18 Children Dead in CT Mass Shooting

[scfire86]

Yet another irrelvant spins. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution based on their experience and the history available to them. Few people, gun owners or not, truly think the US military and gunowners or any citizens are in for a showdown. This sadly is a few nutjobs giving all of us a bad name. The problem with nutjobs and fanatics of any sort is they seek the spotlight. Regardless of the validity of the thought or idea in the Founding Father's heads in our current world, the Constituion remains and shoiuld not be manipulated to suit an agenda.

I agree. However, pro-gun enthusiast Alex Jones didn't do gun owners any favors when he went on a tirade on national TV ranting about 1776 coming again if someone comes to take his guns. My point is folks like him use the need to defend themselves from an oppressive government that is using force to take away their freedom(s). Given they would be up against the modern US military (assuming the military would be willing to turn on the citizenry), they would be run over pretty quickly.

What's next Speech is Free if it's approved? We already know that not all speech is completely free, there are limitations and restrictions, will the antigun people go after Hollywood and video games with the same fervor? Attack their Constitutional defense?

I doubt it. Given that other nations have violent movies and violent video games and also have a very low homicide by gun rate.

Now, it's likely normal to paint all members of a membership group as their membership alone indicates they support the goals, missions and policies of the group (always difficult for many/most IAFF members at election time). I for one wish there was a reasonable gun owners group with nearly the organizational background of the NRA so that the majority of us out here, thinking that we can close loopholes and ensure fewer guns are unaccounted for would have a voice that doesn't toss in conspiracy theories and stupid ideas as part of the good ones.

Those are all good points and I agree with you. I find it hilarious that many of the pro-gun-nut folks out there are focusing on Obama. The gun issue has never been of much interest to him during his presidency. It's not been any sort of a policy issue of his administration in the least. The only reason now that he is acting is that the American people themselves have become motivated to work on the problem. He's not initiating this interest in gun control laws, he's just following the lead of a large portion of the citizenry. Something a president is supposed to do.

[scfire86]

The problem is your answer, and the anti-gun crowd's answer is to limit the right of law abiding folks. A ban on any type of weapon will have no ... zero ... nada .... affect on the ability of criminals to get guns. It will only affect those who will use those guns legally. That's the issue.

Gawd your stupidity continues to shine brightly. What rights am I demanding be limited?

In fact, many who want to ban guns don't even have the background to use the correct technical terminolgy to ban specific weapons but instead use sweeping terms. That's problem number 2.

So what? This point is irrelevant. Being an expert in a field's terminology isn't a requirement to make law. You should reread the Constitution you claim to love so much. Be prepared. There are no pictures and they used really big words.

We'll find out today what the village idiot occupying the White House and his band of anti-gun morons have to say about this issue. I'm sure it will be nothing morte than a request for Congress to ban large quanity clips, which has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the problem and throwing more money WHICH THE COUNTRY DOES NOT HAVE at mental health, as well as few other ticky-tack feel good bull**** measures.

Ha ha ha. Says a lot about his opponent's capability that he got beat by someone you perceive as a village idiot. You must believe his opponent was even more of an idiot given that Obama beat him.....handily.

The fact is none of that is going to do a damn thing to reduce gun volience and will only punish those that have been obeying the law.

Other countries would disagree with you. They have models that work. But it would require that people like you read books that have no pictures in them to know that.

Sig Hiel.

Spellcheck is your friend. Use it. You obviously need it for words larger than at least three letters.

[FyredUp]

Then that wouldn't be the full might of the US military. Then would it. Which is not the point I made. The only way that compares to the scenario I've put forth is if those contractors have full access to the weaponry and technology of the current military with the authority to use any and all of it. Which would enable them to run through a group of folks armed with AR-15's pretty quickly.

If the President hired mercenaries, "OH WAIT they call them PRIVATE CONTRACTORS," what makes you believe they wouldn't have access to any, and all, weaponry currently in the inventory of the US Military? Hell, Mr Executive order could make it happen with a stroke of his pen, he does have a history of bypassing the legislature when they tell him no.

Again your lack of any real knowledge on insurgency and guerilla warfare is absolutely laughable. The Russians were driven out of Afghanistan by essentially a Third World bunch of rebels. These rebels did use AK-47s, and other modern small arms, but many of then were armed with surplus WW2 bolt action rifles, and some even had muskets. The Russians had tanks, and airplanes, and nuclear subs, as well as advanced surveilance equipment and still lost. In fact, much of that same technology is still being used to kill US troops after a decade of fighting. Why haven't we utterly wiped them out with all of our technology?

