arma virumque cano (et alia)
Honestly, fuck all the gunsucks. It's time to limit availability of guns to wacks. If you want a gun, ipso facto you are a wack and should be denied a gun.
You're so brave, coming here to insult at least a third of this nation without ever bothering to tell us your name. But since you want to take away rights, are there any others on your list? How about saying that anyone who wishes to speak is thereby too crazy to have the right to speak? You would be evidence in favor of that law.
"If you want a gun, ipso facto you are a wack and should be denied a gun."Molon labe
Greg,When was the last time you heard a report of a mass shooting in China, Libya, Formosa, or Cambodia?Mass shootings, like civilian gun ownership is an American phenomenon. Eventually you Americans will seek answers.
Not from you, E.N., not from you.
E.N. - did you really ask when the last time there was a mass shooting in Libya?
They didn't have guns. More would be dead if they did.
E.N., a certain expired colonel would disagree with you if he could.
Guess what? The Spartans were slaughtered by the Persians!Molon Labe indeed!
BTW, I hope you lot are feeling all warm and fuzzy about the dead kids.
Laci, do you recall which side ultimately won that war? Yes, the Spartans were killed, but they killed far more Persians in the process. They showed the world that the Persians were not invincible, and it was only because of a traitor that they lost.Molon labe, indeed.
"BTW, I hope you lot are feeling all warm and fuzzy about the dead kids."Now, who won that conflict in the end?
The gun control ghouls sure are out in full force today. Posts like Laci's above make it sound like they are down right giddy that this happened. It really is quite sickening. You had better get some more shots in Laci before the bodies get cold.
And that's not to mention the giddy, flippiant term of the post here.Of course, since Laci and Mikeb302000 are the same poster, the similar tone is to be expected
Soon victims of gun violence will out number gun owners. Maybe then there will be a majority that are sane enough to address the problem.
I think you have something there. Every year there are 100s of thousands of relatives and friends of gun violence victims. Most of them have the reasonable reaction and understand that we need better gun control laws. The scales are tipping.
Greggy: It's really time you shut up.You know, it's a horrific tragedy that so many small children are killed. But remember, each and every kid in that school has hjust had his or her lives changed forever.
So now you want to take away another of my rights? No deals, Goldilocks.I feel the same sense of outrage that every other good person feels in a case like this. What I'm not prepared to agree to is punishing all the good gun owners in this country who didn't kill anyone, especially since those infringements would not change the number of homicides in any appreciable way.
Quick question: Can anyone tell me how many times a mass shooter, who has picked a gunfree/victim ripe zone, has continued shooting after meeting armed opposition? This doesn't have to be off the top of your head, I am legitamately curious to see how many continued fighting and how many were cowards preying upon the defenseless only to kill themselves when they ran into resistence.
Parents trust the lives and minds of their children to teachers every weekday for about ten months of the year. Teachers go through background checks to get their jobs. Let's have a training program for those teachers who are interested in being armed.
Seems to me it'd do a heck of a lot to discourage these shootings and if someone were so inclined, put an end to it before the police manage to arrive.
Jadegold said "just had his or her lives changed forever."Very true. Don't you think it is time to start trying to figure out what the real cause behind all this is? Most of these types of events have been carried out by a young person who were/is mentally unstable.Could they be a product of their environment? Parents who want to be their friends, adults spending time worrying about kids feelings,lack of discipline at home and in schools...I believe a large majority of gun rights advocates would like to see the mentally unstable not be able to get weapons. How do we accomplish this without infringing upon one's rights? We see easy it is to get off the "no fly" list. What would the hurdles be to get off the "mentally unstable" list?Why don't those who are for "commons sense" laws,every propose something other than banning guns? Could it be because that is the easiest thing to do? This problem will not be solved the easy way, but via hard work and compromise from both sides.
Exactly. If we could work together for proposals that would actually make things better, I'd be glad to take part. Our mental health system is a mess, as are all aspects of our general healthcare.
