Those who hate the constitution would do anything to destroy it. One amendment at a time it seems.
Sorry the safety of the kids still has not been provided for, nor will it if all guns in America were banned.
We cannot say the teachers protected the kids because they closed some flimsy door like they were told to if attacked. Closing a door may give the teachers one or two minutes but only a third grader would accept closing a flimsy door would be enough to stop a person intent on killing those kids. Epic fail.
Yes the teachers wanted to protect the kids, that is testament to their goodness.
But putting their arms around them offered no protection. To point out that the teachers protected the kids does not address the reality of actually being able to protect them. Epic fail.
What the teachers needed was a baseball bat, a gun, a knife, a bucket of boiling lard. Something.. even a $20 pepper spray.
The kids alive today that are going to school tomorrow deserve real protection.
Cowering with the kids in the corner will not give that to them.
Nor will gun restrictions.
If there was no gun there would still have been mass murders there.
The killer would have thought of something else, a $15.00 machete or a baseball bat or a butcher knife or any other of thousands of items that people have used thru-out history to kill others.
Maybe some people really don't get it.
But I find it disgusting that people who think guns are the reason those kids died are providing the arena for the next ugly mass murder. That is disgusting.
Disgusting because if we armed teachers with some way to stop a killer the kids in the future would be safe from killers.
One reason why guns are demonized is the drug companies.
The drug companies want to derail attention away from the mind altering drugs given to young people. Given for many of today's youth (also many adults now) who display some anti social behavior no matter the degree.
These drugs are labeled for causing the user to have violent outbursts, and suicide and depression.
All the so called mass killers were on these drugs.
Drug companies want to protect their profits. They own politicians.
RodsHotShots wrote: Those who hate the constitution would do anything to destroy it. One amendment at a time it seems.
Sorry the safety of the kids still has not been provided for, nor will it if all guns in America were banned.
We cannot say the teachers protected the kids because they closed some flimsy door like they were told to if attacked. Closing a door may give the teachers one or two minutes but only a third grader would accept closing a flimsy door would be enough to stop a person intent on killing those kids. Epic fail.
Yes the teachers wanted to protect the kids, that is testament to their goodness.
But putting their arms around them offered no protection. To point out that the teachers protected the kids does not address the reality of actually being able to protect them. Epic fail.
What the teachers needed was a baseball bat, a gun, a knife, a bucket of boiling lard. Something.. even a $20 pepper spray.
The kids alive today that are going to school tomorrow deserve real protection.
Cowering with the kids in the corner will not give that to them.
Nor will gun restrictions.
If there was no gun there would still have been mass murders there.
The killer would have thought of something else, a $15.00 machete or a baseball bat or a butcher knife or any other of thousands of items that people have used thru-out history to kill others.
Maybe some people really don't get it.
But I find it disgusting that people who think guns are the reason those kids died are providing the arena for the next ugly mass murder. That is disgusting.
Disgusting because if we armed teachers with some way to stop a killer the kids in the future would be safe from killers.
Oh here we go. The gun is not the problem because the Sandy Hook shooter could have used a knife or a baseball bat.
The problem with your analogy is that the shooter did NOT use a knife or a baseball bat -- he used a gun. As a matter of fact kids and their teachers could have run and escaped from a knife wielding intruder. Much harder to run from a weapon that is spitting out multiple rounds per second.
Just to update you, as regards your silly analogy about doors: The teachers who were able to lock their classroom doors at Sandy Hook were safe and their kids suffered no fatalities.
I wish you would read more actual news and stop throwing up NRA talking points.
Just this week Obama raided the home of 2 law abiding brothers for NOT committign a crime, but just owning guns. The feds used a hidden camera mounted on the top of their lighted electricity pole. Having a giant billboard in their front yard with photos of the dead cops they killed had nothing to do with it (jury previously said the dead dirty cops got what they deserved).
https://www.google.com/search?q=rocky+l … +billboard https://www.google.com/search?q=leon+ho … rrest+2013
So legally owning guns is breaking the law while savings guns in one's possession? Interesting interpretation.
BTW: could you link me to where it says Obama went on the raid, I would REALLY like to see that. Heck, have anything about Obama even showing an interest in the case? No, I imagine not. Just so you know, Obama does NOT personally sanction all actions taken by every federal agency.
So legally owning guns is breaking the law while savings guns in one's possession? Interesting interpretation.
BTW: could you link me to where it says Obama went on the raid, I would REALLY like to see that. Heck, have anything about Obama even showing an interest in the case? No, I imagine not. Just so you know, Obama does NOT personally sanction all actions taken by every federal agency.
Yeah, just wait for an answer from one of the You-Know-Whos?
If you do get a response it will likely be something akin to: (Thumb up nose) Uh, guns don't kill people..."
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: If I had someone who was worthy of debate --I would debate that person.
The president will be president for the next 4-years, your hope for impeachment non withstanding.
The president is the President of the United States and represents 100% of the people of the United States, including the racist and people who hate him.
Meaningful debate? That requires two people who think. I am one person short.