You fail to see that people defending their homeland will pay a VERY heavy price to protect it. Look back through history, the American Revolution, Viet Nam War, the Afghanies fighting through history against numerous invaders., just to name a few. The American people, at least some of them anyway, will do exactly the same and it will be very costly to whomever wishes to try and conquer us and destroy our freedom.


Once again. Claiming I'm anti-gun based upon your paranoia. Show me where I've advocated eliminating private ownership of firearms. Other than in the recesses of your mind.

Before you diverted you ranted on and on about assault rifles, until myself and others here showed you what an completely uninformed buffoon you truly are on the topic of firearms nomenclature.

You are anti-gun alright and not diversions by you into labeling me and others as paranoid will hide that. You are an appeaser and that Neville, is worse than just admitting you are anti-gun.

Just admit it...It won't change how anyone here feels about you. But then again the truth isn't the tool of ultra lefties is it?

[FyredUp]

Sad but true. Comprehension is not his strong suit.

The truth is you have been proven wrong so many times on this topic that you have nothing left but diversion.

You can't properly identify the firearms you want to control.

You have absolutely no knowledge of the FFL licensing system and the Class 3 license that DOES in fact allow private ownership of fully automatic firearms if you are willing to do the mountain of paperwork and pay the fees.

When you realized you were losing you brought in an irrelevant firearms incident and played the race card.

You claimed the governemt controls how many potato chips you can buy and how you can use them.

You tried, failing miserably, to draw a comparison between explosives and firearms.

I have to say your posts on this topic make me smile becuse they are utter nonsense.

[Chenzo]

Yawn....the slippery slope argument. I could say that about any set of laws. Yet we as a society manage to function. Also, laws can be repealed. Prohibition being a prime example.

Funny you bring prohibition up. How well did banning alcohol work for this country? Oh that's right, it didn't. All you saw with prohibition was a spike in illegal alcohol manufacturing, trafficking, and sales.

And as far as your so called "slipper slope" argument. Look at history in other countries. It all starts somewhere.

[FyredUp]

Then let's get rid of speeding laws, since they won't stop people from speeding.

Never said to eliminate current laws. Enforcing them strictly on criminals, and not adding more to law abiding citizens is my complaint.

Let's get rid of DUI laws since they won't stop people from drinking and driving.

The fact that we see day after day after day about people with 3,4,5...10, 11 DUI convictions caught driving drunk again proves we don't take drunk driving punishment seriously enough.

Let's get rid of all drug laws since they won't stop people from using drugs.

The war on drugs has failed miserably. We need to change tactics and not having our president supporting giving guns to Mexican drug cartels would be an excellent place to start.

Your logic is we should do nothing since nothing is 100%.

Nope my logic is quite simple. Punish criminals harshly enough that it actually means something. Stop writing new laws to punish law abiders and instead punish the law breakers. You see how simple my logic is? Do I need poster board and some crayons to help you draw that out?

Try again, you seem to be faltering...

[FyredUp]

Funny you bring prohibition up. How well did banning alcohol work for this country? Oh that's right, it didn't. All you saw with prohibition was a spike in illegal alcohol manufacturing, trafficking, and sales.

And as far as your so called "slipper slope" argument. Look at history in other countries. It all starts somewhere.

Actually, prohibition led to the greatest growth is organized crime and violence. including murder, in the history of the United States. The exact same thing that will happen if a gun "Prohibition" is enacted.

[Chenzo]

I agree. However, pro-gun enthusiast Alex Jones didn't do gun owners any favors when he went on a tirade on national TV ranting about 1776 coming again if someone comes to take his guns. My point is folks like him use the need to defend themselves from an oppressive government that is using force to take away their freedom(s). Given they would be up against the modern US military (assuming the military would be willing to turn on the citizenry), they would be run over pretty quickly.

First off, Alex Jones can't be compared to your average gun owner. He is a conspiracy theorist nut job, and does not represent the bulk of gun owners in America.

Secondly, why do you think they invited Alex Jones on the show? Because they knew he would go ballistic, as he always does. Funny you don't mention other interviews that have taken place, where the pro-gun guests have remained calm and rational in their arguments, while the host goes ballistic.

Like this one, where he interviews Larry Pratt and Piers Morgan calls Larry Pratt an "Unbelievably stupid man"
http://youtu.be/RC4JJWUtzkc

Or this one where Joshua Boston remains calm and rational.
http://youtu.be/iSrvua88lMA

Or this one, again, where the guest presents calm, rational arguments
http://youtu.be/ECxDvwObwZk

And therein lies your, and every other anti-gun lobbyist's, problem. They never seem to quote the interviews or articles where the guess presents calm, rational facts even though the host is attempting to incite an emotional response.