This:"The official said that a gun used in the attacks is a .223-caliber rifle. At a press conference, Connecticut state police Lt. Paul Vance said there was a great deal of search activity both in and outside the state."is from here (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/ap_gunman_in_connecticut_eleme.html)There's more here (http://www.ibtimes.com/sig-sauer-223-caliber-semi-automatic-rifle-reportedly-used-ryan-lanza-school-shooting-connecticut)including this juicy bit of gunzporn:"According to the manufacturer's description, “The SIG 556 Classic brings back the look and feel of one of the world’s most sought after military rifles but on a platform available for law enforcement and responsible citizens.”guaranteed to make the little sociopath in all of us just wet himself with anticipation. Oh, wait, that doesn't include me, I guess I'm just not enough of a man to fire oneathem babeez.I can't wait for Greg Camp's breathless denunciation of the media for once again, getting it wrong and calling a measly .223 popgun an "assaut rifle" and looking like fools in the eyes of the truly knowledgeable gunnerz out there. Maybe T.S. can come over and say something like this:"So what, Democommie? There are videos of people firing semi-autos almost as fast as full autos. Are you suggesting we just drop the special regulations on full auto? Let’s just lump them all together and say “ban them all” or “ban none”. Are you ok with that? What do you want anyway? You keep saying you are not trying to take away the guns, so I can only conclude that your point is to repeal the Hughes amendment."again, in handwaving high dudgeon. You assholes repeatedly lie about what I say when I say I want sane and safe regulation of firearms. That's okay, it's not like I was believing that any of you gave a flying fuck about anything except your gunz before anyway.Good thing they're just plinkin' rounds, Greggie, they seem perfect for killing little "goblins", don't you think.Today's NRA enabled and inspired show of manliness took place about 15 miles from where my neice lives (she just moved there 10 months ago) with her two sweet little boys. She and her family are alright, physically. She, her family, her friends in her new home and AZ where she lived before and all of us who care about them were traumatized to some degree, greater or lesser, by this. But, I know that's okay with Greggie and T.S. and Orlin Sellers and the rest of the gunzloonz, 'cuz, they, BY GOD HAZ TEH GUNZ and they will protect themselves--fuck everyone else.After all, as Greggie Camp is so fond of saying, it's just a few incidents, it doesn't really matter, the numbers are insignificant. I'd like to see him get on a plane and fly out to CT to tell the parents, husbands, wives, other loved ones and friends of the 26 people killed that. I'd like to hear him tell them that it's okay, that America is a safer place because he has gunz.
Democommie, if you're going to misquote me and distort what I say, how about putting a disclaimer at the start to indicate what you're doing?
"Quick question: Can anyone tell me how many times a mass shooter, who has picked a gunfree/victim ripe zone, has continued shooting after meeting armed opposition? This doesn't have to be off the top of your head, I am legitamately curious to see how many continued fighting and how many were cowards preying upon the defenseless only to kill themselves when they ran into resistence"Really. Okay. Tell me how many people (of those who were armed) shot at Jared Loughner and stopped him from shooting, lemmesee, 18 Tuscon, AZ? This doesn't have to be off the top of your head. I'm legitimately interested in knowing why people who love to carry gunz, specifically to shoot other people allasudden like get cold feet when somebody else is shooting at people around them.The answer to your question, for me at least, is wtf difference does it make? If a cop had been in the school and pulled his gun, he might or might not have been able to stop the shooter. You gunzloonz are particularly inclined to remind us, time and time again, that when gunz are outlawed only the criminulz haz teh gunz*, and that the badperps will always be able to get their hands on them, regardless the law.Right.And there are many thousands of schools, churches, public buildings, sports venues and the like which are off limits to people carrying firearms and you would like to see that all changed. What you guys never, ever want to admit to is that there is a significant fraction of the people that you want to allow to have firearms (since you want EVERYBODY to haz them teh gunz) who shouldn't be allowed to use a steak knife or drive a car. You don't really have an argument to justify your delusional attachment to weaponry which is precisely why you wave your arms, flap your gumz, drape yourselves in the flag and whine about us anti-gunnerz (who, in your minds, is everyone who doesn't swallow the kool-aid that the NRA is pumping into you fellers) wanting to go fulltilt boogie on the confiscation thing.Do get back to us with that list of armed people who stopped Jared Loughner from killing six people and injuring 12 more.* This is, in fact, totally true. If the law says that you can't have a gun and you DO have a gun, then you ARE a criminal. Wonderful stuff, that logic.
