NRA Conference 12 / 21 / 12


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 570 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
The Exchange

Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.

Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?

It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language

So how about we toss the first amendment, in the name of safety of course. And how about we go full out on racial profiling,etc. After all lives are more important, right?


Sissyl wrote:
I have no doubt the US military can kill any citizen of the US and A if they wanted to. Of course, if that happened, several other things would happen, things that might not beso easy to deal with. Start disarming people en masse and kill those who don't agree and you have a social, political, legal and likely military reaction that will be very severe.

Yup. Good thing that's not a serious option then. Won't pass Congress. Wouldn't be signed by the President. Wouldn't pass a SC challenge.

But keep waving that red flag of "disarming people en masse and kill those who don't agree" and maybe you can scare enough people that no change will happen.

Of course, if you actually think the 2nd amendment is about being able to fight an asymmetric war against the government, forget the semi-auto rifles. You need to work on legalizing actual machine guns and explosives: mortars, land mines, SAMs, RPGs etc. That's what works for insurgents.
Of course, a better approach is to work on convincing the millions of your fellow citizens in the military that you aren't crazy terrorists who need to be stopped for the good of the country, which is probably better done with non-violent resistance than by highly armed anti-government militias. The military has better weapons, get some of them on your side.

Sovereign Court

Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.

Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?

It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language

So how about we toss the first amendment, in the name of safety of course. And how about we go full out on racial profiling,etc. After all lives are more important, right?

I don't think free speech has ever cost anyone their lives . . . but you do have reasonable limitations on that. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded cinema as everyone likes to point out. So if people are able to define limits to the 1st amendment why can't you have limits on the 2nd?

Also racial profiling usually isn't about stopping crime, it's usually more about oppressing minorities, and all it does is skew crime statistics. I'm sure their are more collage age and middle class white people smoking pot then inner city blacks but you have a disproportionate number of the latter in jail for drug crimes. If you're talking about airport security on the other hand that's a complete waste of time and money. I haven't heard of one terrorist plot they've foiled.


Seriously... last I checked, the US military involved a standing component of some 2 million people, with nuclear missiles, conventional missiles, warships, fighter jets, bomber planes, artillery, helicopters, and every other kind of hardware you could think of. To fight a symmetric war against that kind of violence, you need similar stuff yourself. RPGs, explosives and machine guns let you make an insurgence, but fighting the USM to win? Forget it.

What would happen is that parts of the military would very likely refuse to kill american citizens, because, you know, they don't see it as their job. Killing people to disarm them would spark riots all over the place. Various resistance movements would congregate. Political opposition would grow. The lawsuits about excessive violence would mount and become a bad soap opera. The governmental response to this, with more repressive policies, checkpoints, censorship etc would in turn create more resentment.

Yeah. Nobody in their right minds would want to go there.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Good thing no one's suggesting anything even approaching that, then, isn't it? Could you address the actual policy options being proposed rather than your paranoid strawmen? It would make the discussion a lot saner.

The Exchange

Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.

Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?

It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language

So how about we toss the first amendment, in the name of safety of course. And how about we go full out on racial profiling,etc. After all lives are more important, right?

I don't think free speech has ever cost anyone their lives . . . but you do have reasonable limitations on that. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded cinema as everyone likes to point out. So if people are able to define limits to the 1st amendment why can't you have limits on the 2nd?

Also racial profiling usually isn't about stopping crime, it's usually more about oppressing minorities, and all it does is skew crime statistics. I'm sure their are more collage age and middle class white people smoking pot then inner city blacks but you have a disproportionate number of the latter in jail for drug crimes. If you're talking about airport security on the other hand that's a complete waste of time and money. I haven't heard of one terrorist plot they've foiled.

So no, only guns. nothing else you are willing to sacrifice for "safety"


You really did not understand my point, did you Paul?

I said nobody wants to go there. The stuff they do want is to make it more difficult to get guns. This will not in any way interfere with the guns people already have. Riots are unlikely then, aren't they?

A case could be made that limiting the buying of guns is unlikely to be effective, though. There are enough guns out there, all over the place, that someone who wants one can get it, legally or illegally. How many firearms are out there that nobody knows about? Yes, they are pretty ubiquitous. I find it hard to believe that someone willing to murder dozens of children/classmates/whatever will refrain from doing so because it's illegal for him to buy a gun.

