DescentBB

.....an NRA press release suggested arming all children to combat this:
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/convi ... ndchildren




ok, I made the press release part up.

How to deceive and brainwash an entire nation

You are a sick person slick.

seriously, this guy got the opportunity to kill a total of 9 people, in two separate incidents AFTER a drug felony conviction. Hows that militia thing working out?

speaking of a 'well-regulated' militia, no doubt THIS is what the founders so hoped for:
http://readingeagle.com/news/article/ma ... B1-JNmYaM8

Dead horse

likely true, CUDA, but as valid as ever, with Americans dying daily due to dumb-ass lack of control over weapons.

You linked a story that specifies no weapon and no mention of the NRA at all.
All we can reasonably infer from your post is that facts mean nothing to you when they are in the way of your agenda.

Will Robinson wrote:You linked a story that specifies no weapon and no mention of the NRA at all.
All we can reasonably infer from your post is that facts mean nothing to you when they are in the way of your agenda.

you clearly didn't read the story, or a least not for comprehension, and I stated the NRA thing was a made-up comment on my part. Did you note how this convicted felon first accidentally shot his 8 year old son with a gun he shouldn't have posessed? And yes, the 8 killings THIS time around were with a gun, too.

Reading the story and trying to take your comments/title in context is useless.

You seem to blame the 2nd Amendment / NRA for the killers actions.

Can you tell us how your own stated position on gun ownership differs from that of the NRA and if your methods had been in place they would have prevented the killings? Or are you now simply advocating for no gun rights at all?

If not you are simply exploiting emotions and empathy that people have over the tragic deaths of this family in an attempt to give your confused agenda some foundation.

Go ahead, explain specifically how your position on gun ownership would have prevented this or own the reality that you are a dispicable player.

Will Robinson wrote:Reading the story and trying to take your comments/title in context is useless.

You seem to blame the NRA for the killers actions.

no, I don't. I blame the NRA for preventing the most common-sense regulation and control over the flow of weapons in the US.

Can you tell us how your own stated position on gun ownership differs from that of the NRA and if your methods had been in place they would have prevented the killings?

first off, my previously stated position would have given this guy 10 years mandatory for the possession of the weapon in the first killing. It also would have given 10 years for whoever got the gun into his hands. Enough of those mandatory 10 year bits, and people won't be so carefree about weapon ownership, and transfer.

So using your rules and math this killer would have been out of prison for at least a year, after doing the mandatory 10 years you would have given him, before he killed his family.

Also all the reports so far don't say if he used a gun in all the killings or anything about how he got the gun he did use.
Maybe he stole it?
Do you have any facts to show your rules would have stopped this rabid dog from biting?

You are full of confused anger toward gun ownership. In the wake of these incidents you are practically ban-the-gun...when asked about your position and how it sounds very absolute in the gun-ban direction you flip-flop toward a position that wouldn't have stopped any of the shootings you rant about.

You dont know what the hell you want you just know you are looking to capitalize ideologically from these events.

if he stole the gun, that would be addressed by my rules(remember, anyone whose weapon is unsecured and stolen gets prison time, too). Look, Will, if you are trying to defend the current system of regulations and controls upon weapons, and their gutted enforcement due to NRA-driven contraints, you are, to my mind, defending the morally undefensable. Go ahead with that, if it makes you feel better. I note you don't address the whack-job who hates police and other authorities and is now terrorizing a sizeable chunk of northeastern PA. Is that the well -regulated militia the founders wished to have?

No, that wouldn't have stopped him if you now go imprison the owner of the stolen gun. And what if the gun was "secured" when stolen?
What if he stabbed three of the victims to death? How would your rules help them? Do you think if he couldn't find a gun he wouldn't have stabbed all of the victims instead?

The gun is rapidly falling to the wayside as we look at the cause of the incident.

like I say, keep on defending the status quo, while the bodies continue to pile up.

If you want to play that game...lets do it.
I think if we looked at all the details we will find the "status quo" that your party supports has led to this dogs release and which tool he took off the bench to massacre with is irrelevant...

How many bodies are piling up in Chicago this week? Last week? How many weeks in a year?

Status quo my ass!

You are comfortable taking extreme measures against people who own guns and don't lock them up but you aren't nearly so tough on people who are repeatedly breaking the other laws.
You have revealed your confusion once again..

since when did I suggest leniency for ANY gun crime, ever? Now that you are resorting to making statements up, I can see we are done.

