No, you're right. Hell, somebody's got to take care of the Contras. ;)

Do you remember The A Team? [Dah da-dahhh ... duh dahhh duhhh!]

Notice how they always used AK-47s? I've heard the US military specifically didn't want them using M-16s because they were "renegades" and this would be bad for the army's image.

While homicides with guns are down, nationally, they have increased dramatically in Chicago - which has very strict gun control laws.

On the other hand, homicides with guns are down in New York City, which also has strict gun control laws.

In California, we've had a HUGE increase in the number of guns, since Obama became president. The recent gun show in Ontario, CA had people waiting for 3 hours to get in - and the number of people allowed in had to be restricted nearly all day because they would otherwise grossly exceed the occupancy limit set by the fire dept.

There is NO ARGUMENT that Obama has been the best thing that ever happened to gun shops and shows in CA -- since EVER.

And our gun homicides have decreased, despite the large increase in firearms owned by the public.

And if you MUST call any rifle an "assault" rifle, you should know that NONE *ZERO* of the rifles being sold today, would qualify.

Assault rifles (which are made to assault the enemy in war), ALWAYS have a full automatic setting. No rifles sold to the public in the US, have that feature. That's been true since the 1930's.

The rifles you see today may look the same, because they use a lot of black plastic for the stock, etc., but they are NOT assault rifles. They are ordinary semi-automatic rifles with plastic, instead of the traditional wooden, stock.

The Miss America contestant was asked to respond to this question:
"Should we put armed guards in our schools?"

Her "winning" response was:
"No, we shouldn't fight violence with violence."

ROFL!!

What the liberals would do is have the kids hide under their desks, and pray that the nutcase won't see them.

Well, OMG! He's nutty, but he's not blind!

Here's how it should go down:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/hom...rticle_sidebar

Now I know, I'm bringing up a FACTUAL incident, and not something a liberal dreamed up, but there it is:

Mother alone at home with her children, shoots the home invader 5 times, while her husband gives her advice over the cell phone.

He had taught her how to shoot, just two weeks before.

Unfortunately, the home invader lived, but in an odd twist, the Sheriff has not arrested him yet. That means HE will have to be responsible for the cost of his medical bills, and THEN the Sheriff will arrest him.

;) Sweet! ;)

Yeah, the Lee Harvey Oswald crowd will be coming out of the woodwork any day now. :eyebrow:

I'm sure that if they'd only known that, those 20 children would have died happy.

From Adak's article:


Yey for guns!


Also:


Why unfortunately? Why do we want the man to die? Any violent assault he had in mind was averted. Why does he deserve to die, for breaking into a house?

Doesn't that mean that patients are sharing accommodations with a suspected violent criminal who is not under police guard? Isn't that the reason some hospitals have prison wards?

Yeah, never mind the fact that leaving a criminal unguarded in a regular hospital bed is an open invitation to escape.

Criminal: Oh nurse, I'm still so weak that I can barely sit up! (heh, heh, heh)

Ten minutes later said criminal is climbing out the window on his tied together bed sheets.

Most accidents with firearms are caused by kids or adults who do not know how to safely handle a firearm, and they get access to the gun.

If you are going to play with rattlesnakes, and you aren't trained in how to do it safely, you can expect to get bit, sooner or later.

Owners know to lock up their guns - but they don't do it. God only knows why.

It's a woman alone with two kids, in the middle of the day, on a work day.

Now ask yourself:
"Why did he choose that house to break into?" There were empty houses in the neighborhood, at that time. "Why this house?"

Because he knew there was a woman in the house.

He wasn't after money, he wasn't after prescription meds or drugs. He intended to rape the woman. Whether he would have killed her (and the two kids who might ID him), or not, I don't know. The sheriff said "Yes, there would have been three homicides there."

I'd have to see his record of previous offenses, and his drug work up at the hospital, to make any call on that.

He's not able to walk around, just yet. She hit him 5 times out of the 6 shots she fired (it was a revolver). They know how to handle it so that he's left penniless from the hospital bills, in addition to facing criminal and other civil charges.

He's a broken toy, imo. He's either a robber, burglar, and probable rapist, or a robber, burglar, rapist, and probable murderer. He needs to be returned to his maker. ;)

So V.P. Joe Biden is giving a speech equating air bags with gun ownership. Oh! We'll save lives!

