It was a cross reference to another thread, but I'll be better in futureQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Printable View
It was a cross reference to another thread, but I'll be better in futureQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Sorry, wrong picture
Sex Pistols drool ok?
A gun nut would take that wonderful illustrative graph posted by Martin on the last page and say, "look at Mexico". Is that not proof that guns have NOTHING to do with gun deaths.
That is an illustrative graph. Let's copy onto this page so we can see it without going back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Fine, so you Americans want your country to be like Mexico. You going to have to do your own washing.
FUCK YEA!
I think I saw that map in my ninth grade geography/social-studies book (published in Texas).
Hey man, sure we enjoy killing each other, but the charts don't show it's mainly the lowest rung of society cleaning the bottom of the tank, taking out the trash. We also spend like three times more than the entire rest of the world on Defense; Nuclear Missiles, Cruise Missiles, jets, subs.
We're #1!!!
If you turn on the TV and there is sex and murder, that's a drama.
If you turn on the TV and it's sex and jokes, it's a comedy.
Guns have become a huge part of the US Psyche, would we be better off without them????
Of course we would.
How do you do it? Congress can't even agree to take Assault Rifles off the street!!! JESUS!!!
http://nyti.ms/1am4ppa
Here are a few excerpts:
"it is impossible to track suicides using news media accounts — and suicides, according to the C.D.C., account for some 60 percent of gun deaths. "
"Mostly we were trying to get a feel for the scale and scope of gun violence in America. A year later, it seems like a good time to take stock.First, the biggest surprise, especially early on, was how frequently either a child accidentally shot another child — using a loaded gun that happened to be lying around — or an adult accidentally shot a child while handling a loaded gun."
"There are an estimated 300 million guns in America, and that’s not going to change anytime soon. But to read The Gun Report is to be struck anew at the reality that most of the people who die from guns would still be alive if we just had fewer of them. The guys in the movie theater would have had a fistfight instead of a shooting. The momentary flush of anger would pass. The suicidal person might have taken a pause if taking one’s life were more difficult. And on, and on. The idea that guns, on balance, save lives — which is one of the most common sentiments expressed in the pro-gun comments posted to The Gun Report — is ludicrous.
On the contrary: The clearest message The Gun Report sends is the most obvious. Guns make killing way too easy."
In the U.S. you can be killed for playing "thug" music in your car.
http://nyti.ms/1io0CYL
http://slowfacts.files.wordpress.com...un-control.jpg
Just wanted to share this since i found that it was an interesting point of view. I rarely agree with what this guy has to say though. He's one of those libertarian "the free market will regulate itself" type of people.
If you're for the elimination of gun ownership, then was Stefan says may be applicable. But if you favor common sense regulation of firearms and gun ownership, you are will not favor the elimination of ownership and Stefan becomes irrelevant.
Sweetheart, you are VERY confused. The M4 and the M16A2 are different rifles. I have carried, fired, and field stripped both. If you reference current DoD procurement policy, you will find that the U.S. military is in the process of phasing out the M16 in favor of the M4 for all service branches.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Both the M4 and the M16 derive from Stover’s original AR-15 design. But they are certainly distinct rifles. One is not “commonly known” as the other. They are different things. The AR-15 is not specific rifle, it is a class of rifle. There are MANY AR-15 variants. Most, but not all, are manufactured by Colt (i.e., see Bushmaster).
I have no idea what any of that might have to do with Ford trucks.
You are correct that firearm manufacturers innovated ways to skirt the AWB. It is also true that the AWB reduced firearm ownership nationwide and made it more difficult to obtain these weapons, which is the whole point of gun control. Moreover, with determined political leadership, it is possible to design legislation to plug loopholes and continue to reduce the presence of these weapons in our society (see below).Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
Assault weapon bans typically define features that make a specific rifle an “assault weapon.” Legally, under these statutes, assault weapons are specific things, and not “any weapon used in an assault.”Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
It is also possible to ban specific weapons. California’s Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banns AR-15 and a laundry list of other assault weapons by name. It was upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2000 (Kasler v. Lockyer).
See you’ve been drinking the NRA’s Kool-Aid, which leads you to assume that gun control means gun eradication. But as the courts have made clear, there are Constitutionally acceptable ways to limit civilian gun ownership and the proliferation of firearms in our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
There’s Shew v. Malloy, which I linked to earlier, upholding Connecticut’s assault weapons ban. NYSRPA v. Cuomo recently upheld New York’s SAFE Act. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008 upheld Washington D.C.’s assault weapons ban.
