how many slaughters will it take?

[Thrilla]

You're probably right, because if such an attempt at civil war broke out, you and your ilk would be terminated in pretty short order, and that's a nightmare I can happily dream about.

wow.

at least you're honest about wanting to see your political opponents slaughtered... most far lefties won't openly say such things.

 

[Linc]

Are you speaking of all DEMs?
If you are, then you already know you are lying .

You think your little accusations change anything?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Hmmm...interesting. The gun sellers love a good mass killing because gun sales go up. I guess that's what Rahm Emanuel was talking about when he spoke of the good crises and not letting them go to waste. So by your logic, I guess we can say that the anti-gun politicians and anti-gun advocates, like Obama and most other Liberals, love a good mass killing because they have one more thing they can use to advance their agendas.

From an economic point of view they sure as hell love it. Just look at the increased gun sales. A verified benefit. You may not like me pointing it out but that's too bad. Which agenda is Obama advancing? Gun control? HA! If anything gun laws have become more lax. Your bogus comparison fails miserably. Try again. In fact I bet there are plenty of racists in this country who secretly love what that whack job did. Again sad but unfortunately the truth.

 

[Linc]

Far righties started that civil war talk on this thread first, Thrilla.
Try reading the tread for context, instead of cherry-picking .

wow.

at least you're honest about wanting to see your political opponents slaughtered... most far lefties won't openly say such things.

 

[Crovax]

I stopped here Crovax where you called me a fool.
Being a moderate on guns is probably the toughest issue for me, since you rightists go off the rails and just blatantly lie and sweep away another gun massacre .

You should have read the rest since my position was well backed up. Background checks can not be enacted at a federal level no matter what % of Americans you think want them.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm not a gun-banner Thrilla--so saying they're on my team lands you back in the Blatant Irrational Lie Zone .

I don't give a good goddamn what you say you are... you're arguing against everyone who is arguing in defense of gun rights.

that's all i need to know about you.

 

[tres borrachos]

From an economic point of view they sure as hell love it. Just look at the increased gun sales. A verified benefit. You may not like me pointing it out but that's too bad. Which agenda is Obama advancing? Gun control? HA! If anything gun laws have become more lax. Your bogus comparison fails miserably. Try again. In fact I bet there are plenty of racists in this country who secretly love what that whack job did. Again sad but unfortunately the truth.

My comparison is spot on. Your logic tells you that gun sellers love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. And I'm saying in return that Liberals love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. Thanks for reminding us of people who use mass slaughters for their own personal gain. Yes, even your beloved Liberal lawmakers. "Oh how sad. 9 people died. Our hearts go out to their families. We need gun control. Everyone mobilize!"

Rahm Emanuel was right, huh.

 

[mike2810]

I voted "no amount will matter"

I do not see how more laws will curb the type of events listed in the OP. We have laws that make it a crime to rob banks. Banks still get robbed. We have laws that make driving without a license or insurance a crime. People still do.

What added law does someone think would stop the mass killings? People have purchased firearms legally. The same people could pass another background checks with no problem and purchase another firearm. That said, who knows if any of those people might some day commit a crime with a firearm.

Unless our science gets to the point that a "Minority Report" or "Person of Interest" type surveillance is possible. More laws are not the answer.

 

[Jack Hays]

From an economic point of view they sure as hell love it. Just look at the increased gun sales. A verified benefit. You may not like me pointing it out but that's too bad. Which agenda is Obama advancing? Gun control? HA! If anything gun laws have become more lax. Your bogus comparison fails miserably. Try again. In fact I bet there are plenty of racists in this country who secretly love what that whack job did. Again sad but unfortunately the truth.

And as "gun laws have become more lax" the homicide rate has gone down.


Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty ...

DPIC | Death Penalty Information Centermurder-rate...


Death Penalty Information Center


... Nov, 2014). News and Developments - Current Year. News and ... REGIONAL MURDER RATES, 2001 - 2013 ... NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES, 1996 - 2013 ...

Per 100,000 population:

 

[Ockham]

Are you speaking of all DEMs?

I'm speaking of your lie (statement) in your post #16 in this thread.

 

[Thrilla]

Far righties started that civil war talk on this thread first, Thrilla.
Try reading the tread for context, instead of cherry-picking .

"they did it first" is not a defense for a bull**** statement like that..... and it's very very telling you decided to defend it

 

[Manc Skipper]

How many slaughters till Xmas? Anyone care to wager?

 

[Thrilla]

Why do you keep referring to me as a gun grabber Thrilla when you know YER lying?
Ask TurtleDude if you don't believe me .

I didn't refer to you as anything...

if you think I did.. do what you always do and report me.

 

[Gaius46]

Mass slaughters grab attention but are anomalies. Making policy based on them would be stupid. Most gun crime is criminal on criminal. Deal with that issue if you want to reduce gun deaths.

 

[Hari Seldon]

My comparison is spot on. Your logic tells you that gun sellers love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. And I'm saying in return that Liberals love to see people slaughtered because it benefits them. Thanks for reminding us of people who use mass slaughters for their own personal gain. Yes, even your beloved Liberal lawmakers. "Oh how sad. 9 people died. Our hearts go out to their families. We need gun control. Everyone mobilize!"