Which just happens to make our second amendment INALIENABLE right, <given by God, and inseparable from us>, if enacted, into a mere privilege.

May I be allowed to suggest that Mr. Biden, Go to Hell, and take his God Damned "privileges" for gun ownership by citizens in good standing, right along with him?

Dateline: Florida ( where else? lol )

Homeowner heard his dog barking, and finally went to see what the racket was all about. Since it was late in the evening, he brought his pistol with him.

Good thing, because he was greeted with the sight of a completely naked man, choking his Rottweiler. :eek: Seeing him, the naked man left the dog and attacked the owner, who finally succeeded in shooting the intruder in the leg.

The police spokesperson said that they arrested him, and were having him tested, since he probably was on drugs at the time.

Gee, do you think? < ROFL! > :p:

I wonder what our Miss America would suggest here, as a non-violent response? :rolleyes:

If you mean Dana, I'm sure she'll speak for herself - if she feels like replying to your hyperbole, that is.

Meanwhile: Woman is working alone one night as a relief clerk/night auditor at a motel with a rough clientel - young males, mostly Native Americans, who can't wait to get off the Rez every weekend, rent a room in the nearest town and get drunk on their asses with the results you might expect.

One night our heroine hears banging noises and the sound of glass shattering at the back of the building. She calls 9/11 to alert the local cops of a potential break-in/robbery, grabs her trusty pepper spray and circles around back to see what's going on.

Sure enough, a drunk is trying to break in thru the laundry room, and alcohol is not the only substance he's high on. When he turns around to see who's interrupting his fun, he gets a good burst of pepper spray square in the face. He falls to the ground bellowing in pain and rubbing his eyes which have been temporarily blinded.

The cops arrive, hear the story of what went down before they arrived on the scene, and recognize the drunk as someone whose attempted break-in was not his first time at the rodeo. The guy is cuffed, placed in the back of the patrol car and locked up in the county jail where the pepper spray gradually wears off, leaving no lasting injury.

The rest of the night is quiet, the motel books balanced, and no first graders were harmed.

You can take your assault weapon and jam it where the sun don't shine.

Anecdotal evidence is no kind of proof. And one byte of data is not a full meal.

And do you sir, have ANY evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, showing that unarmed, defenseless people, are safe from violence?

What about the recent shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CONN?

That was a GUN FREE Zone, AND the shooter was prohibited BY LAW, from possessing a gun.

Are you learning something here?

Like yourself, I WISH that people were not given to such extremes of violence - but I recognize that is only a WISH, and has no relation to reality. Never has been that way, and it never will be that way.

Real People are armed. Sheeple People are dreamers, hoping not to be seen when they try and hide under their desks.

There's no need to shoot a drunk who is causing no one any serious harm.

He's drunk, and he's trying to get inside a hotel where he'd like a room, or help to find his room - he's not trying to rape or kill or kidnap anyone.

There's no need to fire a gun unless the threat is very immediate, and very serious.

Real People are armed. Sheeple People rely on their invisibility cloaks to avoid being a victim.

Moved to HERE because this thread is Adak's pet rant against Democrats thread, and gun violence knows no such political distinctions.

It IS difficult to get Adak to stay on topic, isn't it? I'm following BigV over to the other thread with my reply as well.

I'm following the subjects given in the latest press conference of Obama. It's about gun control and the debt limit.

And we've covered the debt limit, last month:

Obama can't stay within the debt limit, because he's spending like a drunken sailor in port, and on leave. No limit on spending, is what he wants.

Too bad that the Constitution doesn't allow him to skirt around the House of Representatives, and spend MORE, MORE, MORE!

So we're back to gun control.

These are both Bill of Rights issues - they are not privileges that we have to plead with the government, in order to attain.

Last month was the cliff. Now all the cool kids in the House are talking about the ceiling. Gov't shutdown is scheduled for March 27th.
Get with the program. :cool:

I listened to the press conference today. The main topic was the debt ceiling. If you also listened to it, you learned that it has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "Obama's" out control spending. You ignorance of civics is the major obstacle to a real understanding of the issue, and why you're incapable of participating in a meaningful dialog on the subject. When you can demonstrate a better grasp of how our government works, come back here and we will try again to reason together.

