The 2nd Amendment

I never mentioned you in my post to Timpage.

You must have recognized yourself. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Just agreeing with Little Timmy on this singular issue, you arrogant and pretentious little prick.

Well Timmy, let me ask you a question. You state that an AR-15 was used to kill all these people - where do you get your information from? What good will outlawing guns do? The result is that only outlaws will own guns and the law abiding citizen will be defenseless. It's the society we live in, not the guns. In Sweden, everyone is required to own a gun. Why isn't there a greater incidence of shootings there? Where the people were shot, guns WERE autlawed - a gun free zone. See how that works for you?

Well, that was are refreshingly short and honest answer. Unlike a certain somebody on this board, when the argument wasn't going your way, you at least didn't try to change the subject or take statements out of context to make it look like you were still right.

But, if I was arrogant and pretentious, it was only in response to you repeatedly hammering the rest of us with your three questions. So, yeah, I might have gotten high-handed in response to your tiresome posts, but at least I didn't threaten to punch you in the face.


No, I don't feel smug about anything. You may have read in other posts that I favored restrictions on magazine sizes for all weapons and limitations on handgun calibers.

I'm not a Second Amendment absolutist, but neither am I a gun confiscator who thinks government can be trusted so we do not need weapons.

The dirty "not so secret" secret about the Second Amendments was that it was intended to paint a bull's eye on the newly created federal government. That is an altogether healthy attitude towards government.

Look around the world today and see who people are being killed by. In the majority of cases, people are dying at the hands of their OWN government, not some foreign government. Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea, the list goes on. How many tens of thousands have died in Syria in just the last year? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I appreciate your response and I appreciate you not piling on like many would. This thing has just thrown me for a loop and I don't know how to respond to it on a personal level. I own eight AR-15 configuration rifles. I love those guns and they are a blast to shoot. But, goddamnit. I see these photos of these little kids being buried and all I can think is that something has to be done. But, what?

What the fuck can we do? We have to do something.

I appreciate your response and I appreciate you not piling on like many would. This thing has just thrown me for a loop and I don't know how to respond to it on a personal level. I own eight AR-15 configuration rifles. I love those guns and they are a blast to shoot. But, goddamnit. I see these photos of these little kids being buried and all I can think is that something has to be done. But, what?

What the fuck can we do? We have to do something. Originally Posted by timpage

Drive down to your local sheriffs office and turn them all in, how do you feel about that Tim? Thats exactly what you will be required to do if these gun bans proposals come to fruition.

The only way to limit these types of situations is to try to stop the fucking psychos from obtaining a gun. Banning them will do exactly nothing towards that goal.

More extensive background checks? A more extensive background check would have done nothing to prevent the deaths of these 26 people. The shooter underwent NO background check at all. That’s because he did not purchase the guns. His mother did. By all accounts his mother could have passed any conceivable background check.

How about this "gunshow loophole"? There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else.

I'm not a big fan of the gun-nut sites, but this has some real good thoughts

http://www.blackfive.net/

MASS SHOOTINGS REQUIRE CURTAILING RIGHTS
POSTED BY UNCLE JIMBO • [DECEMBER 18, 2012]

The time for action is now. The recent spate of mass shootings must finally spur us to do what must be done. We need press control. That's right, the media is out of control and they are enabling and certainly promoting the sick bastards who are slaughtering innocents. The Founders could not have envisioned a 24/7 news cycle with blaring soundtracks, garish headlines, and a relentless, almost pornographic sensationalism. There is no doubt the sad souls who plot these horrors can picture their faces beaming from screens around the world. They gain a notoriety they could never achieve otherwise and the ghouls who give them a stage must bear their responsibility.

