When you come back with some evidence and data that refutes the facts what I and many others have posted, you let me know.
I couldn't care less if you agree or not. The point is it was response to a post by RFDACM02. I disagreed and in the spirit of debate I posted why I did. It wasn't just an unsubstantiated, knee jerk answer.Quote:
I agree that was wrong. What's your point?
This is typical of your answers, nothing. What have you added here to the debate? What solution have you put forth?Quote:
So your solution is to do nothing since nothing will be perfect. Let's get rid of all laws since I can show that any law prohibits anything hasn't stopped people from breaking it.
Many of us on here have identified most of the issues leading up to this; failure to enforce the laws we have, mental health system failures, educators and professionals missing the blatant signs of instability, plea bargaining, the inability to have a comprehensive criminal data base, etc. Then went on to propose some relevant solutions; enforce the laws we have, have the background check to include mental heath, mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with a fire arm, eliminate plea bargaining to lesser charges, IE to a misdemeanor from felony, allow the public the ability to defend itself and teachers the ability to protect the children.
The individual that is looking for their media moment has proven very adept at breaking any and all laws standing in their way. You honestly think something as mundane as a ban on high capacity magazines is really going to prevent that? But better mental health screening by educators, medical personal, and family involvement will.
Maybe you are not as anti-gun as many of the fringe groups that do want to ban all semi-automatic weapons. I will give you that.
That being said, the kind of restrictions that you do support do make you anti-gun. I certainly don't consider myself to be rabid pro-gun, and as I stated earlier, I don't own a single gun and likely never will.However, I fully support the right of any citizen with a clean record to be able to purchase a gun in a timely fashion without a cumbersome background check. The current system is fine and works well the VAST majority of the time.
As far as the idea that some have tossed around in the media that the check should go further, such as a financial check to make sure that the buyer is not financially unstable, and won't shoot his boss who just fired him is absolute nonsense and does CLEARLY abride the right of that law-abinding citizen to own a weapon. And yes, I have significant reservations regarding the right of an American to purchase and own a weapon because one (potentially incompenet) psycholgist says that he may have concernsd about his mental stability. He can still buy knives, baseball bats, gasoline and matches and hudreds of other items that can be used to kill, burn or blow up one, three or 40 people. The reality is in most states mental health professionals are already required to report such people. If they have been committed in the past, or meet the criteria for committment, yes, but simply become somebody is concerned .... NO.
The whole clip restriction is nothing but nonsense as well.
I have no issues with requiring background checks for purchases from a dealer but requiring them if want to sell my guns to the guy down the the block is nothing but a pile of bullcrap. Sorry, but as a citizen I have the right to sell what I want to who I want without any government interference. None.
And gun registration ... None of the damn governments business. NONE.
Eventually they will run out or won't be able to keep up with an entity buying ammo by the truckload. The government will have manufacturers turning out more bullets in an hour than most sport shooters can produce in a week. Then there is the amount of components that will no longer be available making all those AR-15's good for wall decorations and not much else.
Because no insurgent would ever recover weapons and ammunition from dead or captured military personnel they engaged? Right? Like they did for decades in Viet Nam...
Despots and tyrants are not concerned about the matters you discuss. IE. Hussein's gassing the Kurds. Pol Pot wreaking havoc on his civilian opposition. You should read more about them. Yes, I do believe they will target entire pockets of the civilian population. There are numerous examples of that type of force being used.
And you believe that nations that openly hate us already, as well as the UN itself would allow that? You are delusional, they would see it as an opportunity to finally crush the United States with the aid of an interior rebellion.
You should have stopped where you claim you aren't an expert. The history of despots is contradictory to what you claim will happen.
Just like you should stop speaking on firearms, you don't know the proper nomenclature, you have absolutely no idea about firearms law, and do nothing but speak from left wing anti-gun talking points. You are the worst kind of anti-gun person, you are an appeaser who believes it is okay to whittle away at rights until finally you have taken them all.
I bet there would be a capable military blocking those pipelines with considerably more secured borders. I can easily see a border fence(s) built with a minefield in between them ala the Iron Curtain in Berlin. Before you doubt the ability of the government to construct such a large project I suggest you drive on the Interstate Highway System portion that is nearest your home. I doubt many nations would run to the aid of a rebellion that claimed to believe in democracy or liberty. The only nation that has done such a thing in recent years is the US. I doubt those nations would risk the chance of incurring the wrath of the US military might that is now being controlled by a tyrant or group of tyrants.
They can't get it built now without any hint of rebellion. How do you think they would do it with insurgent forces sabotaging the "wall" every chance they got? If the nationa revolts the military will be too damn busy fighting to worry about building your silly super wall to stop supplies from coming in.