Thanks demo, I'm too tired and sad to answer that one again. I covered it in my post just now, but I'm sick of these guys repeating the same old bullshit about the gun free zone.http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/12/the-2nd-worst-mass-shooting-in-us.html
In the incident in Tucson, the only good citizen who was armed was too far away to intervene. Today's event was in a gun-free zone. If you trust teachers to take care of students, why wouldn't you trust them to be trained to be armed? I can see a reasonable system being set up whereby teachers who want to participate could learn how to be armed and to deal with a threat on campus.In gun-free zones, people who follow the law have no effective means of defending themselves. That fact remains true, no matter how often the gun control side tries to deny it.
Greg, You cannot deny the fact that this would not have occurred if your government did not allow mere civilians to possess firearms.
"Mere Civilians" Boy, that just drips with disdain. Please, forgive us "mere civilians" for polluting your earth and not showing proper deference to you and our other betters.Of course, what else should we suspect from E.N. who was extolling the "vibrant culture" on the north side of the 38th parallel. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-is-palling-around-with-terrorists.html?showComment=1355293532439#c3330697514720020130
E.N., yes, I can deny your statement. China right now is seeing a string of stabbings. In addition, we citizens have rights and give our government limited power. You're welcome to a society in which the government runs your life. You had better hope that you don't become inconvenient to your masters, though.
"In the incident in Tucson, the only good citizen who was armed was too far away to intervene"The only good citizen who was armed? You mean the only one who admitted to being armed. Considering it was AZ there is a very strong likelihood that about 8%of any crowd might be armed at any given time*; so your report of "the only good citizen who was armed" is probably WRONG. Of course we know two things about you gunzslingerz. The first thing is that you KNOW when to pull the trigger and the second is, you would never, ever lie about having had a clear bead on the bad guy and just being afraid to try your luck. Right."Democommie, if you're going to misquote me and distort what I say, how about putting a disclaimer at the start to indicate what you're doing?"Please furnish the quotations that I used, Greggie. I'm certainly not distorting anything. You're on record over the last year and more as saying that the 2nd Amendment is an inviolable right for you and many others to have all the gunz you want and that if other people don't like it, that's too fucking bad. Anything else that I attribute to you, like your stupid fucking comments of some months back about the M16 not being a proper "Battle rifle" or the relative merit of various rifle or pistol rounds is all in the archives.* According to this admittedly unscientific article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/28/states-with-the-most-guns.html). I know that the NRA loves to pump up the numbers when it suits their narrative, but they prolly didn't go out of their way to find out how many of their members were at that location, on that day, packin' heat.
Well Demo - how many armed people were shot in the Tuscon event or in the shooting today?
You're guessing, Democommie. You don't have any evidence that anyone else was armed at the Tucson event. That's all your side ever has--guesses.What I was correcting above was your comments regarding my opinion about the .223 round. I said:1. The M-16 is an assault rifle. It has select fire capability, and uses an intermediate cartridge.2. The .223 or .5.56 NATO round is that cartridge. It's power is intermediate between a battle rifle cartridge, such as the .30-'06 and a handgun round, such as a .45 ACP.If you have reason to argue with those statements, let's hear it. But stop misquoting me.
" the 2nd Amendment is an inviolable right for you and many others to have all the gunz you want and that if other people don't like it, that's too fucking bad"Yep. That's pretty much it. Now was that so hard to admit, commie?
Greg, shame on you for demanding evidence as a way of denying the obvious. You who insist there are millions of DGUs for which there is NO EVIDENCE.
Then why did the Department of Justice say that there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses in a year? Said bureau isn't exactly a bastion of gun rights.
