DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
I called her a pig because she is ugly. I don't know or really care about her religious background.
Another shooting....
- Thread starter cracker
- Start date
Rush Power Systems
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- West Jordan Ut
OOOOHHH you did not know, sure, you know it is a PC world and if you are on the right you are a racist anyway, should have said ugly bit*h.
hawkeye 1
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Redondo Beach, CA
This piss poor statement makes it very clear what a real ass-hat you are. You should direct your hate towards those nut-jobs that cause all that grief. Your comment makes me think that you must be one of them. I would have some more choice words for your statement, but i just don't want this to be deleted.
Real internet tough guy you are.LOL :moon:
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
My most favorite gun to shoot is my AR-10.
I like to shoot it because it's powerful, I like to shoot at long range targets and being "gasp" semi-auto the recoil is about half that of a bolt action .308
I joke about this gun being my long range zombie killer when the apocalypse comes but honestly we both know that isn't going to happen. Do I need this gun? No. Would I use it to defend my home? No, unless we are talking about zombies and I can pick them off at 300 yards.
Still, why should I have this gun taken away from me? Just because it isn't necessary to own? Neither is your jeep. You don't need 4wd, you would burn a lot less gas in a Subaru if snow is an issue. It's about personal freedom. Yes, I know this is a concept hard to grasp in your country since you have lost so many of yours but here in this country it still means something and an overwhelming number of us don't want to lose it.
I like to shoot it because it's powerful, I like to shoot at long range targets and being "gasp" semi-auto the recoil is about half that of a bolt action .308
I joke about this gun being my long range zombie killer when the apocalypse comes but honestly we both know that isn't going to happen. Do I need this gun? No. Would I use it to defend my home? No, unless we are talking about zombies and I can pick them off at 300 yards.
Still, why should I have this gun taken away from me? Just because it isn't necessary to own? Neither is your jeep. You don't need 4wd, you would burn a lot less gas in a Subaru if snow is an issue. It's about personal freedom. Yes, I know this is a concept hard to grasp in your country since you have lost so many of yours but here in this country it still means something and an overwhelming number of us don't want to lose it.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
double post
Last edited:
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
triple post
Last edited:
My apologies in that case. You should buy her a yellow dress and take her out to lunch. She might grow on you.
I won't deny that something like that sounds fun; however, these types of guns have proven their capacity for carnage in the wrong hands, and –unfortunately- too many people have lapsed their responsibility for these types of firearms. If not a ban, than they deserve a different, an incredibly strict and ongoing registration and renewal process (opposed to regular firearms). Yes, it sounds like a nag, but the alternative is a complete ban.DrMoab said:
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
So have cars in the hands of drunk drivers. Banning guns of any kind because the have the capability to kill would be like banning cars because drunks could use them to kill.
And to say too many have been used for that purpose is just stupid. Pretty much every person I know has a gun that would fall into the "assault weapon" category. It's a catch phrase that means nothing. Millions and millions and millions of them have been sold in the us. Gun sales are up 730% since Obama took office the first time yet maybe ten guys in ten years pulls off a mass shooting like this and you make it sound like if they are out there then the chances are good they will be used for destruction or meyhem. Hey, you own a 4wd SUV. That must mean your soul purpose in life is to go out, club baby seals, tear up every last pristine meadow you can find and regularly kill spotted owls while chopping down every old growth forest you can find. The logic just doesn't hold up.
And to say too many have been used for that purpose is just stupid. Pretty much every person I know has a gun that would fall into the "assault weapon" category. It's a catch phrase that means nothing. Millions and millions and millions of them have been sold in the us. Gun sales are up 730% since Obama took office the first time yet maybe ten guys in ten years pulls off a mass shooting like this and you make it sound like if they are out there then the chances are good they will be used for destruction or meyhem. Hey, you own a 4wd SUV. That must mean your soul purpose in life is to go out, club baby seals, tear up every last pristine meadow you can find and regularly kill spotted owls while chopping down every old growth forest you can find. The logic just doesn't hold up.