Drunk driving? When did the president become responsible for a man who gets in his car and drives drunk? That is the responsibility of state and local government. I don't know about your state but most states have and enforce severe penalties for drunk driving. But absent a reasonable point you go ahead and blame the president. It's that "I'm one person short thing ."
Protect the constitution? Oh please do share your "thoughts" on how the president has failed to protect the constitution?
Here's your problem: you think this is 1776 and you and your buddies are defending the constitution against a person that you've been told is a "dictator" or "Hitler" or the king of fucking England.
And there you stand wearing your tri-pointed hat and holding your musket. You look ridiculous.
Why thanks for the info, but actually I read and comprehend pretty well.
Over the years I have also learned to think. Thinking excludes copying other people's thoughts and pasting those ideas into the SB and calling them my own.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: Why thanks for the info, but actually I read and comprehend pretty well.
Over the years I have also learned to think. Thinking excludes copying other people's thoughts and pasting those ideas into the SB and calling them my own.
But thanks for the help anyway...
#1. I disagree.
#2. Debatable.
#3. I believe you are accusing me of plagiarism, but your allegation lacks merit. (See #1 and #2).
The Signature Image wrote: The long NRA statement you listed just proves what I have long said: absent an original thought you vomit up NRA talking points and consider them your thoughts.
Mike Kelcher wrote: Really???? If you read my post, you would see that the point I was making was that Biden didn't seem to seriously engage in any real discussion on making schools safer....according to people who were there. The NRA isn't the only entity to make this claim. With regard to the NRA statement, it's not a talking point it's a fact. Also, I didn't claim their statement to by my thoughts, which is why I used "quotation marks" and supplied a link to the original article/quote. I included the statement in it's entirety so as not to be accused of "creative editing".
Yet you continue to alledge... "you read what the NRA says and use those opinions as your own." Your allegation is completely unfounded, has already been addressed, lacks any sort of merit, and is likely merely an attempt to do as Hitler did, which is to repeat the same lie over and over until people begin to believe it. Fortunately, some people can still read and comprehend.
If teachers who have no weapons.. only a book or a ruler could fight off a person who is madly slicing at them with a $20.00 machete they would be real heros alright.
But that is a very low probability. The kids and teachers would die.
Only emotion carries the idea harm can be met without having a weapon when a mad person is intent on killing and comes armed with some sort of weapon to do so.
When confronted with a killer a book or a brief case will not save kids in school rooms. Nor will following the drill to lock a flimsy door.
Even a third grader who takes martial arts classes would understand the man slicing at a group of terrified kids and teachers with a machete would be sliced to bits.
Just because the shooter did not kick in the thin door and went to another open door does not mean if other class rooms were not open or easy to enter he would not have kicked in the door. He would have.
I can prove it because in every city of this country people are killed by persons kicking in doors or breaking a window to enter a home. Those people inside the homes are killed with items that are not guns.. knives, baseball bats, machetes, gasoline etc.
The doors are kicked in to do so.
I wish your view would stop such future killings but they won't.
Only having a way to stop a killer would do so. Killers are not going to stop killing because a certain type of weapon is banned.
The Signature Image wrote: The long NRA statement you listed just proves what I have long said: absent an original thought you vomit up NRA talking points and consider them your thoughts.
Yet you continue to alledge... "you read what the NRA says and use those opinions as your own." Your allegation is completely unfounded, has already been addressed, lacks any sort of merit, and is likely merely an attempt to do as Hitler did, which is to repeat the same lie over and over until people begin to believe it. Fortunately, some people can still read and comprehend.
Oh, now I'm some sort of Hitler, huh? Okay, fair enough.
However, I would like you to take an opposing view on guns and control and make your views different from what the NRA says?
The fact that you copied and pasted the NRA's entire, long statement just proves that you agree with everything they said -- because you don't have anything original to offer.
Okay, here we go: My opinion is that the government, local and national, has the right to regulate weapons, guns included. We regulate the ownership and use of weapons such as hand grenades and handheld rocket launchers because
they are not fit for civilian use. The same can be said of a weapon with a magazine that can hold hundred rounds.
Question? Why do you need a weapon that holds a magazine that holds 30, 50 or 100 rounds?
Question? If such weapons are restricted or banned, how does that affect your Second Amendment rights?
RodsHotShots wrote: If teachers who have no weapons.. only a book or a ruler could fight off a person who is madly slicing at them with a $20.00 machete they would be real heros alright.
But that is a very low probability. The kids and teachers would die.
Only emotion carries the idea harm can be met without having a weapon when a mad person is intent on killing and comes armed with some sort of weapon to do so.
When confronted with a killer a book or a brief case will not save kids in school rooms. Nor will following the drill to lock a flimsy door.
Even a third grader who takes martial arts classes would understand the man slicing at a group of terrified kids and teachers with a machete would be sliced to bits.
Just because the shooter did not kick in the thin door and went to another open door does not mean if other class rooms were not open or easy to enter he would not have kicked in the door. He would have.
I can prove it because in every city of this country people are killed by persons kicking in doors or breaking a window to enter a home. Those people inside the homes are killed with items that are not guns.. knives, baseball bats, machetes, gasoline etc.
