ITT guns save lives.

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 29308
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

It's 2013 and I have a new perspective. As I have alluded to in recent postings I'm done treating the gun-grabbers with respect and consideration. They have no logical arguments and don't want to take the discussion there. Concerned citizens who can be reasoned with and accept logical arguments I will continue to treat well as they are deserving of such. For the Feinsteins of the world, however, who's ultimate goal is a disarmed, helpless citizenry incapable of fending off the predations of the criminal element amongst us and the oppression of a government out of control and drunk with power, gargle my nuts. You use the emotional stupor of post-traumatic event confusion to push your agenda and I've had enough of it. You camouflage your agenda under dead children and it's repugnant.

The only way a gun incident makes it to the big media is if it's negative and thus worthy fodder for their left-wing agenda to deny Americans the rights that they, themselves, would seek to continue to enjoy. Case in point, Feinstein has a concealed carry permit.
http://marketdailynews.com/2013/01/03/d ... ct-myself/
Case in point, the NY paper that outed gun owners has hired armed security.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... uards?lite

This thread will be used by me and anyone else who comes across relevant news stories, ones where the gun was in the hands of a sane law-abiding person and used for their defense. In these instances, the presence and potentially the use of a gun was instrumental in allowing the victim to survive.

I will not entertain the typical kook arguments here. Go play play fantasy land somewhere else. If you post BS, I'll just delete it outright. If you want to post tragedies here to try and water it down, go ahead, but if it's a gun free zone mass shooting expect me to remind you that a good guy with a gun could have stopped that. If you want to try that tired "people would get hit in a crossfire" crap, I will just have to remind you that people were being shot at the assailant's leisure anyway and how is that better? If it's a gun accident, expect me to dissect the situation, point out the human errors that led to the incident and blame the operator because other than malfunctions guns can only kill with human intervention.

No, I would play footsies with you hypocritical, illogical, subversive, whiny ****ers any more. You want em gone. Even if you only want the "assault weapons" gone know that the predominant homicide gun is not a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. It's not even all rifles. More people die from being beat to death with bare hands than all the long gun shootings. If you claim to want to get rid of guns to "save lives" you are talking about handguns because they are the overwhelming gun in homicides. Assault rifles are just a red herring made to get the ball rolling. In most of these stories of self defense it will be a handgun that turned the tide in favor of the victim. You gun-grabbers are advocating that weapon being taken out of the hands of law-abiding people which would have made these stories read quite differently so after every story I'll remind you of it and ask the question, "why did you want these people to die?"

Case one

http://m.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother ... ots/nTnGR/
The Loganville mother of two assumed the knocks on her front door Friday afternoon were from a solicitor.

“Don’t answer,” she yelled to her 9-year-old twins playing downstairs.

When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work.

“Get the kids and hide,” he told his wife.

As he dialed 911, his 37-year-old spouse, who works from home, collected the children and hid with them in a crawlspace adjoining her office. By that time, the intruder had forced his way into the three-story residence on Henderson Ridge Drive with a crowbar, authorities said. He allegedly rummaged through the home, eventually working his way up to the attic office.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” said Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman, who relayed the woman’s narrative to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He asked that her name be withheld.

The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater was still conscious.

“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.

Slater, unaware that she had emptied her chamber, obliged as the mother and her children ran to a neighbor’s house.

The injured burglar eventually made it out of the home and into his car, driving away before deputies arrived on the scene. He didn’t get far.

“When you got five bullets in you, it makes you kind of disoriented,” Chapman told the AJC.

Deputies found Slater bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway.

“I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman.

Slater was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center and is expected to survive, the sheriff said.

The Long Island native, who now lives in Gwinnett County, was released from the Gwinnett jail in late August after serving six months for simple battery and three counts of probation violation. Slater has six other arrests in Gwinnett dating back to 2008, according to jail records.

“My wife’s a hero,” the woman’s husband, Donnie Herman, told Channel 2 Action News in a brief statement. He did not respond to a request for comment from the AJC. “She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do.”