Rahm Emanuel was right, huh.

My logic tells me gun sellers love to sell guns. You just can't accept the fact that mass killings spur gun sales. Kids died in CT, not much in the way of gun control passed. But a whole lot more guns got sold. Your just pissed because I pointed it out. Tough!

 

[Lutherf]

You are out of your mind if you think you can take on the most powerful military in the history and humankind and even survive the first 24 hours of battle. And if you are indeed delusional enough to believe that the military were to defect and join these "lawful owners," as you call them, then what are you waiting for? Why not sound the battle cry now now? You guys are all talk. Talk, talk, talk. No action. Y'all don't scare me one bit with this revolutionary crap.

But let's be realistic here. Your buddies George W. Bush and Dick Cheney made sure that records of every text, phone call, Tweet, Facebook post, forum post, etc. can be made available to the government for any reason they choose. Practically none of this has gone away under Obama and Biden, and no, the "expiration" of parts of the Patriot act did nothing to change that. You wouldn't even be able to coordinate the first attack without tipping off every law enforcement agency in the country!

Out of curiosity, if the Republicans win the White House in 2016 and President Palin decides to sign an executive order outlawing homosexuality and ordering the troops to round up any gays and throw them in jail would you be willing to fight to preserve the liberty of homosexuals? What if President Trump decides that racial minorities are a threat to society and orders that all people of color get rounded up and sent to the Rachel Dolezal race reassignment surgical center? Would those threats to fundamental freedoms be enough to get your ass away from the keyboard and into some fatigues?

 

[Summerwind]

wow.

at least you're honest about wanting to see your political opponents slaughtered... most far lefties won't openly say such things.

I'm a heartless liberal, what can I say? I don't have my views because I "care," I have my views because it's been proven, and/or in the process of being proven that liberal policies cost less in the long run, kill fewer people, and create fewer enemies.

 

[Jack Hays]

My logic tells me gun sellers love to sell guns. You just can't accept the fact that mass killings spur gun sales. Kids died in CT, not much in the way of gun control passed. But a whole lot more guns got sold. Your just pissed because I pointed it out. Tough!

It's a competitive sector and I doubt mass killings are key to anyone's business plan. Colt just filed for bankruptcy.

 

[Summerwind]

Out of curiosity, if the Republicans win the White House in 2016 and President Palin decides to sign an executive order outlawing homosexuality and ordering the troops to round up any gays and throw them in jail would you be willing to fight to preserve the liberty of homosexuals? What if President Trump decides that racial minorities are a threat to society and orders that all people of color get rounded up and sent to the Rachel Dolezal race reassignment surgical center? Would those threats to fundamental freedoms be enough to get your ass away from the keyboard and into some fatigues?

Conflating harming people as equal to taking away some property... wow. That's just an idiotic analogy there.

 

[blackjack50]

When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?

I mean...I might be inclined to listen to the gun control lobby if it weren't purely about using blood to gain votes. I'm not fooled by gun control trying to be crime"control. It doesn't work. Not here. What has worked is quality police forces. Quality mental health care.

But please. As a pro gun control person...please keep ignoring the single most blatantly obvious fact:

 

[VanceMack]

Ther was plenty of outcry and plenty of demanding but there is just no amount of majority that can defeat the NRA juggernaut. It does not matter how large a majority want background checks or Federal gun registration we have a mostly dysfunctional Govt. that is tied in knots by money.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk? - The Washington Post

Which 'law' do you suppose would have prevented this? No assault rifle used. Magazine capacity not an issue. Handgun not a military style combat rifle. Waiting period not relevant...weapon was purchased months ago. Background checks not relevant...weapon purchased by his father. No bans on 2 or more military style features to a weapon would have been relevant. Bans on specific types of ammo (especially 'armor piercing bullets') would not have been relevant.

At the end of the day...you like everyone else is just trying to further a ridiculous agenda as evidenced by your bleating on about the NRA.

 

[Lutherf]

Conflating harming people as equal to taking away some property... wow. That's just an idiotic analogy there.

Hmm....what if Obama took away all the guns and then President Palin started rounding up gays? Who would you turn to then to stop the injustice? Do you figure that a "sit in" would get the job done?

 

[Hari Seldon]

It's a competitive sector and I doubt mass killings are key to anyone's business plan. Colt just filed for bankruptcy.

I would hope gun sellers and manufacturers don't count on mass killings but they sure don't hurt their business.

 

[Summerwind]

Hmm....what if Obama took away all the guns and then President Palin started rounding up gays? Who would you turn to then to stop the injustice? Do you figure that a "sit in" would get the job done?

Harming people is not the same, simply isn't. Only in pea brains does this analogy work.

 

[countryboy]

A true liberal wouldn't want to see you or your ilk terminated but instead assimilated... I'm more "conservative" in this way.

Mmm hmm. Sure you are. Garden variety lib.