The doors are kicked in to do so.
I wish your view would stop such future killings but they won't.
Only having a way to stop a killer would do so. Killers are not going to stop killing because a certain type of weapon is banned.
Look, your arguments are silly and of the usual "absolutist" variety.
No law will stop ALL killings, murders or traffic violations for that matter. Additional laws MIGHT save one life, and that makes it worth it to me.
Finally, your "What ifs" are equally silly. What if the guy had a machete? Well what if he had a homemade bomb?
Its is silly to think banning any gun that can load more than 10 bullets will stop killings in schools. Just silly.. just as silly as the idea a man intent on killing would not use a machete. If all guns were banned killers would use items like machetes. It is not a stretch in the least that those programed to kill will not use some other weapon such as a machete. They would.
Anything they use would also be called an assault weapon.
Here is the deal, none of us want to see kids mowed down.
We have codes for a fire in schools when smoke or a fire begins those fire sprinklers come on dousing the fire. In other words the threat is stopped before the kids are killed.
What does banning a certain style of gun do to safeguard the kids?.
If your thinking process only leads to maybe banning semi autos that is not fully safeguarding the kids right?. Where is the symbolic sprinkler to douse the future killer? What force is put forth to be used when a actual killing spree is started?. None!
And not one person here cares nor has any ideas to address that.
Lets pretend we ban semi autos. Ok.. so what do we do to protect the kids when a killer comes into school with something other than a semi auto gun?
We cannot dump boiling fat on the killer from the sprinkler system right? Even the kids would be burned doing that.
My point is if we can safeguard the kids when death lurks from a fire man has figured out how to stop that killer called "fire" with sprinkler's.. why cannot some weapon or device be available to stop a killer for those teachers and staff inside schools?
I cannot think of a better tool than a gun for arming the staff but I am not closed to ideas of other weapons or tools to do so.
I just don't buy the concept of running into the class room and locking the door and then huddling the kids or standing in front of them to take a bullet "to possibly save a life".
Only a fool would think at all times the teachers would be able to shut a door, even if the door was made of steel. Because we all know a killer as has been done before could go in the cafeteria, or in the auditorium, or in the parking lot when a fire drill is going on. Please stop showing ignorance and coming back with remarks like, the teachers did everything to save the kids. No they didn't because we forbid them to have anyway to actually protect those kids from a focused killer.
When we send our kids to Africa for learning experiences thru the school system and they go on a safari to view the animals we entrust the guides who are armed to protect the kids from being killed by the wild animals.
Why is it we don't want to do the same thing here in America when the kids are confronted with wild crazy men - women animals?
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: Oh, now I'm some sort of Hitler, huh? Okay, fair enough.
I never claimed that you were some sort of Hitler. I merely claimed that your behavior with regards to spewing repetitious falsehoods, was similar.
The Signature Image wrote: However, I would like you to take an opposing view on guns and control and make your views different from what the NRA says?
That's not a question, even if it does end with a question mark. People in hell want ice water too. I don't follow the NRA all that much and have no interest in researching their viewpoints. I did however have recent interest in their statement about their meeting with Biden. They, and others who attended the meetings, claimed the meetings lacked a meaningful debate on the topic of making schools safer.
The Signature Image wrote: The fact that you copied and pasted the NRA's entire, long statement just proves that you agree with everything they said -- because you don't have anything original to offer.
It proves nothing...it's their statement. You've included my statements in your posts, but that doesn't mean you agree with everything I say.
The Signature Image wrote: Okay, here we go: My opinion is that the government, local and national, has the right to regulate weapons, guns included. We regulate the ownership and use of weapons such as hand grenades and handheld rocket launchers because
they are not fit for civilian use. The same can be said of a weapon with a magazine that can hold hundred rounds.
You are entitled to an opinion. Governments have and likely will continue to pass various forms of gun regulations. In the past, these regulations were sometimes legally challenged when people thought they were overly oppressive and/or infringed on the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS has weighed in on this subject in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. A federal judge, last March relied on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Maryland’s law that required people to provide a good and substantial reason why they should obtain a state gun permit. Last year, an appellate court prohibited Chicago from banning gun ranges. In March, a federal judge struck down Massachusetts’ policy of denying firearm licenses to permanent legal aliens. So, governments cannot simply do as they please and when they go too far, as they often do, there's a legal challenge. Such a challenge is likely in California where lawmakers are considering requiring licenses to purchase ammunition.
The Signature Image wrote: Question? Why do you need a weapon that holds a magazine that holds 30, 50 or 100 rounds?