Chapman remarked that one of his deputies, impressed with the woman’s resolve, told the sheriff she had handled her first shooting better than he had.

“That mother’s instinct kicked in,” Chapman said. “You go after a mother’s kids and she’ll find herself capable of doing things she never thought she was capable of.”
That's 3 people still alive because of a gun.
why did you want these people to die?


User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... z2GOP72zBX
Two people were wounded late Sunday when gunfire erupted at a local movie theater, sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover, police and witnesses said.
A lone suspect was in custody after being wounded by an unidentified law enforcement officer, a Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokesman said.
Conditions of the two people wounded were not immediately released, nor was it disclosed where they were when they were wounded, or the type of gun that was used.
Witnesses said numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex on Southwest Military Drive around 9:25 p.m., setting off the scramble to safety before police and EMS arrived. The complex was evacuated and sealed off for several
hours.

Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sherriff's Office, said the shooting began at a nearby China Garden and “carried on into the theater.”
At one point, the suspect fired at a San Antonio Police Department patrol car, Antu said.
“He was shooting at a marked unit,” Antu said. “He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.”
After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.
“She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu said.
Tara Grace, who was getting a drink from the concession stand when the shooting began, ran into the bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other patrons to avoid the mayhem.
“We thought we were going to die,” she said.
A person at the scene, an employee from a different location of the restaurant, said the gunman initially may have targeted a coworker before making his way to the theater, though Antu could not confirm a motive immediately.
The shooting immediately sparked fears of a mass slaying like the one in July that killed 12 people and injured 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Cassandra Castillo, waited anxiously outside the theater for her son, a projectionist at the theater.
“It brings back memories of the other theater shooting, and the elementary school shooting,” she said. “You only think the worst.”
These people were saved by a woman with a gun.
Why did you want these people to die?

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-a ... 93571.html
PORTLAND -- Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.
"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.
"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.
Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.
"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."
He confronted the guy, and showed that he had a weapon, the guy ran into a stairwell, and offed himself because it wasn't "easy" anymore, and not everyone was a helpless sheep. He didn't fire because people were running for cover behind the guy and he didn't want to hit someone else. Not only did he check his backdrop before he fired, he scared the guy into running off and killing himself.

These people were saved by a guy with a concealed carry weapon.
Why did you want even more people to die in this mall?

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

Image

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/12/23/ca- ... sleepover/
SACRAMENTO, CA – A robbery suspect was shot and killed during a home invasion robbery in Sacramento’s Pocket neighborhood early Saturday morning.
According to Officer Doug Morse, a homeowner, a robbery suspect and two other people were in a gun battle outside of the home on the 900 block of Haven Court just after 3:30 a.m.
When officers arrived, they found one robbery suspect fatally wounded; the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. The homeowner was also shot and was transported a hospital with non-life threatening injuries.
Another robbery suspect, 21 year old Thomas Ordonaz, who was injured in the shooting was later arrested on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and accessory.
A third person showed up at a local hospital with gunshot wounds. It’s unclear how this person is connected to the incident, but was detained by police, Morse said.
Video: http://link.brightcove.com/services/pla ... 1953349001

This man defended against 3 armed robbers while children were having a sleepover with his firearm.
Why did you want this man and these children to die?

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

Wow, so ITT you accuse political adversaries of desiring the death of children, and then delete dissent? Conservatives are truly f*** in the head. Get bent.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

See, this the problem I had with the politics forum, here. It's not the disagreement, and its not the fierce discussion. I thrive on that. It's the loose control over moderators. Know what a moderator should do? Moderate. Know what a moderator shouldn't do? Engage. And if a moderator does engage, that moderator should refrain from illustrating his or her topical engagement with the use of moderating abilities, like the ability to delete another's comment.

I've seen Z behave childishly in this section before, and now I've seen either TMS or A2C behave childishly. Grow up. Be politically active. Moderate. But don't be politically active in your moderation. Abuses of power mean that this isn't a "forum," but rather just a place for you to read things you like.

Might as well just shut down Politics, Etc. if that's how it's going to be.

