 2012 08:04:46 PM

I can't believe Obama interrupted the football game to tell me the killings were bad. I sort of already knew that.

I am glad the Conn. shooter killed himself. At least, now he cannot harm anyone else. I hope there is a hell so he can rot in it.

pro gun, here. Oregon. 

Don't know. 

10+ years ago we had a 15yo kill his teacher parents, then went to his hs and killed some more. 

Last week we had a 20something walk into the largest mall in OR and fortunately only was able to kill 2.

Won't have a gun in the house. Have a "touched" BIL living with us. But that does not mean that he couldn't obtain a weapon on his own, if not already. We have already told some close friends that if we are found DOA, that BIL is to be the first suspect.

Odd, that the God of Abraham, allows our first murder(s) to be within family and the ones we care for the most.