how many slaughters will it take?

[Lutherf]

Really, you think you or anyone on this site intimidates me? You don't pay much attention then, do you?

:lamo

Make up your mind, will you!!! Either my "ilk" has threatened and intimidated you or we haven't. You're currently on both sides of that one.

 

[Phys251]

When is the last time you saw Conservatives riot, loot and vandalize when they didn't get their way?

The Republican party is infested with weak liberals. There aren't anywhere near enough Conservatives.

Can't you just give me a straight answer as to whether you would be willing to help incite a revolution or not? Inquiring minds at the TSA would probably like to know.

 

[Summerwind]

:lamo

Make up your mind, will you!!! Either my "ilk" has threatened and intimidated you or we haven't. You're currently on both sides of that one.

Uhm, apparently you need to comprehend the word "attempt". I've haven't been intimidate-able since I left home at 16, hence why I carried for many years. Because I don't get intimidated, I just don't, which really pisses white conservative males off.

 

[tech30528]

See, you're assuming that people don't look at this, and think "Wow, if only everyone was armed so that we could protect ourselves", regardless of what the "liberal educated elite" might say, any massacres like this is only going to back fire and convince people for more access to weapons.

Interesting. There is typically an uptick in new owner purchases after something like this. Hard to say what the ratio is of those buying for defense and those hedging against new regulations. Back when Diane Feinstein pushed her "assault weapons ban" demand and prices went way up on some items, specifically those listed by make and model.

 

[haymarket]

Why should any number of mass murders convince me to support gun control when I don't believe gun control is the answer or would be effective?

I did not think it would. Thanks for confirming that suspicion.

But that was not the question the poll asked.

 

[Grant]

It's because half of the public's reaction to tragedies like this is unfailingly "If only everyone in the audience in that darkened theater had a gun, the killer would've been stopped!" "If only everyone at church had a gun" "If only the teacher at the elementary school had a gun" etc

Yes and the wild west was so peaceful

Actually it wasn't that wild at all. The famed Boot Hill has only one person there who died by gunfire. Killing was rare, which made it big news. Now, unless race is involved, or numbers, it doesn't really make the news at all.

 

[nota bene]

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.

Nightmares aren't happy. Hoping that those who don't share your views--you know, the "your ilk" and "your kind"--will be "terminated" is...extreme. I hope you're only stooping to a bit of hyperbole here.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Truly pathetic politicising done in poor taste...

But it is from Obama and the Unthinking Left, so what would you expect...

I was wondering how long it would take a hack to blame Obama.

 

[EnigmaO01]

How long will it take before ignorant people realize that despite highly publicized tragedies gun violence is declining?

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware | Pew Research Center

But mass shootings are up big time.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiam...n-american-tragedy-mass-shootings-are-rising/

 

[nota bene]

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.

Count me among those who shudder at a Minority Report or "Person of Interest" society, and I do think we're on our technological and Orwellian way.

 

[EnigmaO01]

How many slaughters till Xmas? Anyone care to wager?

Two...

 

[Lutherf]

Can't you just give me a straight answer as to whether you would be willing to help incite a revolution or not? Inquiring minds at the TSA would probably like to know.

"Incite"? Hell no! Liberals do that crap. That's why they riot and loot and throw bottles filled with piss at cops.

Respond to an act of aggression against the people by the government? Oh yeah! No doubt about it.

 

[Occam's Razor]

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

For the same reason the abortion issue, even during 12 years of republican dominance in the 80s, will never be advanced.. It will cost them too much at the polls. Abortion and gun control both deal with the loss of innocent life.. So it's very easy to incite the political passions of your party faithful and fence sitters to get out and vote for their party.

If you want gun control, or abortion limits, voting again for these two parties is madness. They have every incentive to not just tell you what you want to hear as their base, but enflame your passions... Then do nothing in office other than give the theater they're trying to do something.

Thanks for playing, don't forget to come back out and vote next term, we'll need even more support next time to beat our opposition..

 

[ChezC3]

I was wondering how long it would take a hack to blame Obama.

Not long, but then it didn't take Obama long to use these people's tragic deaths to score political points either, so...

 

[Phys251]

"Incite"? Hell no!

Good. Then stop this revolution talk now.

 

[Linc]

But not a word from GOP contenders who don't want to offend the 19 hate groups in South Carolina.
Not to mention the NRA which has them right by the nads .

I was wondering how long it would take a hack to blame Obama.

 

[mike2810]

But not a word from GOP contenders who don't want to offend the 19 hate groups in South Carolina.
Not to mention the NRA which has them right by the nads .

other than condemning the shooting, what do you want to say that more gun laws are needed?

Let's hope this tragedy is not politicized too much. oh wait. to late. :mrgreen:

 

[nota bene]

Good. Then stop this revolution talk now.

