• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

how many slaughters will it take?

How many slaughters will it take?

  • at least 12 months of slaughters

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • at least 24 months of slaughters

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
Status
Not open for further replies.
Many people who remember mass murders, committed almost always by young people, can tell you what weapons were used in the mass killings. If you can't recall you can Google it and have an answer with a few minutes. How about the names of the drugs the killers had consumed legally or legally and if there had been a supervised withdrawal from those drugs? Could you quickly find the information in a web search? Not quickly, if at all. The MSM will rarely report it and there damn sure isn't much comprehensive explanation in the MSM.

We have read that Roof was arrested for felony abuse of suboxone and that is all we know. How much had he used, how long? What other drugs did he use? What would be the combined effects of other drugs he might have taken? Where did he get the suboxone?

Once he was arrested for felony drug abuse was he sent for immediate evaluation? Was he provided with counseling? Was he family provided with support concerning their son's drug abuse and advised of the possible shot term and long term effects of his drug abuse such as personality changes, depression and in the case of suboxone the possibility that a high level of abuse could cause Roof to exhibit psycho-social behaviors?

Did LEO have access to a data base that based on factors such as age, social involvement, employment, nature of drugs abuse and so on could cause a person to be a danger to self or others? If was there a reporting protocol to follow, even to the point of temporary custody for the purpose of further psychological assessment? Were there laws in place and support funding? Did anyone contact family and say based on yada, yada, yada keep this person away from firearms and here's why?

How many times must this continue to happen when none of the above ever happen? Where is the red flag danger protocol readily available? Where is comprehensive support available?

How often does Big Pharma stand in the shadows? How often do Big Pharma's flacks work overtime to keep so much of this information out of the press? How much money is spent in advertising dollars annually by Big Pharma? Do you think that might influence the press?
 
Cons want another civil war bring it on, the North would kick their ass again, please bring it.

I don't give a **** how many guns they have the other side will always have more, and of course more money also, the South is as poor as ****, and least educated..

Guns won't do a damn thing for those sorry inbreds when we are dropping Missiles on your ass, and Nuking you Waco Style!!


Thermonuclear weapons MF..:lamo

this might be the nuttiest post this week

yeah, the government is going to nuke its own country

wonder what you will do if your next door neighbor is a hard core NRA member. Last time I checked, nuking him means you hit 10,000 degrees fahrenheit in about .2 seconds as well
 
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.

there is no doubt that the leaders of the gun ban movement welcome massacres since it allows them to try to advance their agenda. the attempt to ban guns is what causes people to buy guns in reaction. Not the massacres. If the anti gun yappers kept quiet after a massacre-especially one like this where no gun law would have had any chance of stopping it, I bet there would be no buying sprees

the buying sprees have always come after Democrat schemes to ban guns

the Brady bill and the Clinton Gun ban are examples where people started buying guns at heightened levels in reaction to the Democrat schemes. No massacres back then other than the rape of the constitution
 
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.

some gun sellers like seeing Democrat attempts to ban guns because that does increase their sales. Massacres do not. its the reactionary Democrat solution to massacres that does
 
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!

you are not being truthful. I know this for a fact. The calls for gun bans is what spurs sales. Intelligent people realize that is true and intelligent people also realize that calls for gun bans are almost guaranteed from the Democrats and some republicans shortly after any massacre--especially if the victims are photogenic or aren't tied to drug dealing.

the only time a massacre without reactionary Dem calls for bans lead to increased gun purchases was events that caused people in the area to feel unsafe.
 
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.

LOL great comedy in a silly thread.
 
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.

I don't recall asking you the question, Nota. Stop defending a man who talks of revolution and is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.
 
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.

that's because the NRA does stuff that really upsets the left

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

yet again that is wrong-its your leaders calling for gun bans that spur the sales.
 
I don't recall asking you the question, Nota. Stop defending a man who talks of revolution and is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.

Yes, of course, silence the opposition. That's what Freedom is all about!!
 
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?

what the SHEEPLE supposedly want is irrelevant if its unconstitutional Private firearms sales are restricted by federal law to INTRA-state transactions. SO its going to be hard, in light of Lopez, for the gun grabbers to argue that the commerce clause allows the federal government the power to demand private sellers at a purely intrastate level conduct background checks

BTW they are a waste of time. NO STUDY could find any evidence that making FFLs conduct background checks under the Brady bill decreased crime whatsoever
 
Last edited:
yet again that is wrong-its your leaders calling for gun bans that spur the sales.

True to a point. However its the mass killings that lead to people calling for stricter control over guns. Which in turn, with the help of the NRA crazies, lead the paranoid to the gun dealers. You can rationalize all you want, mass killings help spur gun sales. People call for stricter control all the time but its after these traumatic events that the gun crazies think there is more of a chance of some type of control actually happening.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course, silence the opposition. That's what Freedom is all about!!

Defending each other but not defending your own selves?

I like that. That's actually a pretty good tactic. Well played, sir.
 
The NRA also has a board member who has blamed the State Senator who was gunned down and then blamed him for the death of the other eight.
Pretty sick don't you think?
Since South Carolina couldn't pass a law for CC in churches.

And they're not electing conservatives--let's get that straight--they're electing GOPs .

that's because the NRA does stuff that really upsets the left

they help elect conservatives.
 
True to a point. However its the mass killings that lead to people calling for stricter control over guns. Which in turn, with the help of the NRA crazies, lead the paranoid to the gun dealers. You can rationalize all you want, mass killings help spur gun sales.