Last edited:
That just goes back to my earlier comments regarding American paranoia. The government is your enemy; solution - stockpile guns. There's a mass shooting; solution - stockpile guns. etc, etc, etc.... That's not responsible gun ownership; that's just hording based on paranoia.
I passed my driver's license, I obey the rules of the road, I don't drive drunk, I pay my insurance, I daisy chain my trips to save fuel, I lock my Jeep, and I maintain it so it doesn't fail me on the road. I'm responsible with my truck, I expect the same from gun owners. If the rules changed for owning my Jeep - with a sense of logic behind them - than I would oblige.
Moreso, if I drove a motorcycle, a Semi-trailer, a bus or a heavy trailer than I wouldn't question the need for a different driver's licences classification. Different machines require different classifications (whether it be a vehicle or a weapon).
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
This is retarded. The problem is not gun control or lack therof, the problem is mental health and stopping lunatics.
Turning a tragedy into a debate about gun control is only fanning the flames, and legislation discussed and passed in the wake of it will go too far. Remember the last time? Now we have the PATRIOT act, the TSA, and get freedom groped before flying. Step back and think about things a bit before continuing, because any laws discussed and passed in an emotional frenzy will go too far.
Almost 34000 people died in drunk driving accidents in 2010. 210 of them were children.
9/11/01, nearly 3000 people died due to four monstrous terrorist attacks. 42196 people died in traffic accidents. Now we have the PATRIOT act and the TSA, have torn down our own freedoms and what we stood for and have spent not billions but trillions abroad fighting a shadowy enemy. Who won? How much of the looming national debt is due to this?
now, 27 people and one monster are dead. The killer stole guns, then killed people, took the stolen guns to a gun free zone, and killed more people. And now people want to pass more laws that tread on the rights of many law abiding citizens to keep it from happening again. Very effective.
Oh. And the shooting at the mall in clackamas? Two died. The gunman shot himself when faced with a legally armed citizen. The police weren't even on scene yet.
Tell me again why we should immediately pass more gun laws. This is not a gun control problem, this is a mental health problem. But if it must be a gun problem because you are emotional and can't see the forest for the trees... well, just the facts. I will always err on the side of too much freedom over too little... those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Turning a tragedy into a debate about gun control is only fanning the flames, and legislation discussed and passed in the wake of it will go too far. Remember the last time? Now we have the PATRIOT act, the TSA, and get freedom groped before flying. Step back and think about things a bit before continuing, because any laws discussed and passed in an emotional frenzy will go too far.
Almost 34000 people died in drunk driving accidents in 2010. 210 of them were children.
9/11/01, nearly 3000 people died due to four monstrous terrorist attacks. 42196 people died in traffic accidents. Now we have the PATRIOT act and the TSA, have torn down our own freedoms and what we stood for and have spent not billions but trillions abroad fighting a shadowy enemy. Who won? How much of the looming national debt is due to this?
now, 27 people and one monster are dead. The killer stole guns, then killed people, took the stolen guns to a gun free zone, and killed more people. And now people want to pass more laws that tread on the rights of many law abiding citizens to keep it from happening again. Very effective.
Oh. And the shooting at the mall in clackamas? Two died. The gunman shot himself when faced with a legally armed citizen. The police weren't even on scene yet.
Tell me again why we should immediately pass more gun laws. This is not a gun control problem, this is a mental health problem. But if it must be a gun problem because you are emotional and can't see the forest for the trees... well, just the facts. I will always err on the side of too much freedom over too little... those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
True, but we have just as many mentally ill people in Canada with insufficient resources to tackle the problem. We also have ~9.9 million privately held firearms (for 34 million people), and yet we have far less gun related crimes per capita (2/3 less actually). I'm not saying the US should disarm; they have a long-standing tradition of gun ownership; I'm simply saying your gun policies are askew.... the results - 6 year olds riddled with upto 11 bullets.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
I'd still like to know how new gun laws will change this. Remember the bank robbery gone bad in California a few years ago? The one where the guys used fully automatic weapons to shoot it out with the cops? California has some of the stricter laws on the books when it comes to semi auto rifles and there is no way in hell a normal person can get ahold of weapons like that.