Why yes. As a matter of fact, I do.

The above quotes are from here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/18/506...-provides.html

A Times magazine article on the UK and Australia bans: http://world.time.com/2012/12/17/whe...and-australia/

So there you have it - hard statistical data.

Go peddle your NRA talking points elsewhere.

Your disconnect denying the obvious connection between spending and the debt limit, in the face of our HUGE increase in spending under Obama, borders on a mental defect.

Consult any 10 year old - when you have only 90 cents, you don't keep buying the one dollar candy, and have to keep borrowing from your friends, to do so.

Because you will run out of THEIR money, and then you'll be broke and probably friendless for a spell, as well.

I know it's safe for a country to run up a national debt, and we don't need to panic every time the debt increases -- but come on! We can't just run our currency into the realm of being worthless and cause a monetary crisis!

As with most things, there are reasonable limits, and we have far exceeded ours.

Read it and weep, and get your facts right:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Brevik killed over 65 children and 12 adults, in Norway, mostly with a gun (8 by a bomb he made). And Norway has VERY strict gun control laws - but Anders Brevik didn't CARE about obeying the gun control laws of his country.

What makes you believe that the next nut case that wants to kill people in the US, will in fact, obey the gun control laws we might pass?

There are reasonable improvements in our gun control laws, (like banning high capacity magazines). Like requiring a locking mechanism be sold (or shown he has one by the buyer), with every firearm sold. This would probably be a trigger lock, but could be a gun safe.

The thing we have to do now, is stop congress from passing knee-jerk stupid laws, that chip away at the second amendment, and give us no real added safety - CA has many such stupid laws on it's books regarding gun control - sheer nonsense.

Good legislation can be crafted, but not by people opposed to firearms. We will see whether the leaders in Washington are up to this task. Personally, I doubt it, but maybe something good will come out of the Sandy Hook massacre.

What part of "no mass shootings" are you having problems with?

I have no illusions that that gun control will make life perfect and we'll have double rainbows every day. There will still be guns of some sort and we'll continue to have gun crime.

But obviously, Australia has reduced mass shootings. That's worth a lot right there.

And don't think I didn't notice that you went from NRA talking points to quoting a right-wing mouthpiece. You really need to get out more.

Brevik shot over 60 children, in a country that has a long history of gun control, (compared to say, Australia which has a very short history of it).

If you are saying that a very small sample (of time), from one country with gun control is enough to justify a change in our Constitutional Bill of Rights, then I can say the opposite, with years when the US did not have any mass shootings.

Who cares WHERE the stats came from? Stats are stats. Australia's violent crime did not decrease as a result of gun control, as much as the US did, without it.

Dammit.

Moved to here.

Quiz for you:

There is a call to you from the school your child attends. They have received a death threat from a note signed by a former student. Do you want a police or armed guard to be posted at the school, until the former student is found and arrested?

Yes, or No?

Let's see what others have done, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre:

*several cities in the Northeast have increased police presence at their schools, including NYC, under the order of the VERY liberal Mayor Bloomberg.

*meanwhile, the VERY conservative Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ, has done the same, using his armed and trained volunteers, as well as his deputies.

*in LA, the very liberal Mayor has also requested additional police presence, at all their schools.

I believe we have a consensus here - both liberals and conservatives, both want armed police or guard presence, at their schools. Has this been used elsewhere? Yes it has!

In the 1970's, Israeli schools were being targeted by Palestinians, and in one case, by an Israeli who went unhinged.

The Israeli's put armed guards at their schools, to counter these threats. There have been no successful attacks at Israeli schools, since then.

That's 40 years+ !

When we had problems with hijacked airliners, we put air marshals (armed), onto the planes. We removed them before 9/11, but that's a subject for another thread.

I believe left and right - and everyone in the middle who's honest - will agree that when you have something valuable, you protect it. Surely, that includes our kids.

And we CAN do more to require guns be kept safely locked up, etc.

What about the school buses? The kids aren't protected on the buses. Should we have armed guards there?

