Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease, data shows

[haymarket]

Michigan Democrats Warn “There Will Be Blood” Over Right-To-Work Law – Update: Dems Delete Tweet, Video Of State Rep Calling For Blood Added… | Weasel Zippers

I don't get it. Rep Geiss - who by the way was a white collar executive for the Ford Motor Company and is about as mild mannered as you can get and no raving liberal by any means - is recalling the actual real cannot be denied history of the labor movement where people died and indeed have had their blood shed trying to simply get their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_overpass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_riot

All he is saying is that if you make people struggle YET AGAIN to get the rights that you are now taking away with a law - we can expect this to happen again.

And it seems that you and some fanatics on the right wing intentionally have decided to attempt to turn this into a political talking point by perverting, twisting and deforming it out of all proportion to what wasactually said.

As Gomer Pyle used to say...... "surprise surprise!!!!!"

 

[ttwtt78640]

You misunderstood. I was saying that politicians use this. You confined it to just liberals. In real life, those who have to appeal to the right in primaries also decieve and lie pretending that they can be more extreme than what they are to get votes and get elected. It happens both ways.

Very nice attempt at using the standard "they do it, so we can too" or "they all do it" argument. I was focusing on the issue under discussion, gun control vs. second amendment rights. You, of course, see that as a side issue and wish to deflect it to the degree with which a politician alters their public stand between the primary (their party only) and general elections. While that is a valid point, it has no bearing on my point at all. Romney definitely changed his gun rights position, at least three times, as such he lost my vote. That, no doubt, cost Romney other votes as he did so openly, publically and in plain sight, and well before the general election. My point was, and is, politicians changing (reversing?) their views, often drastically, after winning the general election, in the Obama case, for his final term in office (allowing no possible voter reprisal).

 

[Fletch]

I don't get it. Rep Geiss - who by the way was a white collar executive for the Ford Motor Company and is about as mild mannered as you can get and no raving liberal by any means - is recalling the actual real cannot be denied history of the labor movement where people died and indeed have had their blood shed trying to simply get their rights.

Battle of the Overpass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haymarket affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All he is saying is that if you make people struggle YET AGAIN to get the rights that you are now taking away with a law - we can expect this to happen again.

And it seems that you and some fanatics on the right wing intentionally have decided to attempt to turn this into a political talking point by perverting, twisting and deforming it out of all proportion to what wasactually said.

As Gomer Pyle used to say...... "surprise surprise!!!!!"

So, shedding blood in the streets is OK if a liberal does it to defend supposed workers rights, but it is unaaceptable if a 'right winger' does it to protect constitutional rights. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

[haymarket]

Very nice attempt at using the standard "they do it, so we can too" or "they all do it" argument. I was focusing on the issue under discussion, gun control vs. second amendment rights. You, of course, see that as a side issue and wish to deflect it to the degree with which a politician alters their public stand between the primary (their party only) and general elections. While that is a valid point, it has no bearing on my point at all. Romney definitely changed his gun rights position, at least three times, as such he lost my vote. That, no doubt, cost Romney other votes as he did so openly, publically and in plain sight, and well before the general election. My point was, and is, politicians changing (reversing?) their views, often drastically, after winning the general election, in the Obama case, for his final term in office (allowing no possible voter reprisal).

All I was doing was explaining political reality.

 

[haymarket]

So, shedding blood in the streets is OK if a liberal does it to defend supposed workers rights, but it is unaaceptable if a 'right winger' does it to protect constitutional rights. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The blood being shed was that of the workers being brutalized by the forces of oppression. Get it right please.

 

[ttwtt78640]

All I was doing was explaining political reality.

So was I, but as applied to the current POTUS and the AWB/magazine limits issue at hand.

 

[Fletch]

The blood being shed was that of the workers being brutalized by the forces of oppression. Get it right please.

So you expect me to believe that he was saying that union members were going to be shedding blood at the hands of oppressors? Boy, the lengths you will go to run flack for your side.

 

[ric27]

Australia dealt with things like this and their efforts certainly had a major effect there. This has been repeatedly posted in the GUN CONTROL thread regarding Australia

If banning something will stop this sort of thing, why don't you just ban murder? Oh, right! We've already done that, and it doesn't work...so why the **** would banning *assault* rifles actually do a damn thing?

 

[haymarket]

So you expect me to believe that he was saying that union members were going to be shedding blood at the hands of oppressors? Boy, the lengths you will go to run flack for your side.

Do you listen to YOUR EVIDENCE that YOU PROVIDE? Go and listen to it and Rep Geiss clearly mentions the Battle of the Overpass.

Perhaps you can explain why somebody on the far right would intentionally, purposely and deliberately attempt to pervert, change and misrepresent what Rep. Geiss said? If you have the integrity to provide an honest answer, you will see truth and illumination.

 

[haymarket]

If banning something will stop this sort of thing, why don't you just ban murder? Oh, right! We've already done that, and it doesn't work...so why the **** would banning *assault* rifles actually do a damn thing?

Murder is a human activity. A weapons is an inanimate object that must be manufactured and obtained - normally through sale. Two different things. We can ban objects. We cannot ban human behavior that is independent and beyond our immediate control.

It is two different things and to apply what you can do to one to the other where the rules are different is simply an exercise in folly.

What you are doing is confusing apples with cinderblocks and then looking awestruck when you cannot figure out why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.

 

[Fletch]

Do you listen to YOUR EVIDENCE that YOU PROVIDE? Go and listen to it and Rep Geiss clearly mentions the Battle of the Overpass.

Perhaps you can explain why somebody on the far right would intentionally, purposely and deliberately attempt to pervert, change and misrepresent what Rep. Geiss said? If you have the integrity to provide an honest answer, you will see truth and illumination.