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

And when have I ever edited a thread in this forum? Never. I view myself as just another member when I step into this forum. How about YOU "get bent", as you so eloquently put it? I'm not even sure what that means. Just because I choose to take up a position in a forum, I'm not allowed to have an opinion anymore? Duly noted. TMS stated that off topic crap like this would be deleted in the very first post of this thread. It was a ground rule, and you shouldn't get butthurt about it. Simply keeping the topic on-track. I doubt these comments will be here tomorrow, but I hope you get a chance to read my response.

NOW, back to the topic at hand, you're damned right that I believe that, had a gun ban been in action as Feinstein wishes, that all of these events would have still taken place, only with much, MUCH more collateral damage. Each one of the people who stopped the assailants were a law abiding citizen. If they abide by the law that Feinstein wishes to eventually enact (complete and total gun ban) then the results would have been catastrophic. Criminals will always get weapons. Taking them away from the people who use them legally is simply disarming those who aren't using them for evil and taking their ability to defend themselves away.

User avatar
BusyBadger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:20 pm
Car: '92 Nissan 240SX
'05 Nissan 350Z
'13 Nissan Juke
Contact:

Post

Ah, the irony of using ChiCom bandwidth to complain about perceived abuse of power, one-sided discussions and free speech limitations.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

My comment was on-topic; that you disagreed with it didn't make it otherwise. I pointed out the non-probative value of these anecdotes. You're not going to convince anyone because you're completely failing to address their concerns. When people can look at this thread and say, "Hey, there's a list of exceptions to the rule that reducing the number of guns in circulation is an unmitigated improvement," you're absolutely not helping your case.

And when you then challenge people who would disagree with your ultimate assessment of gun control as somehow desiring that more innocent people be killed, you merely invite people to so view this thread.

You want to have a meaningful discussion? Start not be reinforcing your own beliefs, but by undermining those of your opponents. Start by addressing the fact that the first person to die by shooting in Newtown was the guy's rightful and legal owner. Until then, at bet, you're preaching to the choir. At worst, you're lying sacks.

User avatar
IBCoupe
Posts: 7534
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:51 am
Car: '08 Nissan Altima Coupe 3.5SE
'19 Infiniti QX50 FWD
'17 BMW 330e iPerformance
Location: Orange County, CA

Post

BusyBadger wrote:Ah, the irony of using ChiCom bandwidth to complain about perceived abuse of power, one-sided discussions and free speech limitations.
Is the similarity something you guys are proud of?

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Wow, so ITT you accuse political adversaries of desiring the death of children, and then delete dissent? Conservatives are truly f***ed in the head. Get bent.

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
No where does he imply that ITT desire the death of children. He stated that the anti-gun crowd uses the deaths of children to push their agenda. Don't be purposely obtuse.

He never said he would delete dissent. He said he would delete posts that weren't factual and useful. He did so in order to keep this thread from being taken off track and watered down with emotional responses. If you don't have anything to post that fits the confines of the thread topic, then don't post in this particular thread.
IBCoupe wrote:See, this the problem I had with the politics forum, here. It's not the disagreement, and its not the fierce discussion. I thrive on that. It's the loose control over moderators. Know what a moderator should do? Moderate. Know what a moderator shouldn't do? Engage. And if a moderator does engage, that moderator should refrain from illustrating his or her topical engagement with the use of moderating abilities, like the ability to delete another's comment.

I've seen Z behave childishly in this section before, and now I've seen either TMS or A2C behave childishly. Grow up. Be politically active. Moderate. But don't be politically active in your moderation. Abuses of power mean that this isn't a "forum," but rather just a place for you to read things you like.