There are 50 thousand public elementary schools in this country. There are another 40 thousand middle schools and high schools. That doesn't even begin to count private schools. All told, there are probably 120 thousand schools in this country. To hire one guard for each one at $35,000 per year would cost about $4 Billion. But really you need more than one guard. The school won't be protected when they go to the bathroom or eat lunch. You need at least 2 per school. So that's $8 Billion. And what about those buses? And the bus stops? Let's say you have an average of 2 buses per school, and 10 bus stops per school that means you need another 12 guards. So let's see, 12 time 4 is 48, plus the two you already had at the school. Now we're at $52 Billion (per year) just for guards. And all you've protected in the kids at school. What about the library? and the park? Oh jeez. And the playgrounds! What about walking to the bus stops? And walking to school? We'll need a guard on every corner. this is going to start getting expensive.

First of all, I've denied nothing about any connection between spending and the debt limit. When you can cite a contrary example, your petty name-calling will be justified. Until then, you just keep your mental defect badge.

Adak, our country's fiscal and monetary policy is not run like a ten-year-old's. You know that. When you make such a comparison, you insult me and you embarrass yourself. Please stop it.

Ok, now to the obvious connection between our spending the debt ceiling. I notice now you use rational, neutral terms like "our" and "a country". I am glad for the change of tone, thanks. If you think we've far exceeded the reasonable limit to our borrowing, what is that limit? How much debt do you think we can reasonably bear?

A more pressing question is how to deal with the debt limit now. We both listened to the President's press conference of the other day, I'll tell you now, I agree with his characterization of the debt ceiling and what to do about it and importantly, what not to do about it. Last first--dithering and arguing and fiddlefarting around while NOT immediately and decisively raising the debt ceiling is all by itself a very bad idea. Acting (Congressional acting) as though there might be any kind of suggestion whatsoever that the United States will not pay our debts is irresponsible and dangerous.

That is just the effect that trying to link debt ceiling increases, which must be done by Congress, with any other business. Anything besides "Yes, and here's the limit (which in my opinion should be high enough to make further such discussion moot for a year or more), generates more of that "uncertainty" that is anathema to the business community. It's a Bad. Idea.

What is your position?

Isn't this the entire population?


Sent from an undisclosed location.

Ridiculously expensive, but it is a solution that should be used in the short term, when needed. A little extra security, can go a long way.

And it's MUCH better than yanking the rug out from underneath our second amendment rights. Once the gov't has knocked those down, we'll never get them back.

And not to be a doomsayer, but once they can knock one part of the Bill of Rights down, then clearly they can see about knocking down other parts, as well. All they need is some kind of an emergency (real or imagined), and they'll be all over it.

There are practical steps that could be taken - but what I've heard proposed so far, is not good.

Well, we could always grab all our guns, head for the hills, and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

Well, I don't hear it being mentioned - over a TRILLION dollars every year, and we're all worried about taxing the rich. Great - that will last the gov't about 3 weeks, max.

Big deal.

You do know that our credit rating has already been downgraded, and will be downgraded again, this year, if we don't QUIT OUR OVER-SPENDING!

It may be in the future, but over-spending is one of THE ways to initiate a monetary crisis - and we NEVER want one of those!

It's usually measured in percent of the country's GDP. Ours is quite high, but I haven't seen the actual % in a while now. You can look it up easily enough. Over 90% is worrisome. Over 100% is very troubling. The thing is, you never know when the good faith of people in our ability to handle the debt, will suddenly evaporate. It happens with a rapid onset. Takes your breath away.

Oh, we'll pay the debt, and we have the money for it. But Obama WILL NOT even discuss current (actual) spending cuts. He will reluctantly discuss cuts in FUTURE over-spending growth! :( So we're talking about pennies, instead of $1,00 dollar bills here. It's peanuts, and does nothing to stop devaluation of our dollar.

The Republicans are going to be more and more desperate to bring Obama around to a compromise on the ACTUAL CURRENT SPENDING. How can they do that? They'll have to force it, at some point. Just a matter of when.

I agree, it's a TERRIBLE idea to keep running around this fiscal cliff nonsense. But, it's the only thing the Republicans have left. Talking is no go with Obama. Spending cuts (real and immediate), have been off limits with Obama - always. His budgets are a complete disaster, according to his Secretary of the Treasury, in sworn testimony.

That's why they've never even been voted on. Even Democrats aren't THAT crazy! The spending is the big white elephant in the living room, and it's not going away. We are going to have to deal with it - one way or another.