Some guy goes crazy and kills his family or shoots some cops so you indict the whole second amendment? Imply the NRA is to blame for the current status of things with complete denial for your role in establishing the way things are and you have no reasonable plan to stop these crazy people.
You cite the status quo as my responsibility because I point out your incoherent complaint has no substantive solution behind it, only politics driven rhetoric.

And then declare the conversation 'done'?!? You never engaged in a conversation!

You spammed the forum with non sense and whined and obfuscated when called out on it.
Typical slick. Dont forget to take your ball on the way home...

once you start fabricating my position(which you did), the discussion is over. Blabber on all you wish.

I don't think anyone's buying your anti-gun bull★■◆●. It's all about the guns with you. Anyone who dies by them is a political convenience, and you seize the opportunity to play it up as if it somehow swings reality in favor of your political agenda.

I still can't figure out how owning a handgun, or everyone owning a handgun, would be an effective means of overthrowing the government. Little help here?

callmeslick wrote:if he stole the gun, that would be addressed by my rules(remember, anyone whose weapon is unsecured and stolen gets prison time, too).

Funny thing is, I can see that being argued very effectively in a court of law. Accessory to the crime and whatnot if the owner was found to have wilfully, recklessly or even negligently left it unsecured.

vision wrote:I still can't figure out how owning a handgun, or everyone owning a handgun, would be an effective means of overthrowing the government. Little help here?

Why is the effectiveness of a handgun/s for over throwing the government relevant?

Ferno wrote:

callmeslick wrote:if he stole the gun, that would be addressed by my rules(remember, anyone whose weapon is unsecured and stolen gets prison time, too).

Funny thing is, I can see that being argued very effectively in a court of law. Accessory to the crime and whatnot if the owner was found to have wilfully, recklessly or even negligently left it unsecured.

None of those scenarios of prosecuting the willful, reckless or negligent owners, which by definition would happen after the murder took place, can be considered an effective prevention to crazy people murdering their family or murdering a policeman.

It might reduce the total number of victims by a small, small, percentage. But that's an optimistic view and a temporary effect. Before there were guns people used other weapons. People adapt to their environment quite readily.

Suddenly making privately held firearms less likely to be easily stolen won't alter the number of crazy people seeking to kill.

what galls me, especially, is the complete hypocrisy of the NRA. Up until the late 1970s, they backed restrictions upon automatic weapons, and severe restrictions on handguns. Then, when race riots had died down, and hunting started to become less and less favored as hobby(still in annual decline to this day), it became obvious that the only way to keep manufacturers profits up was to push both fear and unrestricted sales of weapons to fearful middle class homeowners. This led to a flood of weapons, which have now(predictably) made it to the streets for gang use, and into the hands of insane people with ever more frequency.

Well, don't forget it was also a reaction to the far lefts solution which was to get rid of them completely. Which, like I said before is the most near-sighted of the two.

flip wrote:Well, don't forget it was also a reaction to the far lefts solution which was to get rid of them completely. Which, like I said before is the most near-sighted of the two.

except VERY few people, even on the far left, ever wished to eliminate them completely. I, for one, have never even heard such suggested in public, EVER. Once again, you are the victim of made-up fear mongering.

callmeslick wrote:what galls me, especially, is the complete hypocrisy of the NRA. Up until the late 1970s, they backed restrictions upon automatic weapons, and severe restrictions on handguns.

Can you please cite a source for the change of the NRA's position on those two types of gun?
As far as I know the restrictions on automatic weapons hasn't changed since the early thirties when they first put into a more restricted class and the rules are the same now as they were then....some 30 years before this 'change' you claim took place.
and what changes in handgun restrictions were loosened or overturned under NRA influence?

So please back up your claims with some data.

callmeslick wrote:Then, when race riots had died down, and hunting started to become less and less favored as hobby(still in annual decline to this day), it became obvious that the only way to keep manufacturers profits up was to push both fear and unrestricted sales of weapons to fearful middle class homeowners.

Cite some data to back up this assertion too please. Show the middle class began buying more guns and give examples of NRA's campaign to incite fear.
Or this too is just slick-making-up-'facts'-to-prop-up-his-argument....again.

callmeslick wrote:This led to a flood of weapons, which have now(predictably) made it to the streets for gang use, and into the hands of insane people with ever more frequency.