And who was supposed to be shedding the blood of these modern day unionistas?

 

[haymarket]

And who was supposed to be shedding the blood of these modern day unionistas?

I would imagine that it would be the same forces of greed and oppression that never want to see working men and women unionize in common purpose for economic and social advancement.

 

[Fletch]

I would imagine that it would be the same forces of greed and oppression that never want to see working men and women unionize in common purpose for economic and social advancement.

Like who?

 

[TurtleDude]

Sadly, statements like this are highly politically motivated. Sadly, they are fueled by a self induced paranoia which pretends that they are under attack when they are not.

Both of these things are intentional because they are part of a coordinated campaign which has at its goal both the proliferation of guns as well as the increased political clout and influence of the gun culture.

the only politics I see is the pimp party pandering to emotobabblers and trying to curry favor with the emotobabblers by getting rid of our rights

I guess the proliferation of power to the citizenry bothers those who want power collected and accentuated in the hands of the nanny state government. Gun control is nothing more than a scheme to concentrate power in the hands of the central government and the wealthy elite

 

[haymarket]

the only politics I see is the pimp party pandering to emotobabblers and trying to curry favor with the emotobabblers by getting rid of our rights

This is an understandable opinion that you hold. Yes, you see this through your own political prism. Of course you see this as something urged on by the citizenry which you loathe and resent. Of course you couch this in terms of "our rights" when it has been shown to you that you really do not have the rights you pretend you have.

Many on the far right often see the world through their own personal political prism based only on what is right and wrong for themselves without any larger considerations. Strong feelings on this are all very understandable from anyone who places their own private personal interets above those of the American nation and the American people.

As citizens of a nation, we must strive to at once be aware of our own interests while at the same time being aware of he greater national interests. The intelligent and truly patriotic citizen tries to carefully balance the two.

 

[haymarket]

Like who?

Anyone who opposes unionization and who is willing to back it up with force and power.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is an understandable opinion that you hold. Yes, you see this through your own political prism. Of course you see this as something urged on by the citizenry which you loathe and resent. Of course you couch this in terms of "our rights" when it has been shown to you that you really do not have the rights you pretend you have.

Many on the far right often see the world through their own personal political prism based only on what is right and wrong for themselves without any larger considerations. Strong feelings on this are all very understandable from anyone who places their own private personal interets above those of the American nation and the American people.

As citizens of a nation, we must strive to at once be aware of our own interests while at the same time being aware of he greater national interests. The intelligent and truly patriotic citizen tries to carefully balance the two.

the problem with your position is that we who support the rights of the citizens to keep and bear the same arms that our tax dollars supply to the agents of the state,have the historical record is completely on our side. we don't have to engage in machinations or evasions in order to twist the obvious meaning of the constitution in an effort to justify stripping the citizens of a right they never delegated to the federal government.

OUr national interests are not advanced by concentrating the power of firearms only in the hands of a nanny state and the criminal element that the worshippers of the nanny state tend to identify with and enable

 

[ric27]

Murder is a human activity. A weapons is an inanimate object that must be manufactured and obtained - normally through sale. Two different things. We can ban objects. We cannot ban human behavior that is independent and beyond our immediate control.

It is two different things and to apply what you can do to one to the other where the rules are different is simply an exercise in folly.

What you are doing is confusing apples with cinderblocks and then looking awestruck when you cannot figure out why you keep chipping your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.

lol...Makes as much sense as solving the drunk driving problem by banning cars.

Maybe one of these days you'll get a clue that it is the individual, and not the equipment, that is the real issue.

 

[Fletch]

Anyone who opposes unionization and who is willing to back it up with force and power.

Like who?

 

[haymarket]

lol...Makes as much sense as solving the drunk driving problem by banning cars.

Maybe one of these days you'll get a clue that it is the individual, and not the equipment, that is the real issue.

Maybe one of these days you will be able to separate one issue from the other without confusing or conflating the two dishonestly for political purposes.

 

[haymarket]

Like who?

I have given you a very specific answer - not once but twice.

Do you really think I possess the extra human powers to look into the future and name names?

 

[Fletch]

I have given you a very specific answer - not once but twice.

Do you really think I possess the extra human powers to look into the future and name names?

Sorry, but listing unspecified, shadowy, mean people is not being specific, it is being paranoid and vague and inventing adversaries where none exist. Perhaps it is time for you to stop living in the 1920's.

 

[beerftw]

This chart seems to present a different picture than what you are attempting to foster

NationMaster - Crime stats: Australia vs United States

your chart shows australia has double the number of assault victims,lower confidence in police,half the number of gun homocides as a % of the us,but ignores the fact is much higher than pre weapons ban,less people feeling safer to walk in the dark than the us,almost 3 times the amount of rapes.higher suicide rate,a higher overall crime rate,and amuch higher violent crime rate(which nation masters doesnt cover.


so your only argument still is that homicides are down,despite the fact the us over the same timespan dropped 31.7% with unrestricted guns while australia with a mass gun ban only dropped 31.9%,omfg a .2% drop in gun violence over america in the same time span,that clearly justifies australia becoming the most violent and criminal filled country.



i can easily pull up any stats you want,but your entire argument is based on homicedes overall and nothing else,because people actually anylizing the data debunks your logic,i already posted a link which fully debunks it,and clearly you didnt read it or blissfully ignored it.

 

[ric27]

Maybe one of these days you will be able to separate one issue from the other without confusing or conflating the two dishonestly for political purposes.

Keep dodging....Nothing but another shining example of a tragedy being used to further your gun ban agenda.

 

[H. Lee White]

As some of us have been saying, the AWB isn't going to reduce these mass shootings...

A fact recognized by anyone with even the barest ability to reason and the tiniest smidgin of intellectual honesty.