These are serious concerns. They're just in the wrong thread, that's all.
They should be in a thread with a title mentioning Bush, Cheney, Patriot Act, and the last 12 years.

Warrantless wire-tapping? Detention without trial? "Enhanced interrogation"?

If you seriously think your gun rights are effectively protecting all your other rights, you haven't been paying attention for the last 12 years.

I'm waiting for a case to go to the Supreme Court, on this Carnivore project in Utah. That's so invasive of our privacy, it's incredible.

The Patriot Act was just another "knee jerk, Washington needs to do something, and this is something, so we must do it", law. I doubt if it's legal - maybe during the wars in Iraq, etc., but after the troops come home from Afghanistan, the freedoms we gave up in that act, are going to seem like too much to give away, permanently.

I sure hope so.

I agree with you 100%! The Patriot Act was a disaster for our freedoms, and Carnivore is only going to make it worse!

But after the troops are all back, I believe they both will be challenged or maybe just have their spending cut out from under them.

The police are randomly searching regular people going about their daily commutes without probable cause or warrants on public transit systems in many major US cities including Washington DC. I've seen it with my own eyes in person.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Bill of Rights is being violated by the government on a daily basis already.

And when was the previous mass shooting in Norway - all the other mass shootings they must have had because of their gun control laws?

/\ word /\

I'm not saying that gun laws promote mass shootings, or that Norwegians are nearly as prone to gun violence as Americans are.

What I AM saying is, your gun control laws will not stop a gun massacre - or murders, etc. Criminals can get guns, and they don't give a hot damn about breaking gun control laws, to get them.

Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country, (New York city is described as the second toughest). But Chicago is the murder capital of the US - 513 murders in 2012, and currently at a slightly higher rate so far in 2013. A lot of it is being done by gangs, and they are mostly using -- you guessed it -- illegal guns! ;)

If gun control laws worked, then having a discussion about tightening those laws, MIGHT make sense. But they don't, and the Obama administration is NOT enforcing the gun control laws we ALREADY have.

For example - lying on the form you fill out to get a gun, is a federal crime, but the Obama administration is not charging those who do it.
Why? Bush did it. Biden was asked about this by Jim Baker recently and said "we don't have the manpower...". That's odd, because you have MORE manpower than Bush ever had. WTF?

If you're not going to enforce the laws we have already, what good will having a bunch more laws to restrict the freedoms of the good citizens, do?

In America, when someone comes after you to do you harm, there's a good chance they'll have a gun, or some other weapon. When and if that happens, you will pray to God that you have a gun, to help even up the odds.

The idea that gun control laws will keep guns away from criminals, is so insane. I urge you to contact your local police dept. Ask them if it's difficult for criminals to buy an illegal gun in your city. Ask how long it would take to buy this illegal gun, in your city? **

Just ask, it's free! :cool:

** (maybe 10 minutes?)

Obama was sworn in as President, today - in the appropriately named "Blue" room, of the White House.

(He'll repeat it publicly tomorrow.)

You might reasonably believe that this would herald the end of his re-election campaign efforts -- but NO!

Now his re-election campaign has morphed into a 501c Corporation, that will run 24/7/365, to facilitate his agenda. That means his donors names can be hidden (and nobody likes hiding the facts, better than Obama -- ever).

Michelle Obama related how on their first date, Barrack talked about how he wanted to "transform the country".

I don't WANT a Socialist country, Mr. Obama! Kinda like the freedoms we had BEFORE the Patriot act.

Bundlers expected to bring in the $$$$, met for an hour and a half in the White House on Friday, so their strategy and tactics could be laid out with Obama and his staff.

I believe this is the very first time that such an organization has been formed, to run as a political fund raiser and lobby group, for a sitting President.

Somebody pass the Pepto over. :greenface

A you-can't-haz-tea party.

Wait a minute - although I generally agree with you, especially on the Patriot Act and Carnivore, but I have to find exception with your conclusion here.

The Bill of Rights says we are free from "unreasonable searches and seizures". Note the "unreasonable" part of that.

I'm not familiar enough with the warrantless searches on people in cities back East, to know if it's unreasonable or not. Point is that ALL searches, according to the Bill of Rights, are NOT unreasonable - and therefore some are legal. Look at what the TSA is doing for air travelers, for crying out loud! THAT seems unreasonable to me.