[Chenzo]

Gawd your stupidity continues to shine brightly. What rights am I demanding be limited?
My right, LA's right, any other law abiding citizens right to own a 25, 30, 50, etc round magazine. There's no reason that I or anyone else who is a law abiding citizen to be prohibited from owning a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. I'm not a criminal. My guns aren't used for criminal activity, nor will the ever be.


So what? This point is irrelevant. Being an expert in a field's terminology isn't a requirement to make law.
And that's what they want. Broad definitions so that everything will be covered and included in any ban or regulation. Sorry that several of us believe the definitions regarding our rights being infringed should come from an expert, and not Joe Blow on the street


Other countries would disagree with you. They have models that work. But it would require that people like you read books that have no pictures in them to know that.
Here you are back to the insults. The tactic you regularly go back to when you have no legitimate argument against a point someone just made


Spellcheck is your friend. Use it. You obviously need it for words larger than at least three letters.
To quote one of your most used lines on here, "See post above"

You've got to realize how far off base you are when SO MANY PEOPLE who regularly disagree with LA, have been agreeing with his posts.

[Chenzo]

Actually, prohibition led to the greatest growth is organized crime and violence. including murder, in the history of the United States. The exact same thing that will happen if a gun "Prohibition" is enacted.

I appreciate the extra information. It only reinforces the point I was making.

[Catch22]

First off, Alex Jones can't be compared to your average gun owner. He is a conspiracy theorist nut job, and does not represent the bulk of gun owners in America.

Secondly, why do you think they invited Alex Jones on the show? Because they knew he would go ballistic, as he always does. Funny you don't mention other interviews that have taken place, where the pro-gun guests have remained calm and rational in their arguments, while the host goes ballistic.

Like this one, where he interviews Larry Pratt and Piers Morgan calls Larry Pratt an "Unbelievably stupid man"
http://youtu.be/RC4JJWUtzkc

Or this one where Joshua Boston remains calm and rational.
http://youtu.be/iSrvua88lMA

Or this one, again, where the guest presents calm, rational arguments
http://youtu.be/ECxDvwObwZk

And therein lies your, and every other anti-gun lobbyist's, problem. They never seem to quote the interviews or articles where the guess presents calm, rational facts even though the host is attempting to incite an emotional response.

Or when Ted Nugent actually supplies statistics that Peirs couldn't argue. While it's only made headlines and garnered attention lately, it was almost a year ago he did so.

[Chenzo]

Or when Ted Nugent actually supplies statistics that Peirs couldn't argue. While it's only made headlines and garnered attention lately, it was almost a year ago he did so.

Very true, I forgot about that one.

[Catch22]

Very true, I forgot about that one.

I find him to be a bit over the top for my taste, but the man is intelligent and had his facts when he went on that show. We sat down at work the other day and watched the entire interview, not just the portions you typically see, and were all quite impressed. He made very valid arguments and backed them up with statistics.

[tbzep]

Those are all good points and I agree with you. I find it hilarious that many of the pro-gun-nut folks out there are focusing on Obama. The gun issue has never been of much interest to him during his presidency. It's not been any sort of a policy issue of his administration in the least. The only reason now that he is acting is that the American people themselves have become motivated to work on the problem. He's not initiating this interest in gun control laws, he's just following the lead of a large portion of the citizenry. Something a president is supposed to do.

I'm tired of the gun control conversation since everybody is pretty much repeating the same stuff over and over. I'm not sure why I even dropped back in for a look. Probably because I'm sitting here watching an episode of Emergency and this is the only active thread that isn't about hiring or testing right now.

At any rate, I thought I'd comment on your statement that gun control hasn't been on the President's agenda. I thought all through the first term that gun control and a few other controvercial items were on his agenda, but he knew that forcing the issue would hurt his re-election efforts. I think he stayed away from these items in the first term with full intention of putting them out on the table in this term. I think the shooting just moved up his timetable. Obviously, this is just my opinion and isn't worth arguing.

[Chenzo]

I find him to be a bit over the top for my taste, but the man is intelligent and had his facts when he went on that show. We sat down at work the other day and watched the entire interview, not just the portions you typically see, and were all quite impressed. He made very valid arguments and backed them up with statistics.

I will agree, Ted Nugent can be, has been, and will continue to be a little over the top. However, he comes to the table with facts to back up his statements. He can be fanatical at times, but I've never seen him get Alex Jones "IT'S 1776 ALL OVER AGAIN" fanatical. (Which is exactly why Jones was invited on the Piers Morgan Show. To make gun owners look insane)

[FyredUp]

I will agree, Ted Nugent can be, has been, and will continue to be a little over the top. However, he comes to the table with facts to back up his statements. He can be fanatical at times, but I've never seen him get Alex Jones "IT'S 1776 ALL OVER AGAIN" fanatical. (Which is exactly why Jones was invited on the Piers Morgan Show. To make gun owners look insane)

Personally I think Ted Nugent is NOT a good spokeman for the pro-gun side of this debate. Why? Because of his over the top antics. I think the last thing the pro-gun side needs is the image of a wildman with a gun yelling about killing animals and saying he wants all criminals dead.