I might not need such a magazine. However, if I want to fire a lot of bullets in a hurry, such magazines come in handy. My neighbor works for the Minneapolis Police Department. He almost always carries a handgun and multiple hi-capacity magazines...just like most of the police force. He also has a shotgun with a drum magazine and like many police officers, he has a Colt M16-A-1 assault rifle (user selectable full or semi-auto), with a number of 50-round magazines. Why does he need those hi-cap magazines? I asked him that. He said, "My police vehicle has our department's mission statement on it..."To Protect and Serve". The hi-capacity magazines are for protection...basically mine...but also for others. I cannot protect anyone with a weapon that's being re-loaded." When he gets a call, it's usually to respond to an incident that's been going on for a while, which means that until he gets there, people are attempting to protect themselves. Since he, and his department feels a few seconds (to change mags), is important, they use hi-cap mags...throughout the department. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/pol … -400_5-400 So, to answer your question, I don't need a hi-cap magazine, usually. However, I might like one, at some point in the future, to protect myself in the same manner and for the same reasons that the local police department uses those things to protect themselves and others.
The Signature Image wrote: Question? If such weapons are restricted or banned, how does that affect your Second Amendment rights?
The SCOTUS has already, (in the case of Washington DC vs Heller), stated that individuals have the right to defend themselves. Restrictions and bans, can, and historically have, infringed upon that right.
The Signature Image wrote: Oh, now I'm some sort of Hitler, huh? Okay, fair enough.
I never claimed that you were some sort of Hitler. I merely claimed that your behavior with regards to spewing repetitious falsehoods, was similar.
The Signature Image wrote: However, I would like you to take an opposing view on guns and control and make your views different from what the NRA says?
That's not a question, even if it does end with a question mark. People in hell want ice water too. I don't follow the NRA all that much and have no interest in researching their viewpoints. I did however have recent interest in their statement about their meeting with Biden. They, and others who attended the meetings, claimed the meetings lacked a meaningful debate on the topic of making schools safer.
The Signature Image wrote: The fact that you copied and pasted the NRA's entire, long statement just proves that you agree with everything they said -- because you don't have anything original to offer.
It proves nothing...it's their statement. You've included my statements in your posts, but that doesn't mean you agree with everything I say.
The Signature Image wrote: Okay, here we go: My opinion is that the government, local and national, has the right to regulate weapons, guns included. We regulate the ownership and use of weapons such as hand grenades and handheld rocket launchers because
they are not fit for civilian use. The same can be said of a weapon with a magazine that can hold hundred rounds.
You are entitled to an opinion. Governments have and likely will continue to pass various forms of gun regulations. In the past, these regulations were sometimes legally challenged when people thought they were overly oppressive and/or infringed on the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS has weighed in on this subject in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. A federal judge, last March relied on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Maryland’s law that required people to provide a good and substantial reason why they should obtain a state gun permit. Last year, an appellate court prohibited Chicago from banning gun ranges. In March, a federal judge struck down Massachusetts’ policy of denying firearm licenses to permanent legal aliens. So, governments cannot simply do as they please and when they go too far, as they often do, there's a legal challenge. Such a challenge is likely in California where lawmakers are considering requiring licenses to purchase ammunition.
The Signature Image wrote: Question? Why do you need a weapon that holds a magazine that holds 30, 50 or 100 rounds?
I might not need such a magazine. However, if I want to fire a lot of bullets in a hurry, such magazines come in handy. My neighbor works for the Minneapolis Police Department. He almost always carries a handgun and multiple hi-capacity magazines...just like most of the police force. He also has a shotgun with a drum magazine and like many police officers, he has a Colt M16-A-1 assault rifle (user selectable full or semi-auto), with a number of 50-round magazines. Why does he need those hi-cap magazines? I asked him that. He said, "My police vehicle has our department's mission statement on it..."To Protect and Serve". The hi-capacity magazines are for protection...basically mine...but also for others. I cannot protect anyone with a weapon that's being re-loaded." When he gets a call, it's usually to respond to an incident that's been going on for a while, which means that until he gets there, people are attempting to protect themselves. Since he, and his department feels a few seconds (to change mags), is important, they use hi-cap mags...throughout the department. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/pol … -400_5-400 So, to answer your question, I don't need a hi-cap magazine, usually. However, I might like one, at some point in the future, to protect myself in the same manner and for the same reasons that the local police department uses those things to protect themselves and others.
The SCOTUS has already, (in the case of Washington DC vs Heller), stated that individuals have the right to defend themselves. Restrictions and bans, can, and historically have, infringed upon that right.
Based on your analogy any ban on any rifle, assault type rifle or gun infringes on your Second Amendment rights?
Based on that "thought" banning a fully automatic assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine would infringe on your right to own a fully automatic
assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine? And having a fully automatic weapon with a hundred round magazine will help you protect yourself against whom? 100 burglars?
Finally, the thought that if the Sandy Hook killer had a magazine that held less that 30 rounds it would have made no difference is absurd -- the extreme.
The rest of your post amounts to little more than gibberish. AND, you used NRA talking points as I knew you would.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote:
C'mon, if we regulate cars only criminals will have cars. You are against the freedom of law-abiding citizens owning cars.
Why does anyone need a 30 round magazine? Why does anyone need a car to go faster than 75 miles an hour? Speeding causes more deaths annually than hi-capacity magazines do, especially when people drive drunk.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: Based on your analogy any ban on any rifle, assault type rifle or gun infringes on your Second Amendment rights?