BTW, the nude scanners are going to be removed from the airports, because the manufacturer (one of the major ones), says it can't diminish the resolution of the nude scan. (They tried to cheat in a demo showing they could do it, but got caught - shades of Lance Armstrong, eh? ;) )

The other manufacturers of the nude scan equipment says that they can diminish the resolution, because they use slightly different technology in their scanners.

We shall see.

The cost is horrendous, but the gov't doesn't believe the nude scanner is legal, and has given the manufacturer plenty of time to find the fix for it - which it now says it can't find.

A less intrusive scanner will be put in place, of course.

That's unconstitutional too, IMHO. The idea is that public transportation is optional, therefor, it's OK to search anyone who uses public transportation. I think this is wrong thinking. Public transportation (buses, subways, trains, planes) is a way to get from one place to another, just as a public road or a public sidewalk is a way to get from one place to another. The founding fathers were very clearly opposed to just stopping people going about their business and searching them. They didn't want people to be searched simply because they were traveling. And it really is a slippery slope. If you can search people who have entered the publicly owned transit system because they have chosen to enter a system, you can also search people who have entered the public highway and road system. Nobody is safe. Or I should say, the only reason people aren't being searched on roads yet is because it's too difficult and the outcry would be too great. But if you just shrug and don't care that people commuting to work on the bus or a subway are being searched without warrants or probably cause, then you deserve to be searched in your car.

Not too difficult and no real outcry.

Stop and Frisk

"Terry Stop" Terry v. Ohio

So basically, if the cops want to frisk you just for the hell of it, they can. They can also detain you without charges.

People in middle class America do not see this. If the economy worsens and more of them move to lower income neighborhoods, this will change.

Note: Stop and frisk was recently challenged and overturned in some cases, but noone knows if this will stand.

Well Hooray! Obama appointments made without the approval of the Congress, (because Obama declared all by himself that Congress was NOT in session, when in fact, Congress WAS in session), has been overturned by the most important Appellate Court, in the country.

By unanimous agreement, the 3 judge court of Washington D.C., ruled that the President can't make appointments without the approval of Congress, even though it would be more efficient if he could do so.

"Where the language in the Constitution is clear, the President can not change it, to make things easier, or more efficient."

Obama made 4 appointments during that pro-forma session of Congress (where Congress is "in session", but not working on the floor, except to make the daily announcement that they are "in session").

Now those appointed, and everything they have done in the past year, is null and void.

Big slap in Obama's face, also.

Now a word about Tax Policy, from a brilliant CNN article today:

If they deport your gardener is everything he did null and void?
At least someone was running the show, while congress was playing who's on first.

I don't think anyone can argue with McCaffery, that the tax code is totally fucked up.

If your gardener was a department head in the Federal gov't, who needed to be confirmed, and was not, then yepper! :cool:

Members of Congress were home for Christmas - except for the few needed to keep the Congress in a pro forma session. Obama has plenty of working days to make his recommended appointments to Congress. He is the very first President to ever "proclaim" that a Congress was not in session, over the stated fact of the matter. Congressional sessions are not a small matter. Neither house of Congress can stop a session, without the approval of the other house.

On the gun limiting bill, so far the Feinstein bill to ban some hundred plus models of firearms, doesn't have enough votes to pass - 51 and doesn't nearly have enough votes to override a Republican/Conservative filibuster - 60. For right now it's a no-go. There may be a consensus reached on limiting the capacity of magazines to 10, later on.

This is already the law in California, and I don't see an outcry against it**. Of course, this applies to FUTURE new purchases only. So you can still buy older high capacity magazines - if they were made before the bill went into effect, they're grandfathered in.

Even the staunchest Conservatives agree that background checks are necessary for gun purchases. The "militia" mentioned in the Constitution, was never meant to allow unfit and dangerous people, to buy firearms, whenever they please.


The hard core Conservatives don't like it, but what else is new, eh? :rolleyes:

I don't think so, it's no different than having an acting chief stuck in there for a year, like they do in government agencies all the time.
Do you think the people in those agencies said, you're not the boss of me, I'm not doing what you say.

I'd had a letter exchange with the acting head of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. I certainly didn't disregard what he wrote because he was only the acting head.

