14
14016223Original Poster
Oct 2, 2015When will Obama start blaming the perps in these shootings instead of the weapons they use?
14016223 grabs popcorn ;)
14016223 grabs popcorn ;)
ReactReplySubscribe
Replies
- ST
StevieLornaOct 2, 2015I'm an outsider looking in, I will never understand (so don't lecture me) Americas cultural ties to firearms.
The absolute truth is, no guns no shootings.
When did your right to carry a gun outweigh the right not to be randomly shot?
SReactReply - NANatureBoy24Oct 2, 2015https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
32,719 people were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2013. Where's the outcry to increase the requirements to get and maintain a driver's license?
Our country was founded at a time when:
a) There were wild animals & hostile natives around. Firearms were a real necessity for maintaining personal safety.
b) People hunted their own food.
c) The firearms available to civilians and military were about the same in capability.
d) The population was much more separated. If you had a problem, you had to deal with it yourself.
Today things have changed:
a) Most people are not under threat of animal attack - but some folks who live in rural states are.
b) Most people hunt for sport not by necessity.
c) The military has tanks & bombs & missiles that could wipe any civilian away with little trouble.
d) If someone accosts you in the street, or tries to break into your home, being able to repel an attacker is still useful.
The world has changed. Just as the Founding Fathers did not have the internet, they did not have belt-fed machine guns. Firearms are a symbol of both our self-reliance and right to resist oppressive government.
The price of freedom is tolerating some bad actors. You can't protect against crazy. A determined nut could just as easily drive a truck into a crowd, or blow up propane cylinders, or any number of means of inflicting mass harm.ReactReply - T=
Tom === Thomas S. TierneyOct 2, 2015[quote]When will Obama start blaming the perps in these shootings instead of the weapons they use?
14016223 grabs popcorn ;)[/quote]They couldn't be "perps" if they didn't have the "weapons".ReactReply - MEMemberOct 3, 2015The problem isn't guns; it's liberal/progressive/socialist policies.
The vast majority of gun violence is done where people are stripped of their right to defend themselves, so madmen know they will not be met with equal and opposing or overwhelming force.
The places where the violence occurs is where the libs have disarmed the law abiding people. And where they have succeeded in 'freeing' people with mental illness based on their right to be crazy and unsupervised.
https://www.youngcons.com/fbi-gun-violence-map-vs-2012-voting-pattern-map-ban-democrats-from-owning-guns/ReactReply - KE
KeithOct 3, 2015So now we know the shooter didn't have a permit for any of his firearms. And strange where are all the gun toting people to stop this sort of rampage. Oh I know it was a gun free zone.
Wake up America you don't need guns to protect yourselves, you need the guts to remove guns from the general populas. Only then will your children be safer. Yes I know we still have a few gun issues with crazies in Australia getting hold of them, but we don't hear of school massacres as you do.ReactReply - CH
ChristopherOct 3, 2015ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 3, 2015ReactReply
- 1414016223Original PosterOct 3, 2015[quote]So now we know the shooter didn't have a permit for any of his firearms. And strange where are all the gun toting people to stop this sort of rampage. Oh I know it was a gun free zone.
Wake up America you don't need guns to protect yourselves, you need the guts to remove guns from the general populas. Only then will your children be safer. Yes I know we still have a few gun issues with crazies in Australia getting hold of them, but we don't hear of school massacres as you do. [/quote]I do not know where you got your information, but from all I have read he bought all of the firearms he had LEGALLY.ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 3, 2015[quote]This is the 264th mass shooting this year. Yes, 264 mass shootings in less than a year.
Firearms kill 33,000 people every year. Every 6 hours in America more people die from gun violence than were killed by terrorists in all of 2014. If a disease like Ebola was killing as many people as guns there would be rioting in the streets to cure it.
In the last 30 years there has never been a single instance of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy intent on killing a bunch of people... 30 years.
In the last 50 years, half of the world's mass shootings have occurred in the U.S.
The U.S is the most armed country in the world. We have as many guns as people and 1/3 of the populace owns at least one.
Nearly half of all civilian guns in the world are held by Americans.Besides bombs and chemical weapons, guns are the most efficient killing machines. Bombs and chemical weapons are illegal.
The second amendment was written by slave-holding men who carried muskets to protect themselves from tyranny and from their slaves. A musket took over 10 seconds to reload for a single shot.