I didn't say that and neither did the SCOTUS. If it were true, there would be no gun laws. So, it's not true, and I didn't say it was. However, historically, various governments have enacted laws that do infringe on 2nd amendment rights and that's a fact confirmed by SCOTUS decisions and overturned laws...as I have pointed out...but that you've failed to understand and/or twisted in a manner to suit your needs by claiming that's a point I'm trying to make. It isn't. So, your premise that this is my belief...is flawed due to your lack of comprehension or your agenda.
The Signature Image wrote: Based on that "thought"....
Are you referring to your false premise (see above)???
The Signature Image wrote: ...banning a fully automatic assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine would infringe on your right to own a fully automatic
assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine? And having a fully automatic weapon with a hundred round magazine will help you protect yourself against whom? 100 burglars?
Again, you are trying to claim I said something or think something, when in fact, I didn't. Your "conclusion" is based on a false premise, so your "conclusion" is not reflective of my thoughts or statements. However, I do think that when a person needs to fire a lot of bullets in a hurry, a hi-capacity magazine is handy, convenient, and prudent when precious seconds do matter...and this point is supported by law enforcement's use of such magazines....even though they usually arrive a bit late to gunfights.
The Signature Image wrote: Finally, the thought that if the Sandy Hook killer had a magazine that held less that 30 rounds it would have made no difference is absurd -- the extreme.
Of course it would have made a difference, and I never said it wouldn't have. The absurdity you refer to, must belong to you. Time is of the essence when bullets are flying....especially if some are headed your way.
The Signature Image wrote: The rest of your post amounts to little more than gibberish. AND, you used NRA talking points as I knew you would.
I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I spend much time listening to their talking points and statements. Perhaps it's just a matter of both of us being reasonable.
You live in Gorham Maine, with a population of about 16,000 people, and Gorham is safer than 75.9% of the cities in the nation. http://www.areavibes.com/gorham-me/crime/ When did Gorham have it's last gun-related murder? I went back 10 years and couldn't find a single one. Perhaps your perspective of violence is skewed due to where you live. The majority of the rest of this country has significantly more crime. I'm not criticizing you or your town of residence, but protecting oneself in a place where there is little, if any, gun violence, is quite different from one where shots are fired every day. Here's what's going on here....and this is just in one week! http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups … 102948.pdf
...and here is what the situation in Chicago looked like in 2012.
RodsHotShots wrote: If teachers who have no weapons.. only a book or a ruler could fight off a person who is madly slicing at them with a $20.00 machete they would be real heros alright.
But that is a very low probability. The kids and teachers would die.
Only emotion carries the idea harm can be met without having a weapon when a mad person is intent on killing and comes armed with some sort of weapon to do so.
When confronted with a killer a book or a brief case will not save kids in school rooms. Nor will following the drill to lock a flimsy door.
Even a third grader who takes martial arts classes would understand the man slicing at a group of terrified kids and teachers with a machete would be sliced to bits.
Just because the shooter did not kick in the thin door and went to another open door does not mean if other class rooms were not open or easy to enter he would not have kicked in the door. He would have.
I can prove it because in every city of this country people are killed by persons kicking in doors or breaking a window to enter a home. Those people inside the homes are killed with items that are not guns.. knives, baseball bats, machetes, gasoline etc.
The doors are kicked in to do so.
I wish your view would stop such future killings but they won't.
Only having a way to stop a killer would do so. Killers are not going to stop killing because a certain type of weapon is banned.
So, if you were a classroom teacher confronted by a madman swinging a machete, you would not pick up a chair to ward off the machete blows, while yelling, "Children, run! Run! Run!"?
if my government took my arms and I was in a lions den settng where it was announced to the public "come and kill here.. we have no weapons inside"
I would do something. Of course I would sum up a lightning fast calculation that my odds of halting a man who has a sharp machete with a chair were close to nil.
I would still react. That is a testament to the will to live and also to protect the innocent.
I would look around. No weapons of any kind would be available to me. I would think I have to do something.
Even though I am put in that lions den to watch these kids get slaughtered with nothing to defend them I would respond. The facade of being in a room that was safe is shattered by a crazy person intent on killing us and who is high on prozac.
With great sadness knowing I let these kids down by having no weapon to use to preserve their lives.. knowing their future was ending in moments I would grab a chair and steer it towards the man. The end.
Why does anyone need a 30 round magazine? Why does anyone need a car to go faster than 75 miles an hour? Speeding causes more deaths annually than hi-capacity magazines do, especially when people drive drunk.
Actually that's not entirely true. There are 10 states where gun deaths outweigh automobile fatalities.
YOUR analogy is, otherwise, silly and in line with the equally silly people die in swimming pools so why not ban swimming pools nonsense.
The Signature Image wrote: Based on your analogy any ban on any rifle, assault type rifle or gun infringes on your Second Amendment rights?
I didn't say that and neither did the SCOTUS. If it were true, there would be no gun laws. So, it's not true, and I didn't say it was. However, historically, various governments have enacted laws that do infringe on 2nd amendment rights and that's a fact confirmed by SCOTUS decisions and overturned laws...as I have pointed out...but that you've failed to understand and/or twisted in a manner to suit your needs by claiming that's a point I'm trying to make. It isn't. So, your premise that this is my belief...is flawed due to your lack of comprehension or your agenda.