By your logic and most on the left, the gun laws there should have prevented that, right?
The only way you could prevent gun crime is to get rid of every single gun in the world. Not just in the US but everywhere and that will never happen.
Even in the US it will never happen. I don't have to register my guns. The government has no idea how many I own. It could be one or it could be ten thousand and with no way to track that it will always be far too easy to hide the number, even after a government confiscation.
So again. Tell me how new gun laws will change anything. If someone is intent on hurting someone else no law...of any kind will ever prevent them from doing so.
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Great quote:
"You will note that many of the same people who are screaming for gun control will be the first to tell you that the war on drugs has failed, because people want drugs will find a way to get them. So you can't get rid of drugs by banning them - in fact, they insist, you only create a big money underground market - but you can get rid of guns by doing the exact same thing.
Now, let's acknowledge reality. You can't get rid of either one by banning it. (For the record, I favor banning drugs and I oppose banning guns. I'll explain why in a second.) Both a ban on guns and a ban on drugs will absolutely drive the banned contraband underground and create a business opportunity for illegal smugglers.
Now, let's consider how that changes the societal dynamic. Homeowner A wants to buy a gun to protect his family. Criminal B wants to buy a gun to rob Homeowner A. As of right now, both Homeowner A and Criminal B can legally buy the guns they want. Now change the legal dynamic and make it illegal for both parties to buy the guns they want. Each man now faces a choice. Obey the law and refrain from obtaining the gun, or take a risk and break the law so as to obtain the gun anyway. You tell me, which one, Homeowner A or Criminal B, is more likely to opt for breaking the law?
Now recognize that there are hundreds of thousands of Homeowner A vs. Criminal B combinations that exist across the country, and work the averages. How have you tipped the scales between homeowners and criminals?
Of course. The criminals are far more likely to commit a crime for the purpose of obtaining the gun (assuming they don't already own guns, which they probably do, since they're criminals), so you'e tipped the scales in favor of criminals in a big way. That's why gun control makes the problem worse, not better.
So why do I still favor banning drugs? Simple. The Homeowner A vs. Criminal B dynamic doesn't exist when it comes to drugs. There is no useful purpose that any law-abiding citizen has for obtaining cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or any other illegal drug. There is nothing you can do with it to help or protect yourself. It doesn't put a criminal at an advantage when he can get it and you can't. I recognize you can't get rid of drugs by banning them, but at least you introduce some risk of legal penalty for those who choose to use or deal them, and I want to keep that risk in place. With guns, the risk of legal penalty comes from the illegal use of the gun. Owning it and using it legally does not, and should not, put anyone at legal risk.
The bottom line is that banning guns will not solve the problem of gun violence. The availability of guns is not the cause of gun violence. The willingness of people to use them in a criminal manner is. Guns are not designed to be used in the commission of murder, any more than a car is designed to be used to cause an accident.
Guns only become weapons of murder when people choose to use them for evil, just as cars usually only become instruments of death and injury when people choose to perpetrate the evil of consuming alcohol and then driving them."
Dan Calabrese
"You will note that many of the same people who are screaming for gun control will be the first to tell you that the war on drugs has failed, because people want drugs will find a way to get them. So you can't get rid of drugs by banning them - in fact, they insist, you only create a big money underground market - but you can get rid of guns by doing the exact same thing.
Now, let's acknowledge reality. You can't get rid of either one by banning it. (For the record, I favor banning drugs and I oppose banning guns. I'll explain why in a second.) Both a ban on guns and a ban on drugs will absolutely drive the banned contraband underground and create a business opportunity for illegal smugglers.