So again, the courts have made clear that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an unlimited right for civilians to own any firearm they choose. Under the U.S. Constitution, local, state, and federal lawmakers can design common sense gun control regulations to limit civilian ownership of firearms.
You’re right that there is currently a lack of political will to do so at the federal level, but that’s because of the gun lobby’s deep pockets, not because of any Constitutional restrictions. That will change someday soon, and we will see federal legislation to limit civilian ownership of assault weapons.
Stalin and Hitler killed millions of their own citizens, it's refreshing that in a Land ruled for, by, and of the people, we kill ourselves.
The US Govt has played a large part in Civil Rights since 1964, and to be honest I am amazed how well they've gone towards eliminated smoking, but you stomp out one fire, Americans weigh like twice as much as they did in 1964. And Americans in the 1950s would have had a good laugh if Bush and Cheney ran for office. We need Education across the board.
The AK-47 is based on the Nazi assault rifle of 1944, frankly, after 70 years I'm surprised they don't have ray guns or chemical warfare guns, maybe the US Govt HAS been doing stuff we never hear about!!
A few random thoughts -
1) In political theory, legitimate government is usually defined as having, amongst other things, a monopoly on the use of force. This is taken to mean that the state can impose its authority on a rebellious individual or group of individuals who are not assumed to have any popular support, although this might be challenged in some cases; organised crime would be another group attempting to live beyond the law which the state cannot tolerate. Civil wars are obvious examples of a breakdown of legitimate government in which actual state power is contested between one or more groups.
In the USA, there have been, presumably still are armed militia -they used to be in Montana for some reason- and in the past the KKK would be an example of a quasi-autonomous group who challenged the authority of the state which the state had a legitimate right to tackle using the law as well as force. Force was used in Philadelphia in 1985 by the Mayor, Wilson Goode owing to the chronic violations of the law by an Africanist sect ('MOVE') and is an example of the legitimate use of force, even if Goode's reputation subsequently sank like a stone.
Again, it might be the case that in Ohio in 1970 the suppression of the 'riot' on Kent State Campus by the Ohio National Guard was the legitimate use of force, or, what it exposes is the risk that state or federal governments take when they do use their right to use force. Were there alternatives to force that could have resolved the situations in Ohio and Philadelphia?
The oddity in the USA is that while nobody doubts the superior fire-power of the Federal and state governments, the Constitutional right to bear arms might appear to undermine the legitimacy of Congress and the Executive -except that the Constitutional right was intended to protect the USA and its Constitution from those who would seek to overthrow it (ie the British). Perhaps this means that those Americans who think their government has been 'stolen' by a Muslim from Kenya believe they have a legitimate right to overthrow the government by the use of arms. An interesting problem, election results notwithstanding.
It would seem the Federal government has a right to take away your weapons, and it does not have that right. Surely the two positions cannot both be right-? Or is it the case that if it became illegal to own anything more powerful than a revolver, agents of the state would search all homes where licensed weapons are owned, to forcibly take away those guns not surrendered by the owner, and no longer deemed legal to own?
2) Bobvela has not dealt with a clear example of where the legal purchase of weapons becomes the agency of death: for example, a sane, middle aged mother buys firearms which her son, tormented by demons, hearing voices, on medication, stops taking the pills and, convinced that only he can fulfill God's command, slaughters as many children as he can in the local school. At what point, and with what means can the licensing authority prevent arms from reaching people with mental illness? Presumably the person buying a weapon would need to provide proof that nobody in the home or likely to visit the home is on medication, has a history of behavioural malfunctions?
One thing improved gun safety laws can do is have a downstream effect on the gun culture in this country. When you regulate a commercial item you are telling people it is an item to be dealt with cautiously. Gun control laws cannot deal with every instance of gun violence because people will still be able to obtain them and there will always be a black market. But someone looking at the history of the south may have been tempted to say: are you going to legislate morality? Do you think racism ends the minute you integrate schools? No, but there is an interplay between that which the government takes a stand against and decides to regulate and public perception.
There will only be a correlation between gun availability and murder rates. And legislation will not have a 1:1 effect on gun availability, but it will chip away at people's impunity in stockpiling guns and behaving recklessly.
Anybody who doesn't believe that governmental registration of firearms is part of a plan to confiscate our guns need only look at the handgun registration laws of 1968 which led to the registration of handguns and eventually led to the confiscation of all the handguns in America.