Might as well just shut down Politics, Etc. if that's how it's going to be.
Just so I understand things. You feel you should be able to post emotional off topic replies at any time you wish without moderation? Even though the original post clearly defines the rules for this particular thread? If you don't like a particular thread, simply bypass it. There was no statement made that implied you could not post a counter opinion. Only that said opinion be based on facts and not emotion. TMS wants this particular thread to be about how the media seems to support the Liberal Left by only paying attention to the negative cases involving fire arms. Any posts unrelated to THAT will be deleted because they will be considered off topic.
IBCoupe wrote:My comment was on-topic; that you disagreed with it didn't make it otherwise. I pointed out the non-probative value of these anecdotes. You're not going to convince anyone because you're completely failing to address their concerns. When people can look at this thread and say, "Hey, there's a list of exceptions to the rule that reducing the number of guns in circulation is an unmitigated improvement," you're absolutely not helping your case.
Your comment was not on topic. Your post did nothing but insult Conservatives with a blanket statement. Nowhere did you imply anything other then your feelings of being oppressed by Moderators and you feel upset by not being able to post emotional responses in reply to the thread topic. I doubt TMS is trying to persuade someone as far left as you IBC. So of course providing examples of where fire arms were used to save lives means nothing to someone that is very pro-gun-control. One of the main points here is that we're inundated with "guns are bad" every day, all day by the media. Yet when we want to have one thread where we can discuss the issue with lack of coverage of positive fire arm usage without emotional non-factual replies from the opposition, you get all uppity.
IBCoupe wrote: And when you then challenge people who would disagree with your ultimate assessment of gun control as somehow desiring that more innocent people be killed, you merely invite people to so view this thread.
Again, nobody implied that gun-control types want children to be murdered. Reread. You're just over acting so as to lend some sort of meaning to your otherwise pointless posts that are entirely based on emotion and include zero facts.
IBCoupe wrote: You want to have a meaningful discussion? Start not be reinforcing your own beliefs, but by undermining those of your opponents. Start by addressing the fact that the first person to die by shooting in Newtown was the guy's rightful and legal owner. Until then, at bet, you're preaching to the choir. At worst, you're lying sacks.
You don't get to determine how someone else has a conversation. You don't get to determine what topic someone else is allowed to post about. The only thing you can control is what YOU post. If you don't wish to be involved in this thread, then simply don't post. Calling someone a lying sack because we're having a conversation about media bias and the pro-gun types instead of something you'd prefer while lashing out at some false feeling of oppression because we'd actually like this thread to stay on topic is very hypocritical.

If you would like to present some factual tid bits that support your feelings on gun control, be my guest. Otherwise, don't post.

User avatar
szh
Posts: 18857
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 12:54 pm
Car: 2018 Tesla Model 3.

Unfortunately, no longer a Nissan or Infiniti, but continuing here at NICO!
Location: San Jose, CA

Post

IBCoupe wrote:I've seen Z behave childishly in this section before, and now I've seen either TMS or A2C behave childishly. Grow up. Be politically active. Moderate. But don't be politically active in your moderation. Abuses of power mean that this isn't a "forum," but rather just a place for you to read things you like.
:lolling:

Look hard in a mirror sometime before you accuse others of childish behavior. :yesnod

You have far more growing up to do than many people here.

Z

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:Wow, so ITT you accuse political adversaries of desiring the death of children, and then delete dissent? Conservatives are truly f***ed in the head. Get bent.
No, you get bent. Tit for tat.

Want to start a counter-discussion that shows where well-meaning, armed citizens caused unnecessary death and destruction? Go for it. Mike won't delete it. There's a TON of threads here (and elsewhere) where off-topic discussion is removed. Would you start ranting about anti-Semitism in the Datsun 320 VIN Registry thread? C'mon.

The only ones "f***ed in the head" are those who ignore data, statistics, and simple, elementary logic.

Stand down or bring something useful, because for all the bleating you do about "feigned outrage", you are, as we like to say in the South, 'eat up to death with it'.

"Purposely obtuse" - That's spectacularly descriptive... and that's coming from a guy without all that fancy edumacation. ;)

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

IBCoupe wrote:My comment was on-topic; that you disagreed with it didn't make it otherwise. I pointed out the non-probative value of these anecdotes. You're not going to convince anyone because you're completely failing to address their concerns. When people can look at this thread and say, "Hey, there's a list of exceptions to the rule that reducing the number of guns in circulation is an unmitigated improvement," you're absolutely not helping your case.