NO, I am not saying hunting is bad or that defending yourself is wrong. But you can project a calm rationale image supporting both of those or look like a lunatic and drive as many people away as you pull in.

[LaFireEducator]

Gawd your stupidity continues to shine brightly. What rights am I demanding be limited?

The right to own any gun I want short of a fully automatic weapon. The right to acquire that weapon as a law abiding citizen without a mountain of paperwork. And the right to purchase any size magizine that my law abiding heart desires.

The fact is there are hundreds of ways to kill folks and we are not banning baseball bats (which is the number one weapon used in murders, by the way), pipe wrenches, gasoline and matches, knives and all other sorts of everyday killers.


So what? This point is irrelevant. Being an expert in a field's terminology isn't a requirement to make law. You should reread the Constitution you claim to love so much. Be prepared. There are no pictures and they used really big words.

You want to ban something you need to be VERY, VERY specific about the exact specifications of the items you want to ban. Most anti-gun folks have no idea that a semi-automatic is not, never has been and never will be an assualt weapon, even though it may be dressed up like military style fully automatic. Yes, I want the folks who want to be ban guns to be very specific about what they want to ban using terminology that is used in the industry, not from a dictionary.


Ha ha ha. Says a lot about his opponent's capability that he got beat by someone you perceive as a village idiot. You must believe his opponent was even more of an idiot given that Obama beat him.....handily.

I could talk about the gross lie's and misrepresentations used by the village idiot and his cronnies but I won't. The joke of a president lied over and over about Romney's positions and unfortunately, Romney's handlers weren't skilled enough to reply.

Funny thing is I have a map in my office from USA Today and the VAST majority of the county's in this country voted for Romney. If you look at where the village moron got his votes it was in the urban and high hispanic areas with those that live off our money - government handoffs and entitlements. Funny how that works when you basically support folks and buy votes.


Other countries would disagree with you. They have models that work. But it would require that people like you read books that have no pictures in them to know that.

Sorry but we have a much higher murder rate overall than just about any country, so this isn't about guns. And the VAST majority of the murders that do occur with guns occur with handguns, which are not on the table for discussion. Less than 5% of the gun murders use rifles of any type, and most of those are standard hunting rifles.

If somebody wants to kill someone, they will find a way as I discussed earlier. The fact is that we kill people in this country at a much higher rate than anywhere else. It isn't a gun problem. It's a murder problem.


Spellcheck is your friend. Use it. You obviously need it for words larger than at least three letters.

Funny thing is that it really won't matter how we spell it. The point is that are rights are being taken away at an alarming rate. Soon we may be saying it.

[Chenzo]

Personally I think Ted Nugent is NOT a good spokeman for the pro-gun side of this debate. Why? Because of his over the top antics. I think the last thing the pro-gun side needs is the image of a wildman with a gun yelling about killing animals and saying he wants all criminals dead.
I can understand that, however he's certainly not comparable to Alex Jones. Honestly, the two best "spokesmen" who have come out of this in my opinion are Larry Pratt and Joshua Boston. They've remained calm, and stuck to the facts even when a host has tried to incite an emotional reaction from them. Calm, cool, collected.

Ted Nugent can absolutely come over the top, but he's definitely not Alex Jones crazy.

[FyredUp]

Ted Nugent can absolutely come over the top, but he's definitely not Alex Jones crazy.

I stand by my opinion. He is a screamer and a wildman and when people think of him they think of the wildman, not the rational guy that can beat you with logic and statistics.

[Bones42]

The right to own any gun I want short of a fully automatic weapon. The right to acquire that weapon as a law abiding citizen without a mountain of paperwork. And the right to purchase any size magizine that my law abiding heart desires..

The right to own any gun except a fully automatic weapon (cuz that right has already been taken away - I guess by an amendment to the bill of rights?)

The right to acquire a weapon without doing paperwork? Sorry, freedom of paperwork is not a right. You still have the right to acquire a weapon so NOTHING is being taken away.

You are correct, the right to purchase any size magazine would be restricted (kind of like the fully automatic restriction you mentioned already)


"The point is that are rights are being taken away at an alarming rate." - I have to ask...what rights are being taken away at alarming rates? More directly...what rights have been taken away since Jan 1, 2012? There must be quite a few if it's an alarming rate.