Experience says that once an area has firearms, removing them is a very slow, difficult process. The only current ways of doing so are confiscation when someone is found to carry one illegally or amnesty campaigns where the police receives or buys guns. Neither is doing a particularly amazing job.

So... if any law gets passed, the most it could do is limit new purchases. It will also probably be pretty toothless and ineffective.

I don't have a bone to pick in this. Sweden has more firearms per capita than the US does, generally hunting rifles. We have a very strict gun law. Few gun deaths, too, and no school massacres yet, but firearm-related violence is a bigger part of a shrinking violent crime pool here, as everywhere.

Please don't call me paranoid.


Sissyl wrote:

You really did not understand my point, did you Paul?

I said nobody wants to go there. The stuff they do want is to make it more difficult to get guns. This will not in any way interfere with the guns people already have. Riots are unlikely then, aren't they?

A case could be made that limiting the buying of guns is unlikely to be effective, though. There are enough guns out there, all over the place, that someone who wants one can get it, legally or illegally. How many firearms are out there that nobody knows about? Yes, they are pretty ubiquitous. I find it hard to believe that someone willing to murder dozens of children/classmates/whatever will refrain from doing so because it's illegal for him to buy a gun.

Experience says that once an area has firearms, removing them is a very slow, difficult process. The only current ways of doing so are confiscation when someone is found to carry one illegally or amnesty campaigns where the police receives or buys guns. Neither is doing a particularly amazing job.

So... if any law gets passed, the most it could do is limit new purchases. It will also probably be pretty toothless and ineffective.

It probably will be toothless and ineffective, but it doesn't have to be. I agree that the only reasonable possibility is to ban new purchases of specific types of weapons (and/or magazines), combined with voluntary buybacks. (And expansion of registration/licensing requirements and background checks, but that's sort of a different issue.) That won't make much of an immediate dent in availability, but slow and difficult doesn't mean not worth doing.

I'm also not as convinced that purchase being illegal won't restrain "someone willing to murder dozens of children/classmates/whatever". He might not care about the illegality, but he may also not know how to access the black market. How many of the recent mass killers purchased their weapons illegally?
In the long run, lower availability on the civilian market will mean less on the black market as well. Those guns come from somewhere.

Sovereign Court

Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.

Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?

It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language

So how about we toss the first amendment, in the name of safety of course. And how about we go full out on racial profiling,etc. After all lives are more important, right?

I don't think free speech has ever cost anyone their lives . . . but you do have reasonable limitations on that. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded cinema as everyone likes to point out. So if people are able to define limits to the 1st amendment why can't you have limits on the 2nd?

Also racial profiling usually isn't about stopping crime, it's usually more about oppressing minorities, and all it does is skew crime statistics. I'm sure their are more collage age and middle class white people smoking pot then inner city blacks but you have a disproportionate number of the latter in jail for drug crimes. If you're talking about airport security on the other hand that's a complete waste of time and money. I haven't heard of one terrorist plot they've foiled.

So no, only guns. nothing else you are willing to sacrifice for "safety"

Lots of laws are in place for safety, I can't drive at whatever speed I like because someone believes that speed limits save lives. I'm willing to live with that. Someone put limits on the 1st amendment because someone thought being able to shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater was a bad thing. I think the current limitations on free speech are fair, I don't like what everyone chooses to do with their freedoms, but I like censorship even less. Most people are willing to strike a balance between freedom and security. The NRA isn't about balance or even negotiation.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:

It probably will be toothless and ineffective, but it doesn't have to be. I agree that the only reasonable possibility is to ban new purchases of specific types of weapons (and/or magazines), combined with voluntary buybacks. (And expansion of registration/licensing requirements and background checks, but that's sort of a different issue.) That won't make much of an immediate dent in availability, but slow and difficult doesn't mean not worth doing.

I'm also not as convinced that purchase being illegal won't restrain "someone willing to murder dozens of children/classmates/whatever". He might not care about the illegality, but he may also not know how to access the black market. How many of the recent mass killers purchased their weapons illegally?
In the long run, lower availability on the civilian market will mean less on the black How many of the recent mass killers purchased their weapons illegally?
In the long run, lower availability on the civilian market will mean less on the black market as well. Those guns come from somewhere.