Back in the day, you had to take quill to parchment, or if you were doing mass media you could run off a couple of hundred pamphlets. The high capacity, assault weapons of cable news and the internet were as unimagined in colonal times as nuclear weapons. The Bill of Rights is not suicide pact and an unabridged press does not mean very channel should be as well-armed as the New York Times. Semi-automatic handguns have been around since the 1890s but school shootings are a much more recent development. What has changed since then? Instant fame, or more properly infamy, that's what and it is time to put some common sense controls on the folks who give these losers a chance to live forever.

Sound familiar? Just swap out the Second Amendment for the First and you have the cacophony of bad ideas currently being thrown at a problem that is only tangentially related to the actual tool use to perpetrate these massacres. Froggy did an excellent job of spotlighting the dismal failure of the "reforms" to mental health treatment. If you don't want crazy people shooting, or stabbing, or poisoning innocents, maybe you should deal with the crazy people. The particular method they use to kill doesn't really matter all that much to the people who are just as dead from an bludgeoning as a bullet.

The urge to do something, anything, in the wake of a slaughter like Newtown is powerful. The number and variety of gun control schemes advanced is staggering. The moral high ground is occupied and fire rains down on we unenlightened few who refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that guns kill people. But why have they decided to kill school kids now? Have the guns changed? No, not in any significant way in almost a hundred years. 1922 is when John Browning gave us the high capacity magazine and for some reason there was no massive increase in schoolyard slayings when 13 rds of 9mm were suddenly available. It took a coarsening ot our culture, a coddling of crazies and a cornucopia of cable news coverage to create this.The guns are just a scapegoat.

The problem cannot be solved without removing guns completely and there is absolutely zero chance of that happening. Even if a law was passed, it could never be enforced and would simply disarm, or worse, make criminals out of formerly law-abiding citizens. The places withe the tightest gun laws have the most gun murders. Most of the mass shootings happen in gun-free zones. How freakin' hard is that to comprehend? Much too hard apparently. So we get pontificating douchebags who are willing to subcontract their own security and simply hope for the best. Well sorry folks, but when you need a cop immediately they are only minutes away and they are bringing chalk for your outline and calling the coroner. That is not good enough for me and that is why the Second Amendment exists, and will always exist.

So STFU about the guns and show some sympathy and respect for the families.

Man, do you have any idea how insane it looks to post up a photo of a rucked-up combat soldier/marine from fucking Afghanistan and saying that the solution is to have him patrolling our schools? Seriously? That's where we are? The same as fucking Afghanistan?

And you're good with that? We can't do better than some third-world shithole in terms of protecting our 6 year olds?

I didn't say I was good with it, you're the one that wants to do SOMETHING. That would be something.

I didn't say I was good with it, you're the one that wants to do SOMETHING. That would be something. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

That something is unnecessary and those who actually propose it are taking an extreme position in order to attempt to make a point ... there are schools all over this country, and clearly In Texas with police officers assigned to the schools. There are also controlled campuses which do not alllow students, parents, visitors, even police to come and go as they please.

Simply increase a well-trained police presence and decreasing public access with better procedures to clear people coming onto the campuses and into the facilities.

All the other hype about arming teachers and military patrols is a political agenda response to a rather simple administrative and realistic correction to address the problem. It takes some re-education of educators and their adminstrators to realize that the issue is not about "gun-control" or the 2nd amendment or assault weapon bans ...

it's about another layer of protection for children, which is part of their responsiblity. Unfortunately, it takes a certain number of deaths at a railroad crossing before gates and lights go up, and it takes a certain number of drownings at a low water crossing before a barracade is installed. Even then "we" are still gonna have folks trying to go around the gates and the barracades with kids in their cars.

So, if the school district wants Fed Funds then set a minimum standard for physicial school security and give the district a pop in funding to help defray the costs. The State can do the same thing.

Just agreeing with Little Timmy on this singular issue, you arrogant and pretentious little prick. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, you weren't agreeing with him on anything. See your post #70 above. You were responding to MY post. The exchange went like this:

--------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by ExNYer
Well, that was are refreshingly short and honest answer. Unlike a certain somebody on this board, when the argument wasn't going your way, you at least didn't try to change the subject or take statements out of context to make it look like you were still right.

