NRA

[HarveyWallbangers]

Get this crap out of my Romper Room.

[MJZiggy]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

Not until you answer my question. I want to make sure we all know what we're discussing here and working off the same page.

[packinpatland]

Howard, the original post was about a man killing 3 police officers with an assault rifle.
You counter with a comment about not supporting immigration.
Mr. Wong was an American citizen.......just as crazy as any of the other lunatics that shoot or blow up other Americans. I don't defend the man, any more than I would that young, homegrown, cornfed, Mr. Timothy McVeigh.

Two questions unanswered........
1. Your ancestery
2. Why anyone needs an assault rifle.

[TravisWilliams23]

I don't think it's a question of "need" but more of a question of "want".

The Bill of Rights says I can have one.

It's like a car. Nobody "needs" a sporty car that can go 200 MPH and exceed the posted speed limits but they may "want" one to drive. The difference in this example is, of course, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

Emotion plays a part in this topic. Good, law abiding people don't want to see murder and violence visited upon innocents so what might sound like a great idea of restricting the tools used actually leaves the "good" people at the mercy of the "bad" people who won't abide by the law anyway.

I refuse to let anyone argue me out of my "right" or turn it into a privilege, or regulate and restrict that which "shall not be infringed", or who demand I justify my "need" to exercise my right. They are not concerned with gun control, public safety, or prevention of crime. They are concerned simply with control and this is one avenue they travel in pursuit of it.

[MJZiggy]

What a load of BS. Control? Really. Yes, they just want to control you from using something that can kill what? 10 people per second? Perhaps by your logic, you can call a nuke arms and demand that all citizens have the right to bear them. It's says arms right? Oh. Except that in this case, when the law was enscripted, the craziest weaponry available was a 6-foot-long musket that fired off one round every couple of minutes. A little tough to conceal and go off killing in a crowd without warning, no?

Great Britain is pretty free--ask them what they think of our gun laws.

[SkinBasket]

I don't see anything about the NRA in that article.

I think it's much more reasonable to conclude that since his name indicates he's a big Pollack and he went to Catholic high school, we should all agree not to support Pollacks who attend Catholic high school. In fact we should probably round them all up right now and shoot them with assault rifles and abort any children they may have conceived, no matter how old they are.

[packinpatland]

I don't think it's a question of "need" but more of a question of "want".

The Bill of Rights says I can have one.

It's like a car. Nobody "needs" a sporty car that can go 200 MPH and exceed the posted speed limits but they may "want" one to drive. The difference in this example is, of course, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right.

Emotion plays a part in this topic. Good, law abiding people don't want to see murder and violence visited upon innocents so what might sound like a great idea of restricting the tools used actually leaves the "good" people at the mercy of the "bad" people who won't abide by the law anyway.

I refuse to let anyone argue me out of my "right" or turn it into a privilege, or regulate and restrict that which "shall not be infringed", or who demand I justify my "need" to exercise my right. They are not concerned with gun control, public safety, or prevention of crime. They are concerned simply with control and this is one avenue they travel in pursuit of it.

When the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote what they wrote, I doubt they knew we would have to deal with assault rifles. I
I am not concerned with whether you own a hand gun or a deer hunting-type rifle.




Jefferson said:

Original Passage:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-- to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

In other words...........we must change with the times. No one is asking you to give up your right to bear arms.

[packinpatland]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_re_us/children_slain

23 people died in the past 4 days from guns being in the hands of people that were not in their right mind.
..............and these are just the ones that made the front page news.

[SkinBasket]

23 people died in the past 4 days from people not in their right mind using guns... and these are just the ones that made the front page news.

It is clear, my friends, that we must ban people who are not in their right mind.

[MJZiggy]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

[HowardRoark]

If there was EVER a reason to NOT support immigration, here it is.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090404/D97BTI0O0.html

The guy used an assault rifle to kill three policemen!!!!!!
What does that have to do with immigration?

Jiverly Wong killed three policemen?