Just think if these toothless laws had been in place after the first columbine shooting over ten years ago. I doubt either of the latest shooters would have had access to high capacity clips. I doubt it would have stopped them from committing murder but I don't doubt there would have been fewer empty spots around the Christmas table this year.


In Sweden, the criminal elements did not have firearms to any relevant degree until in 1991, the swedish military decided it needed to perform a budget cut and sold large amounts of firearms to Portugal. Apparently, a large part of those guns never left Sweden. We got things like a criminal gang trying to kill someone who was in jail by firing an RPG into his cell from outside.

It's an illusion to think the current slow methods of removing guns from the pool of available weapons will ever limit availability to the point that someone who wants to commit mass murder will fail due to not getting a gun. Sadly, I believe it's a case of reaching asymtotically for it. The further you get, the less guns you remove. Someone wanting to kill people and them commit suicide will be able to liquidate completely to procure cash enough to buy even if guns are very rare.

No, the real way to do it, the only one I believe possible, is to make people aware that guns bring risks to those who own them, risks that did not exist without said guns. Relationship violence turns deadly, parents shoot their children when they come home late at night, expanded suicides wipe out entire families, someone carrying a gun gets shot simply because he is carrying a gun, arguments end with bullets, and so on. I would never arm myself, say, bring a knife, simply because of the far higher risk to myself. Guns have the same problem. And as for keeping your guns safe... how safe are they, really? Can you be certain someone breaking into your house doesn't steal your gun? If they threaten you for it, would you give them your gun? If something happened to your house, say, a flooding, can you be sure the guns remain where you left them? If you die, where do the guns go? If you're ill, and need help at home, can you be sure nobody takes them? With such an awareness comes the realization that one part of making your little piece of the world safer could mean NOT having guns. Of course, that's the exact idea the NRA are fighting against. I never said it would be easy.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Paul Watson wrote:

Kryzbyn,

And when you and the other gun supporters, who tend to be small govenment types, support and fund mental health treatment, then I'll take this viewpoint seriously. Until then, it's just a deflection technique to keep the nasty little liberalssss taking youur preciousssses. Just like the idea of armed guards at schools is. Tell us where the funding for this s coming from and we'll listen. Until then, this isn't a serious counterpoint.

Also, why can't you guys do both? Why can you only treat mental illness if you don't ban large magazinesor rapid fire weapons? *looks at current situation in Congress* Never mind, I think I've just seen the reason.

We don't need to fund mental health treatment to start a registry. But we can, if necessary. It's called compromise. As far as where the money will come from, we can look at prioritizing this amongst other social programs, or lump it in with AHCA.

It's not a can't. It's a 'why?'. Large magazines aren't the problem.
Define 'rapid fire', also. If you mean fully automatic weapons, these are already off limits, unless you qualify for a class III federal license to own one, and are kept track of. I'm ok with lumping AR-15's under the class III firearms license, so that gun enthusiasts can still purchase them. That way people who want the responsibility of owning one can pay the license fee and end up on a list.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No one is saying that gun control will stop gun crime. No one. What we are saying is that gun control might stop mass murder, or at the very least limit it's potential.

Gun control isn't about stopping people from getting guns, nor is it about taking guns away from law abiding owners, it's about the type of guns people can access in the future. I'm perfectly fine with folks being grandfathered in.

Also most gun suicides are suicides of opportunity. It would be a very rare individual that goes to the gun store to buy a gun to shoot themselves. Most people that are felling suicidal try some other means and often fail . . . unless they already have access to a gun.


Paul Watson wrote:

Kryzbyn,

And when you and the other gun supporters, who tend to be small govenment types, support and fund mental health treatment, then I'll take this viewpoint seriously. Until then, it's just a deflection technique to keep the nasty little liberalssss taking youur preciousssses. Just like the idea of armed guards at schools is. Tell us where the funding for this s coming from and we'll listen. Until then, this isn't a serious counterpoint.

Also, why can't you guys do both? Why can you only treat mental illness if you don't ban large magazinesor rapid fire weapons? *looks at current situation in Congress* Never mind, I think I've just seen the reason.

Citizen Watson,

I'll do you one better: when you and the other gun control supporters, who tend to be liberal stooges of the plutocracy and Obama apologists (Adam Lanza 20, Barack Obama 100something+) support the dictatorship of the proletariat, I'll give you gun control. After we shoot the bourgeoisie.