This right here...
But Randy, who was responsible for confiscating your brain?Quote:
Originally Posted by Randydude7
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...-jurors-n31231
That the jury is even contemplating a self-defense instruction on the murder charge is a terrible sign. You cannot have a reasonable fear that your life is in danger requiring the use of gunfire against someone who does not have a weapon.
Edit: perhaps there's a scenario where you could, but it's extremely unlikely. That this shmoe is pulling a gun at a gas station against a group of teens because their music is loud and some people are defending him just shows how far from reality these gun cultists have gone.
Randy had me going up until the line, "eventually led to the confiscation of all the handguns in America." At that point I deduced he was being facetious.
At any rate, I agree with broncofan, how could a jury possibly be deadlocked on Dunn's first degree murder charge? I think it time for professional organizations to start boycotting Texas, Florida and other southern states until they revoke their stand-your-ground laws. I'm asking the organizations to which I belong to hold their conferences in non-SYG locales.
The terrible thing is they instruct the jury on what self-defense is. So they say, someone can use force if they have a reasonable belief they are going to be harmed. So somebody on that jury thought, "well, the music was loud and he may have been getting out of his car and he was moving kind of briskly and he was wearing a jacket that was kind of baggy." I have probably provided this kind of reasonable belief to others about 1.3 million times in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
But some will say this crime was just one of those horrible unavoidable tragedies. That Dunn was not looking for an opportunity to use a weapon he carried around while eyeing his neighbors with hostility.
We've all heard the phrase, "that money was burning a hole in his pocket." I think these guys exercise about as much self control over their guns. They carry because they long to be heros. They aren't scared for their lives, they are imps of impulse.
Not to belabor a point, but if it's obvious to me maybe it's obvious to others.
Does it not indicate that there's something wrong with this guy that he's complaining about loud music at a gas station? At a fucking gas station? If that is not direct evidence that he's looking to create a problem nothing is.
And then he's shocked that he ends up getting convicted for shooting an unarmed teenager. Perhaps we need a nation-wide educational program about the parameters of self-defense. No, sir, you cannot shoot someone because they make you uncomfortable.
This typical politician loved gun control. Makes them more valuable for his profit ;-):
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._as_a_gun.html
That clown is all over our local radio. More douchebag, hypocritical goody-two-shoe public servants. Tug on my heartstrings while you're tugging on Bubba's cock, Leland Yee.Quote:
Originally Posted by 95racer
His hypocrisy only underscores the difficulty and the necessity of getting some real arms control legislation passed in this country.
Playing rap "music" should be a capital offense everywhere. Rap is not music, it is a cacophony of noises just like modern classical.
hello troll.
They come for the Rappers today and the Metalheads tomorrow. I'll put up with their crap if they put up with mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilisser
Slayer - Raining Blood HD - YouTube
Guess I'll be listening to some Jay-Z and Snoop today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilisser
Hey, turn that shit up, Ben. Way up. Over on this end of the country I'll be playing some "modern classical." Maybe Stockhausen. Wouldn't want to drift into Post-Modern. No telling how that would effect the psyche of our little troll from the fiords.
I have a $1500 aftermarket sound system in my car. Do you REALLY think I play my music softly?Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Today's Rap, Metal, Country= tomorrow's salvation army 25 cent bin.
I was talking to Elvis just last week, and while he always keeps a loaded nine next to the tv remote, just incase Robert Goulet interrupts an evening of Clambake and Harum Scarum, He can't understand why Congress would bend over backwards to put guns in the hands of the mentally ill and criminals.
He says it's one reason he stays in the bunker at the compound.
Just a sobering reminder that it is now 16 months since this thread was started by somebody brainwashed into thinking that unrestricted gun ownership - and its corollary, unrestricted killing - was somehow under threat from the Obama administration.
I'd offer a sardonic laugh, but it seems inappropriate in the face of the continuing daily slaughter.
People brainwashed in both ways many thinking that the people they vote for care about them more than keeping their jobs and becoming rich.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Another shooting at Fort Hood.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/shooti...ry?id=23166944
Music is sound organized in time. That is all. Everything else is just an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilisser
It's about rhythm, music (dance), and about telling stories (message). The cowboys who road the range in movies, decades ago, are now living in the inner city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trilisser
Didn't take too long for "you-know-who" to blame "you-know-who" :yayo:Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Fox & Friends Blames Obama For Ford Hood shooting - YouTube