No, you stop being dishonest. Here's what Luther said on page 1 of this thread: "If they try to ban guns the carnage at Sandy Hook will barely be a blip on the radar. If they try to confiscate guns the Civil War will look like a blip on the radar."

This isn't talk of revolution; this is a prediction.

And when I've wondered what would cause Americans to get off their apathy, I've always thought that it would be over the right to keep and bear arms. <This isn't talk of revolution either; it's also a prediction.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How many calls for rioting and mayhem will it take to get someone prosecuted for saying "burn the bitch down"? We do not lack laws to prosecute someone for mass murder (or for any murder) - we lack laws to prevent crime by restricting the freedom of all.

 

[countryboy]

The right to own a gun is not unrestricted and 90% believe it should be more restricted by background checks so no. I am talking about our legislators who have been bought out by the NRA and are financed by the gun companies who just want to make a buck no matter what the consequences. How would comprehensive background checks effect your right to own a gun by the way? You couldn't pass them?

It is an intrusion into my privacy, and it clearly infringes my 2A rights. Furthermore, it would do nothing to solve the problem of gun crime. Whether I could pass a background check is irrelevant, and a moot point.

 

[B'smith]

Uhm, I'm a CCW carrier, so I have no idea where you're getting your broad brush to stroke me with. I've even carried illegally in CA back in the day when our family vacation to Disneyland happened to occur (was scheduled way in advance) three weeks after the Rodney King riots. So really you need to point that outrage somewhere else.

That said, harming people is not the same as taking property. And the reason I carry is to protect myself against people like you, seriously. Most intimidation and/or threats I've received in my life came from your ilk.

To be fair to other readers, I hope you'll be specific as to whom & what you consider a threat (aka "ilk")
I, too am a CCW carrier who has carried, illegally while in NY City & DC

Also:

I wish anti Gun advocates would please consider examples like a specific situation in which 3 female room mates in an inner city neighborhood had their phone line cut by the 2 armed males who were breaking in their door. Their screams (at 2AM) were heard by a next door, armed neighbor who entered the house, wounded one of the individuals & drove them away. When called later, the police showed up the next day to take a report & nothing has been heard about the situation to this day. (10 years later)

There are countless instances like that that don't make "The News" & are omitted from "Statistics" that act as deterrents in the criminal world.

I have yet to see a committed anti-Gun advocate who feels strongly enough to post bumper stickers or signs around their home declaring that: "This is a Gun Free Household"

Essentially, anti-Gun advocates are safer because criminals fear that they MIGHT encounter an armed citizen.

Does your State require any training course, just curious.


Thanks

 

[TurtleDude]

Of course, because another law will make those willing to break the law anyway stay home that day. :roll:

smart people realize that the leaders of the gun ban movement often welcome these massacres and hope the blood of the innocents can be used to fuel more gun bans. The really pathetic part of this nonsense is that crime control has nothing to do with these calls for gun bans but rather its a tactic of the far left as well as some mainstream Democrats to try to weaken the efforts of pro gun organizations to fund conservative candidates. Plus, calling for gun bans or other restrictions pander to the hysterics who scream for something to be done overtime we have a tragedy that was not prevented by say capital murder ramifications etc.


The cynical and dishonest actions of the gun banners at Sandy Hook was probably why their efforts for another nation wide gun ban failed. The guns at Sandyhook had been bought and owned pursuant to silly registration laws and the person that misused the weapons to commit CAPITAL Murder had killed his own mother (Capital murder) to get the weapons illegally. So when the anti gun snivelers whined about more gun laws, rational people realized that gun laws-or lack thereof-had nothing to do with that shooting.

 

[countryboy]

Nightmares aren't happy. Hoping that those who don't share your views--you know, the "your ilk" and "your kind"--will be "terminated" is...extreme. I hope you're only stooping to a bit of hyperbole here.

I have been away from the thread for a bit, has anyone on the left here come out against that vile and disgusting comment?

 

[TurtleDude]

90% may support expanded background checks, but even so it's still a back burner issue for most.

UBGC would not have stopped this or most crimes. and the purpose of UBGC is to fail so the proponents can demand complete gun registration. all of the proposals I have seen for this silly law is that family members would not have to run a background check on a family member. The current evidence is that this shooter was given the gun by his father. There is no evidence the father had a criminal record. There is no evidence that the mope had a felony record at the time he was given the gun. So maybe someone can tell us how that proposed law would have stopped this (assuming someone willing to kill 9 others would fail to be able to get a gun on the street)?

and why should ineffective laws be passed based on how many times criminals act criminally?

 

[TurtleDude]

Never. Look on this forum. Look on any forum. Look at Fox News. Go to your local sports bar and look at all the "Wannabe Rambos" in camo hats and NRA shirts with a HS education.

your post proves what I have been saying for years--most of the gun banners are motivated by a cultural animus towards gun owners

did you know that the average gun owner is better educated and wealthier than non gun owners?