"You're guessing, Democommie. You don't have any evidence that anyone else was armed at the Tucson event. That's all your side ever has--guesses"Right, and guesses are only good enough when its for the for the "studies" that the John Lotts and Gary Klecks put out on the DGU issue but not for others.What you and the rest of gunzloonznation would like to do is use numbers that work and discard numbers that don’t . That sort of cherry picking is pretty much a feature of modern reactionary thinking (GOP and libertarians, FundieKKKristians and, sorry, gunzloonz, too).What we KNOW is that there were are at least TWO armed people at the event (other than Loughner) and, yes, we can extrapolate from available data that there is a high degree of likelihood of there being more than two armed, “good citizens” as you refer to the one who was a “hero”.“What I was correcting above was your comments regarding my opinion about the .223 round. I said:1. The M-16 is an assault rifle. It has select fire capability, and uses an intermediate cartridge.2. The .223 or .5.56 NATO round is that cartridge. It's power is intermediate between a battle rifle cartridge, such as the .30-'06 and a handgun round, such as a .45 ACP.If you have reason to argue with those statements, let's hear it. But stop misquoting me.”Okey, dokey:So, this: “I'd refer you to Jeff Cooper's opinions about the M-16, but he's not regarded as a reliable source here. Let's observe, though, that said carbine shoots a .22 caliber bullet.”Means that a .22 caliber bullet is the same as a .223/5.56mm? Right?And this:‘The M-16 isn't a battle rifle. It's a carbine.Means that the .223 that was used by Lanza was not a rifle?Well, okay, if you say so. I know you’re the expert in the area of gunz and that us dumbunnyanti-gunny’s wouldn’t recognize a REAL Assault Rifle if we tripped over one.But, then, this:“I do object when news writers call a semiautomatic weapon an "assault weapon." There is no such thing as an assault weapon, at least when we use langauge correctly. The M-16 and the AK-47 are assault rifles, following in the tradition of the MP-44 Sturmgewehr. But to be an assault rifle, the weapon must have select-fire capability--in other words, it has to be able to shoot in fully automatic mode.” So, that means that the M-16 which is a carbine IS an Assault Rifle? Boy, you sure got me confused, now. ----------Continued on next comment
That's not a hard condition to create in you.
--------------continued from previous comment---And then this:"As I said at first, you may refer to the writings of Jeff Cooper on the subject of the M-16. He called it a poodleshooter and had nothing but disdain for it. He was a Marine officer in World War II and Korea, if that's qualification enough for you*.” Just makes my head spin. It’s a “poodleshooter” but it’s also a “Poodleshootin’ Assault Rifle” (but not a Main Battle Rifle—although, the M-16, or one of its many follow-on designs seems to be the only carbinerifle sortaweapon in daily use by 95% or more of all U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. Good thing that it was used on targets who were, mostly, not as big as a standard poodle (source: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/standardpoodle.htm) a range of 45-70 pounds or so. If the kid-o-perps were much bigger he would have had to use a REAL rifle, like a Remington 700 Magnum. But that’s why he very sensibly brought along the two 9mm semi-automatic handgunz, more stopping power for the teach-o-perps. So, Greggie, dear, where, zackly, did I misquote you?“Then why did the Department of Justice say that there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses in a year? Said bureau isn't exactly a bastion of gun rights.”Where/when did they say that?* Sure, he's a good enough authority, all one of him. And there are thousands of U.S. veterans who are alive today because they used that poodleshooter to kill Vietnamese, Iraqi, Afghani and a veritable United Nations of other foes since 1960. So, authority he may be, but he's a long ways from being the only one. Nice "sound bite", though, even if it is a bigassFAIL.
"Then why did the Department of Justice say that there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses in a year? Said bureau isn't exactly a bastion of gun rights."Where and when did they say that?
I gave you the source days ago. You found other comments from me; find the citation.
"I gave you the source days ago. You found other comments from me; find the citation."Really, but you'd like me to go looking for it. Nah,fuck it; I'd rather just chalk it up to you being a LIAR who when caught in the lie prefers to say that the dog ate his homework--it's a well-worn tool of gunzloonznation.So, iow, you pulled it out of your ass. I do have the source document. Why don't you tell me where it comes from.