The Signature Image wrote: Based on that "thought"....
Are you referring to your false premise (see above)???
The Signature Image wrote: ...banning a fully automatic assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine would infringe on your right to own a fully automatic
assault-type weapon with a hundred round magazine? And having a fully automatic weapon with a hundred round magazine will help you protect yourself against whom? 100 burglars?
Again, you are trying to claim I said something or think something, when in fact, I didn't. Your "conclusion" is based on a false premise, so your "conclusion" is not reflective of my thoughts or statements. However, I do think that when a person needs to fire a lot of bullets in a hurry, a hi-capacity magazine is handy, convenient, and prudent when precious seconds do matter...and this point is supported by law enforcement's use of such magazines....even though they usually arrive a bit late to gunfights.
Of course it would have made a difference, and I never said it wouldn't have. The absurdity you refer to, must belong to you. Time is of the essence when bullets are flying....especially if some are headed your way.
I'm not a member of the NRA, nor do I spend much time listening to their talking points and statements. Perhaps it's just a matter of both of us being reasonable.
You live in Gorham Maine, with a population of about 16,000 people, and Gorham is safer than 75.9% of the cities in the nation. http://www.areavibes.com/gorham-me/crime/ When did Gorham have it's last gun-related murder? I went back 10 years and couldn't find a single one. Perhaps your perspective of violence is skewed due to where you live. The majority of the rest of this country has significantly more crime. I'm not criticizing you or your town of residence, but protecting oneself in a place where there is little, if any, gun violence, is quite different from one where shots are fired every day. Here's what's going on here....and this is just in one week! http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups … 102948.pdf
...and here is what the situation in Chicago looked like in 2012.
...and Gorham Maine, had....what? zero?
Your Gorham/small town/low crime rate is silly, bordering on the absurd. You can take any similar small town in America and apply the same silly analogy. To compare the crime rate in Gorham to the crime rate in any large city, such as Chicago, is equally silly.
RodsHotShots wrote: Yes you are correct. It begins...
if my government took my arms and I was in a lions den settng where it was announced to the public "come and kill here.. we have no weapons inside"
I would do something. Of course I would sum up a lightning fast calculation that my odds of halting a man who has a sharp machete with a chair were close to nil.
I would still react. That is a testament to the will to live and also to protect the innocent.
I would look around. No weapons of any kind would be available to me. I would think I have to do something.
Even though I am put in that lions den to watch these kids get slaughtered with nothing to defend them I would respond. The facade of being in a room that was safe is shattered by a crazy person intent on killing us and who is high on prozac.
With great sadness knowing I let these kids down by having no weapon to use to preserve their lives.. knowing their future was ending in moments I would grab a chair and steer it towards the man. The end.
Earlier, you said, "The kids and teachers would die." You now seem to be saying that you might be able to save some of the kids, by swinging a chair at the guy wit1h the machete, and simultaneously yelling for the kids to run, run, run. This new-found rejection of your earlier fatalism is encouraging. It might be hard for the machete-swinger to get through your chair defense. Who knows, you might even be able to save all the kids and your own life, too.
I pointed out I would have almost no effect to stop a person slicing at me and the kids if he was intent on killing us and my only defense is a chair.
I may block the first swing with the chair as he sliced it to pieces, then off goes my head and those of the kids and the teachers huddled in the corner.
I will spell it out to you.
Schools are like a lions den where the people would come and watch common criminals being torn apart while alive. If the person against all odds could kill the lions then he would live. As we have sadly seen this rarely happens because the killers have the advantage. They have weapons, so the teachers and kids die.
Please don't insult our intelligence and come back with "so lets ban the weapons". We did that. Are you happy now?. We have created a lions den where the people are pitted defenseless against the killer. We stand by and watch this carnage over and over again.
That lions den is the schools where a symbolic huge banner is placed above the entry ways "killers come and kill here, we have no weapons inside".
Instead of common criminals being inside the lions den it is our most treasured citizens the kids, put there to be killed by people on prozac or some other serotonin inhibitor with guns or to be chopped to pieces by those swinging knives or machetes.
RodsHotShots wrote: One reason why guns are demonized is the drug companies.
The drug companies want to derail attention away from the mind altering drugs given to young people. Given for many of today's youth (also many adults now) who display some anti social behavior no matter the degree.
These drugs are labeled for causing the user to have violent outbursts, and suicide and depression.
All the so called mass killers were on these drugs.
Drug companies want to protect their profits. They own politicians.
One reason why drugs are demonized is the NRA and gun companies.
The NRA and gun companies want to derail attention away from the ease of which young people can access firearms. Given for many of today's youth (also many adults now) who display some anti social behavior no matter the degree.
The ease of access to firearms is is labeled the cause of the user when having violent outbursts, and suicide and depression and gives them the ability to kill others
All the so called mass killers had these firearms.
Gun companies and the NRA want to protect their profits. They own politicians.