[/quote]Perhaps you have forgotten a LITTLE BITY BIT of HISTORY call The American Revolution?ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 3, 2015[quote]I'm an outsider looking in, I will never understand (so don't lecture me) Americas cultural ties to firearms.
The absolute truth is, no guns no shootings.
When did your right to carry a gun outweigh the right not to be randomly shot?
S
[/quote]It is called the Second Amendment.ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 3, 2015[quote]All firarms should be outlawed and anyone found carrying one in a public place should serve a minimum 10 years prison sentence.The only reason they are not outlawed is because the Government rake in billions of dollars a year from the manufacture and sale of firearms. AND, as we all know, Governments all over the world put money before life or safety.[/quote]MOW, I have always like most of your reply but I must disagree with you here. What works you across the pond has not and will not work for us on this side.ReactReply
- CHChristopherOct 3, 2015[quote][quote]. What works you across the pond has not and will not work for us on this side. [/quote]And it won't with those who have a fetishist attraction to guns and believe that the world is exactly as it was in 1791.
When the Second Amendment was passed "guns" as well as the world were significantly different then it is in 2015. Do we need anyone owning automatic weapons besides the military? In the last few school massacres automatic weapons were used. They were not an exception to the Second Amendment since they didn't exist in 1791.
In most jurisdictions it is easier to obtain a license to purchase a gun then it is to drive a truck. There is something wrong that! But, as long as the gun lobby (manufacturers and retailers of guns) spends 6 times that of the anti-gun lobby very little will change. Asking for tighter restrictions on the sale of weapons gets out the Henny Penny's screaming "gun grabbers". Intelligent, enforceable, and national gun laws will help protect us all.ReactReply - CHChristopherOct 3, 2015[quote]What works you across the pond has not and will not work for us on this side. [/quote]
And it won't with those who have a fetishist attraction to guns and believe that the world is exactly as it was in 1791.
When the Second Amendment was passed "guns" as well as the world were significantly different then it is in 2015. Do we need anyone owning automatic weapons besides the military? In the last few school massacres automatic weapons were used. They were not an exception to the Second Amendment since they didn't exist in 1791.
In most jurisdictions it is easier to obtain a license to purchase a gun then it is to drive a truck. There is something wrong that! But, as long as the gun lobby (manufacturers and retailers of guns) spends 6 times that of the anti-gun lobby very little will change. Asking for tighter restrictions on the sale of weapons gets out the Henny Penny's screaming "gun grabbers". Intelligent, enforceable, and national gun laws will help protect us all.ReactReply - KEKeithOct 3, 2015Its bad when you get more adverse reaction to a bare nipple than a person brandishing a gun.
Only war mongers need guns. I just wish America would stop trying to dominate the world. Take a look at the despots America supported around the world only to have them go off the rails and create all sorts of havoc, Isis being the latest stuff up.I am sad because our stupid government got tangled in Americas web of lies re Iraq now we have a real festering sesspool. Armageddon here we come.ReactReply - MEMemberOct 3, 2015[quote]Its bad when you get more adverse reaction to a bare nipple than a person brandishing a gun.
Only war mongers need guns. I just wish America would stop trying to dominate the world. Take a look at the despots America supported around the world only to have them go off the rails and create all sorts of havoc, Isis being the latest stuff up.I am sad because our stupid government got tangled in Americas web of lies re Iraq now we have a real festering sesspool. Armageddon here we come.[/quote]Only war mongers need guns. Well, socialist governments need them to control their subjects. American citizens use them to control their governments.
America, under Obama has stopped trying to 'dominate' the world. And so, Russia has stepped up. So has China and Iran. Do you prefer ruthless conquerors to compassionate victors?
ISIS was born of Obama's withdrawal from Iraq-which at the time was a fledgling democracy. The Iraq war was won, and the only thing left was a diplomatic effort to do in essence what we did in Germany and Japan post WWII. Obama failed, and countless thousands will pay the price.
The world is a far less dangerous place when America is strong. Anyone who denies that is simply ignorant of history.
Armageddon(or at least the threshold of a regional war) is upon the Middle East because America under Obama is flaccid.ReactReply - T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyOct 4, 2015I never see "Protection Rifles" for sale.