That is the assumption of the scenario put forth by those who believe they're owning an AR-15 is the last hope in case that occurs. The history of tyrants is they do exactly what they want whether or not the law allows it. Again, you should read up more on this topic.
Read the writings of this nation's Founding Fathers, they are VERY EXPLICITLY CLEAR on the reasoning for the Second Ammendment and that is to allow the citizens the right to defend themselves against their own government as needed. You like to talk about doing research, do some of you own on this topic. Frankly, your posts on this topic make it even more clear that civilians should be armed to protect themselves against the government. Whereas I said I doubted it would happen, you have made it clear that if it does my very own government would have no trouble murdering by military massacres entire cities. I am even more resolved now to fight to keep my gun rights. President Obama has made it perfectly clear he cares little about how this country is supposed to operate by issuing executive order after executive order bypassing congress and MY elected representatives to force laws down the throat of an unwilling populace. He is well on the way to becoming an elected dictator and his popularity level is dropping more every day. He may very well become the despot you speak of. Look at the amount of ammunition the government has purchased for "Homeand Defense." Social Security, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Agriculture together have purchased over a half a million rounds of ammunition. Homeland Security has purchased over a billion rounds of ammunition. What is the need for so much ammunition to be stockpiled? Especially by the Dept of Ag and the NOAA? Homeland security has purchased armored vehicles and bullet proof check point booths. To what end?
Funny you make that claim. I detailed my rationale numerous times. Your response was that I'm completely anti-gun. I've asked several times for you to prove that I've advocated eliminating private firearms ownership. You've yet to put forth an example.
You dance and sing and divert. You refuse to admit that complete lack of firearm's knowledge and firearm's law prove you are nothing but an anti-gun mouthpiece. Like I have said I would respect you more if you were honest about your agenda...but you won't be because neither is Obama.
More paranoia from planet wingnuttia.
More left wing talking points. You can't beat me with facts so label me a wing nut. Nice try too bad you are out numbered here by people that agree with me. You know kind of like when you shout down LA when everyone disagrees with him. Too bad on this topic YOU are taking his role.
Just admit it you lack the ability to read and comprehend.
Just admit you know absolutely nothing about firearms law and nomenclature and all you have is talking points spoon fed to you.
I've defended it numerous times. You've made several wild claims completely unsubstantiated by any facts. I have to say it's been fascinating watching you dissolve into rants and name calling. It really proves your arguments lack substance when confronted with facts.
You've defended nothing other than the sanctity of the potato chip industry. Nice try but speaking on the topic of firearms points out what a leftist mindless drone you actually are.
Is this the only incident of this type? I agree the teachers at Sandy Hook were concerned with their students. Are teachers the only adults present at a school? Are there not counselors, janitors, or other administrative staff? Every school my kids attended had a number of adults present that were not engaged in teaching in the classroom
Let's talk about the shooting at the high school in Colorado. A school filled with able bodied teenagers, I am sure many athletes, as well as male teachers. Kliebold and Harris reloaded many times, in fact one of them used a firearm with 10 round magazines that he reloaded over a dozen times. Why with all of those able bodied people there didn't a single one attempt to disarm them while they reloaded?
Yet that happened with Jared Loughner and Kip Kinkel. It's becoming very obvious you are not as well versed on this topic as you claim or you would know that. Your comment about outrunning bullets is precisely why the issue of homicide via firearms is a different argument than homicide via knives or baseball bats. Thanks for bringing it up.
You point out 2 incidents where potential victims fought back...I have pointed out why in some circumstances, like Sandy Hook, or the high school in Colorado where it didn't happen, further it didn't happen at the movie theater in Colorado either.
It's too bad that the total number of homicides that occurred far outweigh the number by firearms. So much for whatever point you were trying to make.
The whole clip restriction is nothing but nonsense as well.
Better LAFE. This post wasn't an entire display of stupidity that you typically post.
I'm happy to continue to debate this particular portion of the issue with you as I beleive it to be another feel good, yet ineffective measure that in fact places those whom are faced with true self defense scenarios at far greater danger than those faceing a mass murdered armed with any type of firearm. Just don't tell me you also support taxing ammo until no one can afford it?
For decades? Now you just admitted you are history challenged. The US wasn't involved for decades. But keep thinking an insurgent force will be capable of resupplying itself via that method.
First of all, DUH? The US first sent military "Advisors" into Viet Nam in 1955, "Combat Troops" were introduced in 1965. The truth is the Viet Nam war began almost immediately after WWII and the French who claimed Viet Nam as a colony were the first to fight there. We took over from them during the era of the Domino Theory and used the excuse that if Viet Nam fell to Communism so would all of Asia. Care for anymore history lessons about Viet Nam?