Cite some facts that show the incidents of murder per capita of criminals and 'crazy' people increased along with the increased gun sales during that time.

Or did you just make that up too?

here's some NRA background. Lots of links can be found.
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/the ... -1.3865217

Will, this guy's blog will make you retch, but he includes a web of links that will take you to other links, most of which back up my claims with hard numbers, as well as economic theory that has been put into practice by gun makers.
[url][http://www.duanetownsend.com/blog/consp ... debate/url]


that's it for now, off to church and then football watching with my family. I'll return, gladly, with plenty more.

OK slick, I looked at the site and it shares your penchant for taking opinion and claiming cause and effect with no evidence to support it.
So I followed a link that was highlited: "It is hard to believe that the NRA was committed to gun-control laws for most of the 20th century—helping to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s. ""

since that was something you seem to be hanging your hat on.
A bout half way down the page, after already reading a bunch of crap I found that author citing the edited-for-race-card-template-compliance 911 tapes of George Zimmerman's call to police as proving "Zimmerman was looking for a fight".

It's no wonder you have such a skewed perspective on the issue when you take garbage as evidence. You have exhibited a textbook example of confirmation bias.

I have no choice but to believe you made up all those cause and effect stats that you posted...or that you are merely parroting made up stats you got from that web site because they confirm your own 'feelings' or your political agenda.

Your argument, so far, is a complete failure.

callmeslick wrote:what galls me, especially, is the complete hypocrisy of the NRA. Up until the late 1970s, they backed restrictions upon automatic weapons, and severe restrictions on handguns. Then, when race riots had died down, and hunting started to become less and less favored as hobby(still in annual decline to this day), it became obvious that the only way to keep manufacturers profits up was to push both fear and unrestricted sales of weapons to fearful middle class homeowners. This led to a flood of weapons, which have now(predictably) made it to the streets for gang use, and into the hands of insane people with ever more frequency.

LOL! A leftist conspiracy theory! Down with the evil NRA!

By the way, I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but homeowners who own guns are not fearful--they have a gun. Plenty of fearful homeowners without guns outside of your little bubble.

Will Robinson wrote:None of those scenarios of prosecuting the willful, reckless or negligent owners, which by definition would happen after the murder took place, can be considered an effective prevention to crazy people murdering their family or murdering a policeman.

Never said it would.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:None of those scenarios of prosecuting the willful, reckless or negligent owners, which by definition would happen after the murder took place, can be considered an effective prevention to crazy people murdering their family or murdering a policeman.

Never said it would.

Yes but the premise was offered by slick as such...
Your comments seemed to be an attempt to lend it some credence that isn't deserved. And if that wasn't the intent what was the point of your comment? Just a trivial bit of irrelevance?

Will Robinson wrote:Yes but the premise was offered by slick as such...
Your comments seemed to be an attempt to lend it some credence that isn't deserved. And if that wasn't the intent what was the point of your comment? Just a trivial bit of irrelevance?

look, if this is some sort of "find the conspiracy theory" or "make ★■◆● up about slick" game, then i'm not interested.

The point of my comment was to show that it could hold water if it was argued in a certain way. I already went through some ★■◆● today and if all you want to do is stir the pot, then you can just ★■◆● off for all I care.

Ferno wrote:..The point of my comment was to show that it could hold water if it was argued in a certain way. ...

Then the point of your comment is irrelevant.

No one was debating whether or not the law slick proposed could be used to convict careless gun owners!

The point slick attempted to make takes that much as a given...
The effect of those convictions on murderous crazy people is what was being discussed.

and the hits keep coming!
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/polic ... facility-1

screw data points, does any other 55 year old plus person on here remember this stuff happening, say, 40 years ago, with this regularity? I don't.

I don't recall it but then 40 years ago there wasn't any sensationalism industry or a political party that profited from making sure we hear about it.

The national TV news outlets had only 30 minutes per evening to deliver the important stuff.

It's all Ted Turners fault for delivering the 24 hour news cycle and the need to fill it and that led to the mindset that fame and infamy were both legitimate vehicles to being understood and empathized with.

you may be right, Will, but I sincerely doubt it. Especially when you throw in the gratuitous 'one-party blah blah blah' drivel.

Which parties are trying to get rid of firearms in America? And don't give me this "we don't want to get rid of them entirely" bull★■◆●, because we all know that you know that it must be a progressive process, and there's very little difference between Britain let's say, and "entirely".