I do see a lot of "Assault Rifles" for sale.ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 4, 2015[quote][quote]What works you across the pond has not and will not work for us on this side. [/quote]
And it won't with those who have a fetishist attraction to guns and believe that the world is exactly as it was in 1791.
When the Second Amendment was passed "guns" as well as the world were significantly different then it is in 2015. Do we need anyone owning automatic weapons besides the military? In the last few school massacres automatic weapons were used. They were not an exception to the Second Amendment since they didn't exist in 1791.
In most jurisdictions it is easier to obtain a license to purchase a gun then it is to drive a truck. There is something wrong that! But, as long as the gun lobby (manufacturers and retailers of guns) spends 6 times that of the anti-gun lobby very little will change. Asking for tighter restrictions on the sale of weapons gets out the Henny Penny's screaming "gun grabbers". Intelligent, enforceable, and national gun laws will help protect us all.
[/quote]No automatic weapons were used in this or any other shooting. It is obvious that you have not tried to get a permit to buy a firearm.ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 4, 2015[quote]I never see "Protection Rifles" for sale.
I do see a lot of "Assault Rifles" for sale.
[/quote]The name "assault weapon" was coined buy the MSM and the gun brabbers coined to make the mean old black rifle sound scary.ReactReply - 1414016223Original PosterOct 4, 2015[quote][quote][quote]. American citizens use them to control their governments. .[/quote]?
[/quote]^rolls eyes^
If the government wanted to squash the citizens the military's firepower and arsenal would be unstoppable. So, thinking that you could take pot shots at tanks, bombers, and best of the US' Armed Services is an insane vision. But more importantly, just when since 1776 has the population needed to arm themselves against the US government?
[/quote]You sir seem to forget that in the US military they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not the government.ReactReply - MEMemberOct 4, 2015[quote][quote][quote]. American citizens use them to control their governments. .[/quote]?
[/quote]^rolls eyes^
If the government wanted to squash the citizens the military's firepower and arsenal would be unstoppable. So, thinking that you could take pot shots at tanks, bombers, and best of the US' Armed Services is an insane vision. But more importantly, just when since 1776 has the population needed to arm themselves against the US government?
[/quote](I see the rest of my post was not addressed). To answer your question, they haven't>>>because of the 2nd amendment. Why do liberals want to disarm law abiding citizens while not dealing with the the real problem with guns? Could it be they want the power & wealth structure of a socialist society and a part of that is having some of the pawns being bad actors?
Oh-and the government wouldn't be able to turn on it's citizenry with that firepower-too many of the military are patriots-to the Constitution and to the people. And an armed resistance would inflict a great deal of damage. One sniper could turn the tide in such a situation.ReactReply - CHChristopherOct 4, 2015[quote]If no guns means no shootings, America should ban drugs. We've got a drug problem and we should have laws to stop these drugs being sold. The answer is so simple.[/quote]Yes, we do have a drug problem particularly with opiates. Going after the supply of drugs may be the easiest yet least effective way to fight drug abuse. To fight the war on drugs the demand for the drugs is the bigger, and more difficult to address issue.ReactReply
- T=Tom === Thomas S. TierneyOct 4, 2015[quote]If no guns means no shootings, America should ban drugs. We've got a drug problem and we should have laws to stop these drugs being sold. The answer is so simple.[/quote]Drug users usually just kill themselves, not dozens of innocent kids.ReactReply
- CHChristopherOct 4, 2015[quote][quote]If no guns means no shootings, America should ban drugs. We've got a drug problem and we should have laws to stop these drugs being sold. The answer is so simple.[/quote]Drug users usually just kill themselves, not dozens of innocent kids.
[/quote]Not where I live. About a year ago some drug addict robbing a drug store shot up everyone. Also, druggies, like drinkers, kill innocents with their cars.ReactReply - RU
RussOct 5, 2015When I read or hear that someone wants to control or ban guns.....I ask myself if they have ever been a victim of a violent crime.
and there have been many instances where an armed citizen has stopped a violent crime...but the MSM does not report it.
We do have a drug problem in the usa....and drug addicts will do ANYTHING to support their habit....except risk their lives trying to rob an armed individual...can you possibly imagine the home invasion increase if drug addicts did not fear the home owner???
Remember...when seconds count....the police are only several minutes away....ReactReply