Seriously? You've over reached so far that you've fallen out of your chair.
I will accede your point about the mass murdering of school children by machete in the United States if you can link to one.
You create fantasy situations to support your opinions. You'll not have much luck changing anyone's mind using false equivalencies and confusing association with causation (see your drug company rant).
I pointed out I would have almost no effect to stop a person slicing at me and the kids if he was intent on killing us and my only defense is a chair.
I may block the first swing with the chair as he sliced it to pieces, then off goes my head and those of the kids and the teachers huddled in the corner.
I will spell it out to you.
Schools are like a lions den where the people would come and watch common criminals being torn apart while alive. If the person against all odds could kill the lions then he would live. As we have sadly seen this rarely happens because the killers have the advantage. They have weapons, so the teachers and kids die.
Please don't insult our intelligence and come back with "so lets ban the weapons". We did that. Are you happy now?. We have created a lions den where the people are pitted defenseless against the killer. We stand by and watch this carnage over and over again.
That lions den is the schools where a symbolic huge banner is placed above the entry ways "killers come and kill here, we have no weapons inside".
Instead of common criminals being inside the lions den it is our most treasured citizens the kids, put there to be killed by people on prozac or some other serotonin inhibitor with guns or to be chopped to pieces by those swinging knives or machetes.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: Your Gorham/small town/low crime rate is silly, bordering on the absurd. You can take any similar small town in America and apply the same silly analogy. To compare the crime rate in Gorham to the crime rate in any large city, such as Chicago, is equally silly.
If on an average day, in your neighborhood, there were shots fired and a person murdered, your opinion on gun-related issues might be significantly different. Most of us don't live in a community like yours.
The point is that the opinion of a person who lives in a town where there hasn't been a murder in 10+ years, is not applicable to 75+% of the rest of the country where the crime rate is higher...much higher.
You have been hiding under a rock if you dismiss the killings by people who are drugged up and hyped up on prescribed serotonin inhibitors.
You have been used.
But since the majority are now saying out loud "he was on those drugs just like the last mass killer and the one before that one" it is time you learned the truth too. And also the batman nut job was so drugged up and out of his mind, even days after the killing he was still foaming at the mouth from the drugs. That killer was in a defense dept mind control program and was on serotonin drugs and had been for a good while. That is the prooof in the pudding right there. Hell until days later in the jail cell when those drugs he was on were surging thru his body he was barking like a dog, foaming at the mouth, had no idea who he was.
Its so easy to gloss over the facts.
Those facts are now so blatent in the face even the Obama administration has to address them publicy The new gun bills going thru have given much attention to these drugs and the role they play in mass murders after mass murders. Those drugs like prozac had a role to play in the killings.
The NRA does not manufacture those drugs nor do they prescribe them.
The blame for the over prescribing of the serotonin inhibitor drugs lies with the big drug companies, and the doctors who over prescribe them. When they give them to known nut cases instead of treating those people they are in effect putting the loaded gun in the crazy person's hand.
These drugs state right on the inserts they can cause extreme violence, suicide, and depression. I am not pulling this shit out of my ass. It is well documented now. Also it is commonly known that suicide rates for our enlisted is off the charts. Why? It is attributed to these same drugs that are now prescribed for the enlisted.
Do not forget when you say these drugs have nothing to do with the killings the government itself has been pushed to acknowledge the fact that these drugs contribute to the violence we are seeing now. That is why with the gun bills going thru sponsored by the W.H. it is stated to examine the role these types of drugs played in the killings. The pressure for the W.H. to announce the drugs are suspect comes from the mounting evidence and the outcry of that evidence by the citizens.
Americans are not buying the story that guns are bad.
They are not going to forfeit the rights to bear arms because looney bins are not treated.. simply put on drugs that have shown time after time to be like a ticking time bomb causing them to do what to decent people is the unthinkable.
99.99 % of all gun owners are good law abiding citizens. When push comes to shove these people will draw that line in the sand.
The King or a president can hug kids all day and tell them he is going to get the guns but that is not going to happen. Just ask around you will hear for yourself.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: "There are 10 states where gun deaths outweigh automobile fatalities."
I'm familiar with the fiction you are referring to. It lists AK, AZ, CO, IN, MI, NV, OR, UT, VA, and WA. All the gun death statistics included suicides. They also included gang members shooting members of rival gangs, hunting accidents, and a fatality that occurred during a civil war re-enactment when the barrel of a low-quality replica musket exploded, killing the person holding it.
Even if that were a true statement, there would still be 40 states where auto fatalities would outweigh gun deaths...and the Gov't wants to focus on guns rather than cars...so it's NOT about saving lives.
Americans are seeing the story unfolding. So don't sit to smug on your view the winning side has this one.
To add weight to my words just spend a few minutes surfing and check out the cities, towns, and states that are making it known they are not going to go along with a gun grab against the constitution.
I know in my state law enforcement has even sent sheriffs, heads of police depts and state reps to voice this view.
This chatter from the W.H. is to provide a cover to what is really going down.
Ring ring.. hello is this the economy? Sorry the economy fell off the cliff and cannot come to the phone. Going down down down.