And when you then challenge people who would disagree with your ultimate assessment of gun control as somehow desiring that more innocent people be killed, you merely invite people to so view this thread.

You want to have a meaningful discussion? Start not be reinforcing your own beliefs, but by undermining those of your opponents. Start by addressing the fact that the first person to die by shooting in Newtown was the guy's rightful and legal owner. Until then, at bet, you're preaching to the choir. At worst, you're lying sacks.
In other gun news today more gun violence in schools

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/tw ... ?hpt=hp_t1

Typical gun nuts most of whom are mentally ill.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/08/mo ... g-deluded/

Telcoman

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

He didn't use an assault weapon. He used a shotgun. So what you're saying is that the assault weapons ban would have zero affect on this episode of gun violence in schools.

I agree.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Yep. TIme to ban shotguns. Guess there goes my home defense plan.

I concur that Pers Morgan is mentally ill. Good thing he'll have Obamacare!

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

IBCoupe wrote:You want to have a meaningful discussion? Start not be reinforcing your own beliefs, but by undermining those of your opponents. Start by addressing the fact that the first person to die by shooting in Newtown was the guy's rightful and legal owner.
Uh, that's been done. Ad nauseum. It's irrelevant to the "grabbers". Anyone who can't see that hasn't been paying attention.

If statistics, logic and evidence drove legislation, this wouldn't even be in the kitchen, much less the front burner.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

What I'm saying is at the time the 2nd amendment was written into our constitution single shot muskets were the type of weapons then in use.
Those types of weapons should remain legal for those that need a gun.

Ban all the others or severely restrict their use requiring annual licensing for each weapon and user, training, tracking thru a federal database RFID's on every weapon so they can be tracked just like a cell phone,mental health evaluation, requiring a clean criminal record, taxing both weapons and ammunition and outlawing military type weapons used in war. Make it a federal crime to bring guns across state lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwKXggW7naI

Telcoman

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

telcoman wrote:What I'm saying is at the time the 2nd amendment was written into our constitution single shot muskets were the type of weapons then in use.
Those types of weapons should remain legal for those that need a gun.
At the time the First amendment was written, Black people couldn't eat in restaurants. You're delusional.

If we're talking "need-based" legislation, I propose every woman must prove "need" before an abortion. I'd like you to draft that legislation, Howie.

Besides, those weapons were high-tech for their time. Are you suggesting a return to all manner of colonial decorum? If so, you're gonna have to throw the Progressive bums out.
telcoman wrote:Ban all the others or severely restrict their use requiring annual licensing for each weapon and user, training, tracking thru a federal database RFID's on every weapon so they can be tracked just like a cell phone,mental health evaluation, requiring a clean criminal record, taxing both weapons and ammunition and outlawing military type weapons used in war. Make it a federal crime to bring guns across state lines.
I don't have a problem with any of this except "ban all the others" (that's ignorant) and "Make it a federal crime to bring guns across state lines" (because it doesn't address any problem, and this isn't Germany. It's America. You want Communism, it's a $1200 plane trip away.

Realistically, however, NONE of those measures would have prevented the CT tragedy. Not one.

I know you're gonna freak out and go off-topic here - I'm not being argumentative, I'm being realistic, logical, and rational. THINK about the implications of a proposal before you support it.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

The 2nd Amendment was written the way it is so the "the people" will never be owned by the Gov. Shall not be infringed.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If your idea is that only single shot weapons remain legal then we see your point. We understand it. We weigh it and we find it worthless.

If you don't like our Bill of Rights, move to Europe.

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

AZhitman wrote:I concur that Pers Morgan is mentally ill. Good thing he'll have Obamacare!
Right! Oh wait, Obamacare doesn't include mental health care. Dang.

...which is pretty ridiculous, because that seems to be the worst problem in our country now.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

Hmmm. SO, BO hates the mentally ill? :)

Using lefty logic, that's exactly how it would have sounded if the right had drafted the plan.