Vive le Galt!


Despite all that, it would be kind of cool to get hold of a nuclear warhead. Just think, you could carry it around in a big backpack, and if anyone started arguing with you, you could REALLY ruin their day...

Oh yeah. You'd probably go frzzzz too unless you have Improved Evasion and a lucky roll, but still, it would be sooooo coooool...

P.S. Dear NSA: Above is a joke. Please don't extradite me and put me in Guantanamo.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:

Kryzbyn,

And when you and the other gun supporters, who tend to be small govenment types, support and fund mental health treatment, then I'll take this viewpoint seriously. Until then, it's just a deflection technique to keep the nasty little liberalssss taking youur preciousssses. Just like the idea of armed guards at schools is. Tell us where the funding for this s coming from and we'll listen. Until then, this isn't a serious counterpoint.

Also, why can't you guys do both? Why can you only treat mental illness if you don't ban large magazinesor rapid fire weapons? *looks at current situation in Congress* Never mind, I think I've just seen the reason.

We don't need to fund mental health treatment to start a registry. But we can, if necessary. It's called compromise. As far as where the money will come from, we can look at prioritizing this amongst other social programs, or lump it in with AHCA.

It's not a can't. It's a 'why?'. Large magazines aren't the problem.
Define 'rapid fire', also. If you mean fully automatic weapons, these are already off limits, unless you qualify for a class III federal license to own one, and are kept track of. I'm ok with lumping AR-15's under the class III firearms license, so that gun enthusiasts can still purchase them. That way people who want the responsibility of owning one can pay the license fee and end up on a list.

Large magazines make it easier to kill more people more quickly. Stopping to reload makes them vulnerable. Jared Loughner was stopped while reloading, by unarmed bystanders.

As for mental health, most of the "mentally ill" are more likely to be victims of violence then perpetrators. A generic "metal health registry" will do little to stop gun violence or mass shootings. Actual mental health treatment might.


Andrew R wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
...but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.
I did not do this thing. Not agreeing that the current gun laws in CT didn't go far enough, is not the same as saying the constitution can not be amended. Since there are quite a few amendments, that would be a ludicrous position to take.

Then explain to me why the 2nd amendment is more valuable then even one life?

It's like Bill Hicks said about the American flag: NSFW language

So how about we toss the first amendment, in the name of safety of course. And how about we go full out on racial profiling,etc. After all lives are more important, right?

Would you argue that England doesn't have freedom? They've banned handguns. Has their freedom disappeared as well?

You can have freedom without a gun.
You can't have freedom without free speech.


Sissyl wrote:

Despite all that, it would be kind of cool to get hold of a nuclear warhead. Just think, you could carry it around in a big backpack, and if anyone started arguing with you, you could REALLY ruin their day...

Oh yeah. You'd probably go frzzzz too unless you have Improved Evasion and a lucky roll, but still, it would be sooooo coooool...

P.S. Dear NSA: Above is a joke. Please don't extradite me and put me in Guantanamo.

I think there's still room in the Ecuadoran embassy with Julian, Comrade Sissyl.

Sovereign Court

I think we also need to make sure everyone knows the difference between need and want. Nobody needs an Italian sports car, most people need a car to get to work, but nobody needs a race car. I completely understand that some people need a fire arm, rural or urban settings I can see a need, but nobody outside of the military or police force needs an assault style weapon with a high capacity clip. You can defend your livestock with a bolt action rifle, you can hunt with the same weapon, you can scare off intruders and robbers with a pump action shotgun.

I understand want, I've played enough video games and seen enough movies to understand wanting to collect some of these weapons, but you don't need them and limiting their availability isn't going endanger your actual needs. However what I'm seeing now isn't even going to hurt your wants, the talk now is about high capacity clips, they're saying you can still have your AR-15 (the kindergarten killing model) but you just can't have a high capacity clip. The NRA isn't even willing to budge on this.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Despite all that, it would be kind of cool to get hold of a nuclear warhead. Just think, you could carry it around in a big backpack, and if anyone started arguing with you, you could REALLY ruin their day...

Oh yeah. You'd probably go frzzzz too unless you have Improved Evasion and a lucky roll, but still, it would be sooooo coooool...