The Viet Cong had a long history of taking and reusing the weapons of those they fought against. It started with the French and moved on to the American troops serving there. So nice try once again, but it is a shame facts out play your cutesy attempts at superiority.
I believe that is a very real possibility given they would be taking on a military machine and country that spends more on the military than the rest of them combined.
That would be fragmented and in disarray due to the fact that many units of the military will simply not follow an illegal order to attack and illegally murder US citizens. The premise you have that every military man and unit will fall into line like good old Nazis is simply delusional.
Pretty standard answer for someone who knows they haven't a single clue what they are talking about but is spoon fed a script by their leaders and isn't smart enough to think for themselves.
Now you continue your slide into the ignorance of how tyrants rule. The reasons the wall can't get built is because of political infighting in our nation's leadership. That obstacle is eliminated if the tyranny you claim is in place.
And once again your entire premise collapses if even only half of the military flips the bird to the president and says not on my watch am I killing US citizens.
The Founding Fathers never foresaw their government possessing nuke subs, WMD's (conventional and nuclear), fighter planes, and smart bombs. The only cutting edge technology at the time was artillery. Both sides possessed that capability.
I and many others believe that is EXACTLY why the founding fathers do not mention a specific type of firearm. Unlike you they were visionary enough to know that technology would advance everything including firearms.
You continue to avoid the obvious issue that I've never advocated the elimination of firearms ownership.
You ranted on and on and on about assault weapons and how no one needed them. You have advocated whittling away rights guaranteed by the constitution by registration and by limiting access to firearms accessories. You just plain don't have the courage to come out and admit who you are and your real goal.
I continue to use facts. You just don't like them. Can't help that.
You haven't posted a single fact about anything yet.
Just admit that you can't read.
Oh I can read and I have proved that countless times proving you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to firearms, firearms related law, history and the law abiding gun owning public. Keep preaching those talking points it is all you have.
I don't know why that group didn't react in that manner. I just know that others have done exactly that.
A VAST minority have. Again the reality is the overwhelming majority hide, or flee. They don't fight back.
See above response.
That is too bad.
It is too bad that we continue to blame the inanimate object over the mentally ill individual with a gun, or the criminal with a gun. Hammers murder more people in a year than guns yet there is no outcry for hammer registration, or banning larger hammers because they may be more deadly. Why not? Using your logic they should be registered and heavily controlled. Maybe checked out at a local hammer club when needed?
Please continue to write your nonsensical beliefs. In your next post, could you please show where I have advocated the elimination of firearms ownership?
Please continue to be a left wing parrot. thinking for yourself must scare the absolute crap out of you.
To me if you call for eliminating any gun rights of law abiding citizens you are leading down the path of elimination of all gun rights. Many others see what Obama and his minions have said about eliminating ALL private gun ownership. Open your eyes and stop drinking the kool aid. Well unless you truly enjoy the anti-gun kool-aid flavor.
You must be at your wits end...you can't shout us down like you do people in the political topic...
To operate a motor vehicle in PA, you need to be licensed either in PA or your home state. To carry a concealed weapon in PA, you need to be registered in PA or another state with reciprocity.
To purchase a firearm in PA from a dealer you will need to fill out a bill of sale, undergo a background check, and the dealer needs to fill out additional forms. To purchase a vehicle from a dealer in PA (for private use - not titled) you will need to fill out a bill of sale and the dealer needs to fill out a form of disposition.
To me it sounds like they are very similar in paperwork. Financing either (normally not allowed with firearms, but I guess you could) will require a lot more paperwork and registration / insurance.
Every year there are several mass murders by drunk drivers (search for drunk bus drivers and look at the amount every year).
Do the victims or their families care whether it was intentional or irresponsible? The effect is the same; many dead, many injured by the act of a single person acting in an unawful manner. The bus drivers had to register to operate the vehicle, had to show proof of elligibility to purchase the alcohol, and yet they were able to commit these unspeakable acts.Quote:
Did these drunk bus drivers actively set out to kill individuals or was the result of irresponsible behavior on their part?
Other than it being a "right"....I have yet to hear a need for larger capacity magazines. I have yet to hear a need for certain weapons. Only answers I got were "its my right" and "its my hobby". Yes, you have the right to own a weapon. I have no problem with you owning a weapon....as long as its not a certain type.
and I freely admit...it will be tough defining that type as the generic semi-automatic / assault / etc isn't doing it.
All the government would have to do to control or put down an uprising is to shut down refineries that make fuel. There are not that many of them, The country would be out of fuel in a week or less.
That mean nothing moves anywhere food, no power, no water, ect. Yeah sure there are a few that could handle that but not many, I would guess less than 15-20%. Most people would starve to death in a short amount of time.
Do I think this will happen...NO, But I find it funny when people think that they would be able to do anything to stop the government with their little guns.