User avatar
AZhitman
Administrator
Posts: 71063
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 2:04 am
Car: 58 L210, 63 Bluebird RHD, 64 NL320, 65 SPL310, 66 411 RHD, 67 WRL411, 68 510 SR20, 75 280Z RB25, 77 620 SR20, 79 B310, 90 S13, 92 SE-R, 92 Silvia Qs, 98 S14.
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Post

telcoman wrote:What I'm saying is at the time the 2nd amendment was written into our constitution single shot muskets were the type of weapons then in use.
OK, I'm back. I'm not done hitting you in your Lefty, addled head with logic.

When the First Amendment was written into our Constitution, movies didn't exist. Neither did television. Email, forums, Facebook, audio recordings, radio... Still yet to be invented.

So, ask your beloved Howard Stern if he feels the First Amendment should apply to him. After all, when the First Amendment was written, people spoke their mind in person.

I think he'd hit you in the head too.

User avatar
Ace2cool
Posts: 12672
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:21 pm
Car: 1991 Nissan 300ZX TT
1966 Datsun Fairlady 1600
2005 Suzuki GSX-R 600
1974 Honda CB550 Four
2009 Ford F150 Lariat
Location: Murfreesboro, TN

Post

The MOST impersonal that the first amendment ever got back in those days was a newspaper. Even then, the press usually was within a few miles of you, so if you felt strongly about something, you could go speak your mind in person. No one was hiding behind a TV camera.

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

Newspapers weren't hiding behind armed security so they could say whatever they wanted, while at the same time, calling for abolishing the 2nd amendment.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5763
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

WDRacing wrote:
If you don't like our Bill of Rights, move to Europe.
Nah! As much as I liked visiting Europe as well as serving in the US Army over there, (Why are we still there?) I think I'll remain here to continue to vote and campaign with the 51% that voted against a party that still fails to understand why they lost the last two presidential elections.

Telcoman

User avatar
WDRacing
Moderator
Posts: 23925
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:00 am
Car: 95 240SX, 99 BMW 540i, 01 Chevy Express, 14 Ford Escape
Location: MFFO
Contact:

Post

telcoman wrote: (Why are we still there?)
I'll agree with you on this part for sure. We're part of NATO, anything we need to launch can be done from a NATO base. Defense spending could be cut almost in half.

Regardless, guns save lives and protect people every day.

User avatar
stebo0728
Posts: 2810
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 4:43 pm
Car: 1993 300ZX, White, T-Top
Contact:

Post

Why is it that liberals fail to realize that the Bill of Rights was not a document that created the rights it contains, it was a document that sought to spell out rights that already exist, inalienable rights.

But then in reality, the only rights we truly have, that are inalienable, are those that we are both willing and able to defend against infringement.

User avatar
BusyBadger
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:20 pm
Car: '92 Nissan 240SX
'05 Nissan 350Z
'13 Nissan Juke
Contact:

Post

Ace2cool wrote:The MOST impersonal that the first amendment ever got back in those days was a newspaper. Even then, the press usually was within a few miles of you, so if you felt strongly about something, you could go speak your mind in person. No one was hiding behind a TV camera.
I posit that since the Founding Fathers could not have possibly seen the advent of radio, television and the internet that none of the news and/or speech from any of them is protected.
stebo0728 wrote:Why is it that liberals fail to realize that the Bill of Rights was not a document that created the rights it contains, it was a document that sought to spell out rights that already exist, inalienable rights.
:yesnod

Chuck Woolery understands...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o&showinfo=0[/youtube]

Lol @ 3:51-4:14

User avatar
biggie
Moderator
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 2:31 am
Car: '16 Q70L/'14 Q60S Vert/'19 Armada/'09 FX35
Location: Clemmons, NC

Post

During the constitution times the citizens had the same guns as the army. We have already dialed that down since TRUE assault weapons are illegal (without some hard to get papers/taxes in most places).

Oh and I love the Chuck video. Just wished he'd have said "we'll be back in 2 and 2" at the end.


Return to “Politics Etc.”