P.S. Dear NSA: Above is a joke. Please don't extradite me and put me in Guantanamo.

I think there's still room in the Ecuadoran embassy with Julian, Comrade Sissyl.

Yay! And he's so handsome, too. =)


I'd turn green with jealousy, but free love is wicked socialist and I am already green.

Grand Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:
Just think if these toothless laws had been in place after the first columbine shooting over ten years ago.

Columbine happened in 1999, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not expire until 2004...

One of the boys used a Tec-9, which was classified under the AWB as an "assault weapon"...

The other used a Highpoint Model 995, which was also classified as an "assault weapon" under the AWB...

Both of the boys had "sawed off" shotguns, which are considered "Short-Barreled Shotguns" by the BATFE, and are therefore, NFA items, which are illegal to own without the proper paperwork (you think these boys had that paperwork?)...

Don't know if either of the boys had high capacity magazines for their "assault weapons", but they probably did, and under the AWB, any magazine over 10 rounds was illegal...

That’s not even mentioning the homemade bombs they had on them…

So, how did banning assault weapons and limiting high capacity magazines help stop that incident?

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. Please remember that it is possible to debate without attacking each other personally.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Would you say that this is more or less likely to happen in a school with armed teachers or principals?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

According to CNBC:
"Two 9mm handguns, one made by Glock and the other by Sig Sauer, were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting."
First reports were the bushmaster was found in the trunk, not in the school. Is there any updates to this? Did he only use the 2 pistols?


Guy Humual wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

What you replied with isn't what you asked.

Is the constitution of the US worth more than 26 lives? Yes.

Laws are constantly changing, the constitution is just a piece of paper, the ideas are important, but suggesting that it can't be amended or completely scrapped because it's somehow perfect is absurd at best, decidedly diabolical at worst.

The ironinc part is that all this madnes is due to an amendment not the the original text.


Yes, because the original text was so awesome, with its black people are only worth 3/5ths as much as a white person.

F**& the Constitution.


Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Then ban semi automatic rifles. I have no problem with that. They serve no useful function.

You have no problem with banning them because they clearly do not serve any useful function TO YOU...

But the fact, the FACT, that the AR-15 is THE single most popular rifle in America speaks volumes to the effect that it (and by default, semi-automatic firearms) do indeed serve a useful function to the millions of responsible gun owners in America...

Is there some zombie infestation in the US that I am not aware of?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, because the original text was so awesome, with its black people are only worth 3/5ths as much as a white person.

F@&% the Constitution.

See, that's why you can't get laid.


Kryzbyn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Right now, any citizen that doesn't fit into a number of caveats (feons, mentaly ill, etc.) can own an AR-15.

If it's not protected by the 2nd Amendment or not, the SCotUS will have to decide.
Whether or not I think it should be, is beside the point. And frankly, I dunno.

*headscratch* This is where you're confusing the hell out of me.

There is a difference between a right and something you can legally do.

I can legally go ahead and burn leaves in my back yard. If my town passed an ordinance against that (they've had them in the past) I wouldn't say that my rights have been violated.

A right is something that you inherently have the justification to do, and the government has no moral or legal authority to stop you from doing it. I don't see how you can assume it for a specific peice of hardware.

You'd enshrining the laws of some past congress that with some mystical morality that is (for some inexplicable reason)greater than those of the current or any other congress.

The point is the arbitrary loss of things you can now do, not based on any behavior on your part, but because of the behavior of a very few people.

I think the point BNW is triying to make is taht it would not be arbitrary to restrict guns but very reasonable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, because the original text was so awesome, with its black people are only worth 3/5ths as much as a white person.

F@&% the Constitution.

See, that's why you can't get laid.

Yeah, you talk to your mother today?


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, because the original text was so awesome, with its black people are only worth 3/5ths as much as a white person.

F@&% the Constitution.

See, that's why you can't get laid.
Yeah, you talk to your mother today?

As Re goblin mouthiness, defense of co-works and the above: Your greatest strength is your greatest weakness, Doodlebug. They're one thing.

Some goblins know how to bow and scrape though. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, because the original text was so awesome, with its black people are only worth 3/5ths as much as a white person.

F@&% the Constitution.

See, that's why you can't get laid.

Or rather, when he does he gets papercuts.