Now, let's consider how that changes the societal dynamic. Homeowner A wants to buy a gun to protect his family. Criminal B wants to buy a gun to rob Homeowner A. As of right now, both Homeowner A and Criminal B can legally buy the guns they want. Now change the legal dynamic and make it illegal for both parties to buy the guns they want. Each man now faces a choice. Obey the law and refrain from obtaining the gun, or take a risk and break the law so as to obtain the gun anyway. You tell me, which one, Homeowner A or Criminal B, is more likely to opt for breaking the law?
Now recognize that there are hundreds of thousands of Homeowner A vs. Criminal B combinations that exist across the country, and work the averages. How have you tipped the scales between homeowners and criminals?
Of course. The criminals are far more likely to commit a crime for the purpose of obtaining the gun (assuming they don't already own guns, which they probably do, since they're criminals), so you'e tipped the scales in favor of criminals in a big way. That's why gun control makes the problem worse, not better.
So why do I still favor banning drugs? Simple. The Homeowner A vs. Criminal B dynamic doesn't exist when it comes to drugs. There is no useful purpose that any law-abiding citizen has for obtaining cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine or any other illegal drug. There is nothing you can do with it to help or protect yourself. It doesn't put a criminal at an advantage when he can get it and you can't. I recognize you can't get rid of drugs by banning them, but at least you introduce some risk of legal penalty for those who choose to use or deal them, and I want to keep that risk in place. With guns, the risk of legal penalty comes from the illegal use of the gun. Owning it and using it legally does not, and should not, put anyone at legal risk.
The bottom line is that banning guns will not solve the problem of gun violence. The availability of guns is not the cause of gun violence. The willingness of people to use them in a criminal manner is. Guns are not designed to be used in the commission of murder, any more than a car is designed to be used to cause an accident.
Guns only become weapons of murder when people choose to use them for evil, just as cars usually only become instruments of death and injury when people choose to perpetrate the evil of consuming alcohol and then driving them."
Dan Calabrese
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Relative to topic:
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/07...es-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...lder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d
Headline should read- "Bad guy opens fire in crowded theater, wounding 1 before good guy shoots bad guy, preventing mass murder.
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10644119
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/08/07...es-cop-by-making-150-yard-shot-with-a-pistol/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...lder-likely-prevented-larger-clackamas-mall-d
Headline should read- "Bad guy opens fire in crowded theater, wounding 1 before good guy shoots bad guy, preventing mass murder.
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10644119
kayle666
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Temecula C.A.
Rush Power Systems
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- West Jordan Ut
oh, well never mind then
Honestly, I don't think new gun laws will change anything in the US because there's too many guns out there (in the wrong hands), and guns lack built-in obsolescence. The solution to effective gun control policies was yesterday... it's always been yesterday and that day has passed.
It’s a brilliant business model actually.
Boatwrench
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Petaluma, CA
Can we take a moment...
Please give the nation a chance to bury the dead, grieve with the families, and support the community before entering into this debate.
The US needs to have a serious debate about mental illness and private ownership of weapons without the rhetoric.
Please give the nation a chance to bury the dead, grieve with the families, and support the community before entering into this debate.
The US needs to have a serious debate about mental illness and private ownership of weapons without the rhetoric.
rhetoric or not.... this conversation always unfolds in a similar manner
a) It's too late to tackle gun issues. That day was yesterday ...before the bad guys had guns. The only way out now is more guns.
b) It's too early to have a conversation about guns issues in light of this tragedy. That day is tomorrow... which is great because the average person has a short attention span.
a) It's too late to tackle gun issues. That day was yesterday ...before the bad guys had guns. The only way out now is more guns.
b) It's too early to have a conversation about guns issues in light of this tragedy. That day is tomorrow... which is great because the average person has a short attention span.
Similar threads