An acting chief, IS a valid chief, albeit temporary. These "wanna be's", never were valid. Never.

Everything they did, is now void.

The more I think about the gun control lobby, the more I believe we should have these folk solve all our violent death problems.

For instance, to stop deaths from avalanches, we just need to outlaw:

1) Snow (obviously).

2) Uneven ground (subtle).

and

3) Gravity

Brilliant!! A true liberals fix. ;)

Kudo's to Israel for bombing the trucks that were transporting the Russian SAM's from Syria to Lebanon, to arm Hezbollah!

Well done!

After all the screaming and shouting about "assault rifles!, those damn assault rifles!", we get the confirmation that:

1) There was no assault rifle used in the Newtown, CONN, shooting.

There was NO rifle used, of any kind, in this shooting.

The gunman used four pistols. (Not the reported two pistols).

2) There was a rifle left in the trunk of the car the killer drove. From somewhat hazy video (low light), the rifle is a semi-automatic, but doesn't appear to be an "assault rifle" (AR-15), as previously reported.

This was reported confirmed by Pete Williams at NBC, among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=oJkvB9goPAA#!

But we need to ban assault rifles anyway. All that black, dangerous plastic on the stock and grips - makes the rifle just force you to start shooting people, doesn't it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

OK, thanks for setting the record straight, then we'll just ban hand guns.

Sweet.

He was firing 47 rounds per minute. He pumped between three and 13 rounds into each 1st grader. Only a wacko extremist would not call that an assault weapon.

How many rounds do you need to hunt deer? His guns only have one purpose. To hunt and kill humans.

You are even assaulting the sanity of moderates.

If you had said that guns were made to kill, I'd agree with you. Anyone who knows anything about the real world use of guns knows that shooting to wound is Hollywood fantasy. When you say that they can only be used to hunt and kill humans ["His guns only have one purpose. To hunt and kill humans."] you
deny the reality that they can also be used in self defense just as readily as a single shot pistol or a baseball bat.

47 rounds per minute is easily accomplished with just low capacity magazines. A proficient wheelgun shooter can even do it with a 6 shot revolver and speed loaders. Your assertion that the application of the firearm, rather than the purpose for which it was designed, determines whether or not it constitutes an assault weapon is erroneous. It's like saying that an automobile driver who runs someone else over was therefore driving an assault car.

There are whacko extremists on both sides of this issue. Don't be one of them.

AAAARGH!

Hasn't this thread died yet?

Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle.

Am I the only one around here who fact checks Adak?

.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2312818.html

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday, firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults, authorities said Sunday.


http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/19/...in-gun-debate/
When 20-year-old Adam Lanza walked into the Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, he carried two handguns, several hundred rounds of ammunition and a rifle that has become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over gun rights in America.
Police say that the 20 children and six adults killed at the school were murdered with a .223 caliber Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...anted=all&_r=0
But the AR-15 style rifle — the most popular rifle in America, according to gun dealers — was also the weapon of choice for Adam Lanza, who the police said used one made by Bushmaster on Friday to kill 20 young children and six adults in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in a massacre that has horrified the nation.


Etc., etc., etc. Hey! Remember Google?

Adak's youtube clip is just that - a cute little snip out of context.

Early reports had the .223 in the trunk of the car and the nutter using the pistols. I haven't been following the spin but the gun folks I hang with give those reports a lot of weight. The other gun industry rumor I hear is that the FedGov already controls the number of rounds manufacturers produce per year so there has been a squeeze in ammo for a while, creating a backdoor control.

I frequent another, larger board that has a preponderance of right wing users. They went with the "no Bushmaster was used" thing earlier, but now seem resigned to the fact that a semi-automatic was involved in the shootings - if they believe the shootings took place at all.

The entire Sandy Hook thing was a conspiracy. You know that, right? It was all staged so Obama and his Muslim friends could take away our second amendment rights.

So many conspiracy theories, so little time.

.

^

Sorry, What? :confused:

I did not mean to imply that YOUR post was a conspiracy theory, if that's what you mean. It's just that I have not yet to see a reputable link from a sane person that has a legitimate explanation as to why law enforcement now thinks a Bushmaster was NOT used. If you have one, I'd appreciate you posting it, so I could read it over, myself, and if I'm wrong, I have no problem admitting to it.