Cuz.
Ya know.
He's f&$*ing the constitution...

Liberty's Edge

Can you even get papercuts from vellum?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
As Re goblin mouthiness, defense of co-works and the above: Your greatest strength is your greatest weakness, Doodlebug. They're one thing.

That sounds like Taoism or something.

More guys who hate the Constitution.

You'll notice, Comrade Samnell, that although Emerson couldn't make it, Henry David made an appearance.

Sovereign Court

Digitalelf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Just think if these toothless laws had been in place after the first columbine shooting over ten years ago.

Columbine happened in 1999, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban did not expire until 2004...

One of the boys used a Tec-9, which was classified under the AWB as an "assault weapon"...

The other used a Highpoint Model 995, which was also classified as an "assault weapon" under the AWB...

Both of the boys had "sawed off" shotguns, which are considered "Short-Barreled Shotguns" by the BATFE, and are therefore, NFA items, which are illegal to own without the proper paperwork (you think these boys had that paperwork?)...

Don't know if either of the boys had high capacity magazines for their "assault weapons", but they probably did, and under the AWB, any magazine over 10 rounds was illegal...

That’s not even mentioning the homemade bombs they had on them…

So, how did banning assault weapons and limiting high capacity magazines help stop that incident?

Let's read that quoted text again:

Me! Guy Humual! wrote:
Just think if these toothless laws had been in place after the first columbine shooting over ten years ago.

It would seem that I wasn't talking about stopping the first columbine shooting . . . as it's hard to prevent something AFTER it happens. However both AR-15s (the one used in the theater and the one used in the school) were bought after 1999, had those guns been restricted and high capacity clips been banned we might not have seen the number of people killed or wounded in either horrific event. Do you see what I was getting at? I give the NRA a free pass on the original Columbine as no one could have seen that coming.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
J. Christopher Harris wrote:

Would you say that this is more or less likely to happen in a school with armed teachers or principals?

Let's not forget about the fellow that shot up his army base because he didn't want to get sent overseas. Too bad that military base didn't have guns in it. It probably would have deterred that gunman.


Kryzbyn wrote:

According to CNBC:

"Two 9mm handguns, one made by Glock and the other by Sig Sauer, were recovered inside the school. An AR-15-type rifle also was found at the scene, but there were conflicting reports Friday night whether it had been used in the shooting."
First reports were the bushmaster was found in the trunk, not in the school. Is there any updates to this? Did he only use the 2 pistols?

According to a statement released by the medical examiner shortly after the incident (and after he had examined roughly half the bodies from the shooting), all of the wounds examined were consistent with being shot with the Bushmaster. It appears that the handgun were not used during the attack, though reportedly the shooter used a handgun to shoot himself (which makes sense).


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama and the Republicans are conspiring to steal money from your parents (or grandparents).

And even after I rallied in front of my Congressman's office and held a sign that said "No Cuts to Social Security," too. I think Irontruth is right, we should have rioted.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama and the Republicans are conspiring to steal money from your parents (or grandparents).

And even after I rallied in front of my Congressman's office and held a sign that said "No Cuts to Social Security," too. I think Irontruth is right, we should have rioted.

course if there were more guns at old age homes some of these problems might sort themselves out.


Hope and change, baby.

Grand Lodge

Guy Humual wrote:
It would seem that I wasn't talking about stopping the first columbine shooting . . . as it's hard to prevent something AFTER it happens.

And I was talking about the fact that there was a ban in place when it happened and it had zero effect on preventing it... So a brand new ban is going to do what exactly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama and the Republicans are conspiring to steal money from your parents (or grandparents).

And even after I rallied in front of my Congressman's office and held a sign that said "No Cuts to Social Security," too. I think Irontruth is right, we should have rioted.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, so far he's offered Social Security (and Medicare) cuts up several times in various negotiations and no changes have been made yet. Every time the Republicans have refused, demanding even more and looked like blind ideological fools in the process. So far, it's worked perfectly. He's looked like the bi-partisan compromiser, done a lot of political damage to the Republicans and entitlements remain untouched. I can't really complain about that.

On the other hand, all the Republicans have to do is behave sanely, accept 90% of what they want and they win and we're all screwed.

On the gripping hand, to do that the Republican Congress has to behave sanely. We may be perfectly safe.


Well, I hope you're right. My father is retiring this year and my mother shouldn't be too far behind him and if Obama takes their money, I might go buy an AR-15 myself.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama and the Republicans are conspiring to steal money from your parents (or grandparents).

And even after I rallied in front of my Congressman's office and held a sign that said "No Cuts to Social Security," too. I think Irontruth is right, we should have rioted.

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, so far he's offered Social Security (and Medicare) cuts up several times in various negotiations and no changes have been made yet. Every time the Republicans have refused, demanding even more and looked like blind ideological fools in the process. So far, it's worked perfectly. He's looked like the bi-partisan compromiser, done a lot of political damage to the Republicans and entitlements remain untouched. I can't really complain about that.

On the other hand, all the Republicans have to do is behave sanely, accept 90% of what they want and they win and we're all screwed.

On the gripping hand, to do that the Republican Congress has to behave sanely. We may be perfectly safe.

Yeah, I dont get Republicans. We COULD easily cut 500 billion + a year out of the budget, no problemo, all without affected basic federal services or social safety nets. Thats why I have to laugh whenever someone suggests that our (U.S.) politics have shifted drastically to the right in the last few decades. Both parties agree that government should do more to influence society. That's shifting to the left, folks. They just drastically disagree on how to influence it.


The NRA lost another huge chunk of credibility.

First they say we shouldn't blame guns and then they say we should blame violent video games.

So, according to their spokesperson, "Guns Don't Kill People" but video games do.

Isn't that hypocritical?


But, Back to the topic...

So the NRA attacked the first amendment (video games) and wished to expand the already increasing police state (aka: the reason there is a second amendment) in order to deflect from the second amendment? Sounds about right.

Me personally, Im not for any bans. Ive already staked my position, calling for an amendment to modify the Second to exclude nuclear, chemical, biological, and other WMD type weapons. Other than that, buy em if you want em, in my opinion. Im also not down with turning schools into more of a prison than they already are. If cops are in the classroom, how long until "mission creep" sets in and teens are getting blasted for "furtive movement"?

I would, however, be ok with more thorough background checks, better access to mental health care*, and perhaps, mandatory safety, marksmanship, and storage training.

*although really this HAS to occur at the individual level. Societial Mores regarding mental illness have got to be broken. Suggesting a friend seek clinical mental help should be seen as normal as recommending a chiropractor.


darth_borehd wrote:

The NRA lost another huge chunk of credibility.

First they say we shouldn't blame guns and then they say we should blame violent video games.

So, according to their spokesperson, "Guns Don't Kill People" but video games do.

Isn't that hypocritical?

Yes.

Sovereign Court

Digitalelf wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It would seem that I wasn't talking about stopping the first columbine shooting . . . as it's hard to prevent something AFTER it happens.
And I was talking about the fact that there was a ban in place when it happened and it had zero effect on preventing it... So a brand new ban is going to do what exactly?

You can't prevent people from modifying shotguns or building bombs but the killing in Columbine wasn't done with bombs, they had a TEC-9 semi-automatic machine pistol with a 52 bullet clip. How did he get the weapon? My guess is he went to a gun show. Likely some vender sold it to one of the boys without a background check, all the while talking about how easy it is for criminals to get their hands on this weaponry, and then complaining about how ineffective a ban on this type of weapon was. I have no idea for sure but it sounds plausible. Regardless gun control isn't a short term fix, I have no idea when the TEC-9 was banned but they were still manufacturing it as late as 94, and assuming the boys got the weapons in the 98-99 school year that's only four years for the weapon to leave circulation. My guess is that getting your hands on a TEC-9 these days would be much harder. I suppose your response is it doesn't work, you've been dieting and exercising for nearly an entire week and you've seen no results so it's time to scrap it? A gun control plan put in place after Columbine might be seeing results now. We can plainly see what no gun control has wrought.


thewhiteknife wrote:
So the NRA attacked the first amendment (video games) and wished to expand the already increasing police state (aka: the reason there is a second amendment) in order to deflect from the second amendment? Sounds about right.

Yes.

Keep in mind, the nra makes money off of the conflict (real or imagined)between gun owners and a gun ban. A society that unconditionally accepted guns would be just as bad for them as a total ban.

251 to 300 of 570 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / NRA Conference 12 / 21 / 12 All Messageboards