You are an arrogant and pretentious prick, ExNYer.
--------------------------------------------------

So, I guess you did recognize yourself. Heh.

I hope that's not too arrogant or pretentious.

In 1791 the second amendment was adopted along with the rest of the Bill of Rights saying people have the right to bear arms. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Um.....in 1791 there were only fourteen states. The "militia" is referring to a few men in each SMALL town or village to be on patrol for protection of the towns/villages in each state. The guns in the towns/villages were locked up in an armory. Before each shift the men would go the the armory and pick up their guns for patrol and then check them back in after their patrol. If the town was threatened...yes...they could and WERE expected to shoot to kill. The second amendment's intention was a STATE'S right to protect itself. It was not intended for a mentally unstable man to go into a school and slaughter children with a 2012 semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 rifle.

Why do y'all try and actually discuss stuff with trolls? Is it full filling in some way? You have to know yOull never be able to turn on a light for people that don't even have eyes.

Did y'all see the article about the UN bringing its own soliders to work with FEMA to force disarmament. Boots already on the ground. Do a search. I don't have time.

. It was not intended for a mentally unstable man to go into a school and slaughter children with a 2012 semi-automatic Bushmaster .223 rifle. Originally Posted by SweetKimberly

I would suggest an update in your news. There was NO ASSULT weapon that guy used. They were all handguns. How are you still running off the initial reports? Every single thing they said in the beginning was a lie. Everything. You Antigun morons are such an embarrassment.

Why do y'all try and actually discuss stuff with trolls? Is it full filling in some way? You have to know yOull never be able to turn on a light for people that don't even have eyes.

Did y'all see the article about the UN bringing its own soliders to work with FEMA to force disarmament. Boots already on the ground. Do a search. I don't have time. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Sheeees baaaack! Sticking with the same stupid bullshit. Won't provide links because they just prove her stupid sluntiness.

You still think the Sandy Hook massacre was the CT governor's deal?

Probably ought to back up your bullshit or STFU!

I would suggest an update in your news. There was NO ASSULT weapon that guy used. They were all handguns. How are you still running off the initial reports? Every single thing they said in the beginning was a lie. Everything. You Antigun morons are such an embarrassment. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

This was what reportedly came directly from interviews conducted with the state troopers who were investigating the shootings along with other informational sources –

(CNN) -- Adam Lanza brought three weapons inside Sandy Hook Elementary school on December 14 and left a fourth in his car, police said. Those weapons were a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.
In the car he left a shotgun, about which police have offered no details. Lanza used one of the handguns to take his own life, although police haven't said whether the gun was the Glock or the Sig Sauer.


In fact many details remain unknown about the weapons Lanza used that day to kill 20 children, his own mother, six other adults and then himself. Here is what is known so far:


Bushmaster AR-15 rifle

Quotes and information from the Connecticut State Police ---

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance……..In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html?utm_source=feedburn er&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories +%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Why do y'all try and actually discuss stuff with trolls? Is it full filling (LMAO) in some way? You have to know yOull never be able to turn on a light for people that don't even have eyes.

Did y'all see the article about the UN bringing its own soliders to work with FEMA to force disarmament. Boots already on the ground. Do a search. I don't have time. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Oh no! UN Troops! I'm so afraid! You are another conspiracy-loving COF with all your alarmism!

Sheeees baaaack! Sticking with the same stupid bullshit. Won't provide links because they just prove her stupid sluntiness.

You still think the Sandy Hook massacre was the CT governor's deal?

Probably ought to back up your bullshit or STFU! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

+ 1000

Numerous spent 30 round .223 magazines were found in the school and doctors even commented on the wounds from the rifle used.

Hating Kayla must spend too much time putting up supplies for the coming revolution to have enough left to pay attention to any reliable news.