I'm familiar with the fiction you are referring to. It lists AK, AZ, CO, IN, MI, NV, OR, UT, VA, and WA. All the gun death statistics included suicides. They also included gang members shooting members of rival gangs, hunting accidents, and a fatality that occurred during a civil war re-enactment when the barrel of a low-quality replica musket exploded, killing the person holding it.
Even if that were a true statement, there would still be 40 states where auto fatalities would outweigh gun deaths...and the Gov't wants to focus on guns rather than cars...so it's NOT about saving lives.
Okay, I guess suicides and gang murders do not count?
Your analogy, car fatalities vs. gun fatalities, is silly -- in the extreme. People do not go on the road to kill people with their cars -- that is why they are called automobile "accidents."
States also regulate the ownership and use of cars. I.e., cars must be inspected, insured, have license plates and be inspected on occasion for safety. Strange, I've never heard of anyone complaining about registering their cars because guns kill people as do cars?
The argument that other things, swimming pools, knives or baseball bats can kill so that justifies not regulating any type gun is absurd. Based on that "thought" nothing should be regulated.
The Supreme Court, and Justice Scalia, say that the right to keep and bear is not unlimited, and that guns can be regulated.
RodsHotShots wrote: You have been hiding under a rock if you dismiss the killings by people who are drugged up and hyped up on prescribed serotonin inhibitors.
You have been used.
Americans are seeing the story unfolding. So don't sit to smug on your view the winning side has this one.
To add weight to my words just spend a few minutes surfing and check out the cities, towns, and states that are making it known they are not going to go along with a gun grab against the constitution.
I know in my state law enforcement has even sent sheriffs, heads of police depts and state reps to voice this view.
This chatter from the W.H. is to provide a cover to what is really going down.
Ring ring.. hello is this the economy? Sorry the economy fell off the cliff and cannot come to the phone. Going down down down.
I've been used? Would you please post some links that show mass murders taking place by people hopped up on "serotonin inhibitors" that used knives, bats, or even the enduring false equivalency so beloved by the NRA automobiles. Please just one recent mass murder episode that included drugs but not guns okay because I can't find any?
Would you also please post a link that identifies who it is exactly that is trying to take your guns away in the government as I'm likewise unable to find the name of that person as well?
Honestly I have to say after reading your incredible screed against the drug companies, the government and anyone who disagrees with you. Along with your inability to understand the difference between false equivalencies, association and causation, and your They're coming for our guns and they won't get them without a fight mentality you sound exactly like the crazy people you're blaming for the violence.
Oh and by the way, your drug company assertions aside, the only thing that can be shown 100% for certain in all of these gun episodes is that the murderers all had guns. No matter your continued equivocations, that is an undeniable fact, and that's the problem that needs to be solved. That's what reasonable people are trying to do.
I've been used? Would you please post some links that show mass murders taking place by people hopped up on "serotonin inhibitors" that used knives, bats, or even the enduring false equivalency so beloved by the NRA automobiles. Please just one recent mass murder episode that included drugs but not guns okay because I can't find any?
Would you also please post a link that identifies who it is exactly that is trying to take your guns away in the government as I'm likewise unable to find the name of that person as well?
Honestly I have to say after reading your incredible screed against the drug companies, the government and anyone who disagrees with you. Along with your inability to understand the difference between false equivalencies, association and causation, and your They're coming for our guns and they won't get them without a fight mentality you sound exactly like the crazy people you're blaming for the violence.
Oh and by the way, your drug company assertions aside, the only thing that can be shown 100% for certain in all of these gun episodes is that the murderers all had guns. No matter your continued equivocations, that is an undeniable fact, and that's the problem that needs to be solved. That's what reasonable people are trying to do.
The gun is never responsible. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, blah, blah, blah.
Problem? If there is no gun at the scene, nobody gets killed by a gun.
Look, when it comes to the NRA/Tea Party/GOP/Gun Nuts/Usual Suspects you have to face to face one fact: You're not dealing with the brightest bulbs in the pack.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,629
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
The Signature Image wrote: The gun is never responsible. Guns don't kill people, people kill people,
There you go....I think you're starting to understand.
The Signature Image wrote: Problem? If there is no gun at the scene, nobody gets killed by a gun.
So your solution to gun violence would be to eliminate 300+ million guns somehow?
The Signature Image wrote: Look, when it comes to the NRA/Tea Party/GOP/Gun Nuts/Usual Suspects you have to face to face one fact: You're not dealing with the brightest bulbs in the pack.
I still think your perspective on matters of gun violence and gun control is a bit "skewed" by the fact that you live in an area that has very little gun violence and the majority of the rest of us do not live in such a place. There hasn't been a gun-related homicide in your town in over 10 years. Some people have bullets flying through their neighborhood every day. If you had a gun-related homicide in your town once a day, you might look at things differently.
What is required to achieve a feeling of safety in your town is one thing, but in over 3/4ths of the rest of the country...crime is much higher, and it might take being armed to achieve the same feeling of safety that people in your town enjoy.
| 
| 
| edu