What do policemen have to do with Wong?

Nothing Howard.........you're talking about another senseless killing spree.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30046812/

Try to follow along.

Once again, you step in the trap and don't even know it. You follow along.

Explain please.........
.....this should be interesting.

Skin is doing a fine job.

[MJZiggy]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

[HowardRoark]

Mocking the argument makes it no less valid.

PIP typically will pull out her broad brush on any subject and paint it with the brush. The ideas probably come from DailyKos, Maureen Dowd or someplace as such. Whenever she is presented with a counterpoint, the emoticons come out….or a quick rebuke of the poster. That’s it. When Obama made the mistake of poking fun of Special Olympians on Leno, she thought that was A.O.K. (because, as a parent of a special needs child, she could empathize). When I rudely used similar language (for effect), she thought it was “childish”…..which it obviously was. But, it was also childish for Barack. Her intellectual dishonesty was noted.

Yesterday, the sad and horrible crime against these three police officers occurred. That is enough evidence for people to NEVER support the NRA. I disagree. With her logic.

Unfortunately, I was able to post a different horrific crime that occurred the day before by a Vietnamese immigrant. It is irrelevant that he was or is an immigrant. By her logic, we should ban all immigrants. I can use a broad brush too.

The Second Amendment was not put there to protect hunters. That is the way it has been manipulated these days. The Second Amendment was/is there to protect the citizenry of the country from tyrannical governments.

I don’t own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA. There certainly can be a debate about firearms in our country; I just don’t think that emotionally making broad statements after a horrendous crime is the proper way to have the debate.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, you know very well that without military assault weaponry far fewer people would have died. The fact that one of them changed course and killed himself was called a blessing this week considering how much ammunition the man had on him at the time. Maybe if he doesn't have easy access to an instrument specifically designed to kill human beings quickly, he gets in a fist fight and no one has to think of a person's suicide as a "blessing."

No, I don't know that. Mainly because it isn't true. Do you know the difference between what you're calling a military assault rifle and a completely legal civilian rifle?

People want to get up in arms about the term "assault rifle" because it's sexy and conveys certain images that further perceptions and misconceptions about the weapons.

In a brief survey of the stories being lumped together here in a stereotypically clueless way, the ESL chinaman used two handguns of the most common variety (and had a hunting knife!!! ZOMG time to regulate those kitchen knives!!!). The trailer park dad used a shotgun. Hardly "military weaponry." Not that it matters anyway. The Pollack ambushed the police officer, and either poor training or poor decision making skills in the response led to the deaths of the other 2. I doubt getting shot at close range in the skull with an "assault rifle" was any more deadly than being shot at close range in the head with any other rifle.

I haven't heard how the chinaman acquired his weapons, so I can't speak to how "easy" it was for him to gain access to such dastardly instruments of human destruction, but chances are he had plenty of time to think about the difference between killing a building full of people execution style and getting into a fist fight with someone who mocked his goofy accent and shitty English skills.

Maybe without such "easy" access to guns, the fucker would have barricaded the other doors and set the whole fucking place on fire, killing everyone inside. Maybe he sets pipe bombs at the entrances and kills several first responders as well. Maybe it's a "blessing" that he used ballistic weapons instead.

[TravisWilliams23]

When the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote what they wrote, I doubt they knew we would have to deal with assault rifles. I
I am not concerned with whether you own a hand gun or a deer hunting-type rifle.




Jefferson said:

Original Passage:
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-- to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

In other words...........we must change with the times. No one is asking you to give up your right to bear arms.[/quote]

YET!

I do not own an assault rifle but you seem to be asking me to give up
my right to own one.

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified. I believe this is what Jefferson was writing about in the letter you highlighted.

History teaches us one of the first steps to tyranny is gun control.
Ex: Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

* Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
* All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
* Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
* Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
* The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
* Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

I'm not saying we're Nazi's. Just trying to show why I strongly oppose the government imposing any restrictions on my "right" to bear arms.