Man, when you put it that way, it's almost as if mass shootings are a financial benefit to gun companies. Remember the run on guns immediately after Sandy Hook?
 
Which leaders are calling for gun bans?
I've heard zero leaders calling for gun bans.
You know that and continue to peddle this lie .

yet again that is wrong-its your leaders calling for gun bans that spur the sales.
 
some gun sellers like seeing Democrat attempts to ban guns because that does increase their sales. Massacres do not. its the reactionary Democrat solution to massacres that does

Yup. That's what my husband always says. The more these gun grabbers try to go for their guns, the more money he's going to spend on guns and ammo. They don't even realize that it's their own actions that spur gun sales. That's why the old saying "Obama is the best gun salesperson" is absolutely true. The irony is delicious.
 
Man, when you put it that way, it's almost as if mass shootings are a financial benefit to gun companies. Remember the run on guns immediately after Sandy Hook?

I sure do. Went to a wedding near there about a year ago. Its hard seeing the signs and not feeling completely miserable.
 
The NRA also has a board member who has blamed the State Senator who was gunned down and then blamed him for the death of the other eight.
Pretty sick don't you think?
Since South Carolina couldn't pass a law for CC in churches.

And they're not electing conservatives--let's get that straight--they're electing GOPs .

If you actually read the article (and avoided the overtly antagonistic headline) you would see that the guy at the NRA condemned the policy that Pinckney supported and noted how if that policy had not been implemented then at least people (other than the shooter) would have been allowed to carry a firearm in the church and therefore be more capable of defending themselves and others. He NEVER blamed Pinckney. That was pure, unadulterated, agenda driven hyperbole designed to foment hate.
 
True to a point. However its the mass killings that lead to people calling for stricter control over guns. Which in turn, with the help of the NRA crazies, lead the paranoid to the gun dealers. You can rationalize all you want, mass killings help spur gun sales. People call for stricter control all the time but its after these traumatic events that the gun crazies think there is more of a chance of some type of control actually happening.

I realize you hate what you perceive to be the politics of most gun owners. so you will call the NRA "crazies" mainly because the NRA opposes the very politicians you want in office. But the fact remains, in 1993, the 15 round magazines for my Frederick Craig Custom built Para-Ordnance 1911 cost me 45 dollars. I saw that the clinton gun ban was going to prevent those magazines from being made and sold to non-government civilians for 10 years, So I bought ten more so I had enough to compete (wear and tear-I lose about a magazine a year). Smart move on my part-by 1995, those same magazines cost over 150 dollars. People who were trying to get into the USPSA game were effectively shut out or had to pony up several thousand dollars just to be able to compete with people like me who had amassed sufficient gear to run at the top levels before the Clintonista idiocy.

its people like you who hope that the chances of gun control will pass after a massacre which is why you all demand gun bans more stridently after such bloodshed.

the crazies are those who think that honest people should have their rights restricted because of the actions of someone who ignores the penalties for capital murder

and again, you call people like us crazy because we don't buy into the collectivist welfare socialist culture that seems to be the unifying theme of the gun banner movement
 
Man, when you put it that way, it's almost as if mass shootings are a financial benefit to gun companies. Remember the run on guns immediately after Sandy Hook?

that was due to the Obamatards and the Brady thugs demanding gun bans. BTW the Brady thugs and other gun banning groups had huge increases in donations and lots more face time on TV as a result
 
Cons want another civil war bring it on, the North would kick their ass again, please bring it.

I don't give a **** how many guns they have the other side will always have more, and of course more money also, the South is as poor as ****, and least educated..

Guns won't do a damn thing for those sorry inbreds when we are dropping Missiles on your ass, and Nuking you Waco Style!!


Thermonuclear weapons MF..:lamo

I always love a progressive approach that demonstrates the futility of peace, love and understanding.
 
Which leaders are calling for gun bans?
I've heard zero leaders calling for gun bans.
You know that and continue to peddle this lie .

Feinstein wants a complete ban on magazine fed semi autos

Obama said he wants the clinton gun ban back-at one time he supported a complete ban on handguns

Biden wanted the clinton gun ban reinstated

Schumer wants the clinton gun ban reinstated

The Governor of NY tried to ban any magazine that held more than 7 rounds
that effectively bans 100% of the 9MM police style pistols on the market

so we have the president, the VP, the senior senators from NY and California and the Governor of one of the most populous states in the country all gun banners
 
I realize you hate what you perceive to be the politics of most gun owners. so you will call the NRA "crazies" mainly because the NRA opposes the very politicians you want in office. But the fact remains, in 1993, the 15 round magazines for my Frederick Craig Custom built Para-Ordnance 1911 cost me 45 dollars. I saw that the clinton gun ban was going to prevent those magazines from being made and sold to non-government civilians for 10 years, So I bought ten more so I had enough to compete (wear and tear-I lose about a magazine a year). Smart move on my part-by 1995, those same magazines cost over 150 dollars. People who were trying to get into the USPSA game were effectively shut out or had to pony up several thousand dollars just to be able to compete with people like me who had amassed sufficient gear to run at the top levels before the Clintonista idiocy.

its people like you who hope that the chances of gun control will pass after a massacre which is why you all demand gun bans more stridently after such bloodshed.

the crazies are those who think that honest people should have their rights restricted because of the actions of someone who ignores the penalties for capital murder

and again, you call people like us crazy because we don't buy into the collectivist welfare socialist culture that seems to be the unifying theme of the gun banner movement

I love the NRA. They provide so much entertainment.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom