Food for thought; Newtown

T

Thadius.Castle

Active member
Personally I don't care about the Gun control debates here, but this really caught my eye, and it is certainly worth a watch.

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png
 
1595201-oh_look_its_this_thread_again_super.jpg


fuck you op
 
Oh look a parent that wasn't affected by gun violence but since he was in the same town where gun violence occurred, he automatically gains the right to go in front of Congress and to make himself look like an idiotic byproduct of the news.

How foolish would you feel if you went in front of Congress, complained to them about how they're trying to violate the 2nd Amendment when in reality there hasn't been a piece of legislature in recent history that even remotely challenged the 2nd Amendment.

Fucktards- the right to bear arms doesn't mean you have the right to bear whatever weapon you want.
 
Lolz you are so uninformed, second amendment says "shall not be infringed upon" for a reason. Who are you to say Semi-Automatic AR-15 style weapons should be banned when they are used in such small amount of violent crime. Banning certain types of weapons just disarms the law obeying populace and arms criminals. The largest mass shooting spree was done with 2 handguns so no piece of legislation will keep us any safer.

We aren't asking to bear whatever weapon we want its not like everyone is going around wielding M60 machine guns. Arguably a shooter would be worse off with an Automatic weapon due to lack of training and experience. When fired at fully auto it is hard to be accurate due to muzzle climb and recoil so they are in effect wasting bullets faster. Get edumacated before you come in posting such nonsense.
 
Seeing how there's no evidence that supports your claims that banning certain weapons puts people in MORE danger and that while during the Assault Weapons Ban (yes we had a ban that is almost identical to the one currently being proposed and guess who ended it in 2004?) assault weapons used for a crime decreased by well over 50% and that gun-related murders decreased by almost 7%. Even though assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of crimes, with handguns and extended clips being the majority (the new bill would ban any clips over 10), it would still make a difference based on EVIDENCE, whereas your opinion is based on the OPINIONS of pundits/politicians. Oh yeah I don't know if you saw this popular talking point but the new ban doesn't affect 2,500 fucking firearms.

The only reasons these idiots don't want the ban is because they're fun as Hell to shoot and the firearm organizations/corporations are "contributors" to their cause/office. Then the lobbyists/news organizations/politicians mask this purpose by saying how they're defenders of the Constitution. If that doesn't fly they just resort to deflecting from the issue by saying how the government is a dictatorship and using fallacies such as the slippery slope argument. It's straight up fear mongering.

Sorry but I'm not the one that needs to be educated. Educated means you actually research and base your opinions using facts. Educated doesn't mean regurgitating someone else's opinion and calling it your own.
 
And based on the facts, lives will be saved by this ban and no lives will be lost. If the ban doesn't pass, the murder rate will stay as high as it is now but people will still have fun at the shooting range. What's the most logical decision? Imagine what would have happened if that psycho did choose to bring the rifle in with him? There's some of the crap you're used to hearing, maybe that'll help knock some sense into that thick skull.
 
Unfortunately, the way the constitution is currently written, it DOES mean you have the right to bear whatever weapon you want. Personally I think this should be changed. Seems dangerous to make it constitutional for normal citizens to own tanks, fighter jets, nuclear bombs, etc.
 
OK? There are hundreds of laws that have been created that contradict that "point" and there's not one reasonable person, never mind a judge, out there that would consider otherwise. You kids really are fucking retarded. I love guns, I just really hate stupidity. If society isn't ready to handle something that can make killing people efficient, that's the reason every assault weapon was created in the first place, then take them the fuck away. I'll just hide mine before they do.
 
You seem to have missed the point. Which is that the Constitution itself doesn't ban any kind of weapons, or "arms." Other legislation does, the Constitution does not. Strict Constitutionalists can, and do, argue that laws banning certain types of weapons shouldn't be made because the Constitution doesn't specify what should and should not be made accessible to the public. Not sure why you are calling me a "fucking retard" because you failed to differentiate between the Constitution and other types of legislation, but fair enough, I guess.
 
No I'm calling you fucking retarded for trying to make stupid points. "Uh well technically the Constitution, which is a piece of paper that was ratified 200+ years ago, doesn't include lots of stuff about issues that never existed then so like laws or amendments that deal with those issues were created... but like they're not technically a part of the original document".

Wow, you're so insightful and this incredible information that you posted drastically changes everything about this issue!
 
You said the second amendment doesn't give people the right to own whatever weapons you want. It does. If you read the second amendment, and take it at face value, it does. Unless you can show where the Constitution specifies what weapons the public should and should not be given access to, I'm not sure why you keep saying I'm wrong.

I'm not trying to make any "point," just saying that the second amendment can easily be interpreted to say that any laws banning certain weapons are unconstitutional.
 
I'm not saying you're wrong, the history of the U.S. judicial system says you're fucking wrong. Go buy a RPG, have the police seize it, then go to court and try to argue your position there. See how that goes for you, you stupid child. If a law doesn't specifically prohibit you from doing something, that doesn't mean you can go and do it without any sort of legal repercussions. It blows my mind when people try to use your "logic" but it does do a great job of representing the general lack of understanding people have about important issues in this country.
 
I don't know what to tell you, man. Plenty of people believe that, because the second amendment doesn't specify what weapons should and should not be legal, any laws that make such specifications are unconstitutional. If you took all additional legislation away and just looked at the constitution on its own do you disagree that people would be able to go out and buy whatever kind of weapon they wanted?
 
It... doesn't... matter...

Let me ask you this; your impossible hypothetical about what would happen if they took away all legislation except for the Constitution, what the fuck does that have to do with the current issue of gun control? How does a question about "what if" matter when that "what if" will never exist?

"Umm but bro what if we had aliens land on our planet and the only way we could defend ourselves was with flame throwers? Would you disagree that people should be able to buy flame throwers to defend themselves?"

Sorry that's a bad example because aliens invading us might actually happen. You're mentally challenged.
 
It seems to be the only language these kids understand...

- ban some guns, you'll get more gun violence

- banning some guns will lead to banning all guns

- what is written in the Constitution are the only laws people need to follow

- banning guns won't do anything (even though every bit of evidence points otherwise)

 
If you actually believe that then you are mentally disabled and you shouldn't be allowed to have a gun in the first place.
 
Did I ever say it mattered? You said the second amendment doesn't make it okay for people to own whatever weapon they want. It does. Other legislature stops it from being okay, not the constitution itself. That's all I'm saying. Glad you agree, even if it did take you a little time to figure out what I was talking about. But that could be partly my fault. Maybe I wasn't being clear. If that's the case, I apologize. Nonetheless, next time I, and I think others, would appreciate if you refrained from calling someone a "fucking retard" until you take the time to understand what it is that is being talked about.
 
screw the Constitution, the founding fathers could not possibly make laws that address the technology we have today. lets start over
 
You really are retarded... sorry, I didn't know that so I'll be more politically correct... You're fucking mentally disabled.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where is the part that says that certain kinds of weapons are not okay? Maybe you're still confused, sorry. What I meant was that the second amendment isn't what bans certain kinds of weapons and stops people from owning them, it is other legislation that does that. You're right, the second amendment doesn't make owning whatever you want okay, but it doesn't stop you from owning whatever you want, either. Is that better?
 
Strong gun control as well as banning assault rifles does not stop the proliferation of violent crime. I believe as a nation we have to further examine existing gun laws and address the plain fact that these laws in act are not being enforced. Besides, the assault rifle ban can only have a minute effect on total gun murders, as banned weapons were involved in such a small fraction of the whole of gun murders. In any case the supposed ban targets the wrong firearm. Gape at Norway, which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the western portion of Europe. However, this country has one of the lowest murder rates. Sweden and Denmark have few guns yet the are amongst the highest in murder rates. As I am Dutch, I have traveled to Holland, which has nearly the worst murder rate on Earth, in spite of having the lowest gun ownership in Western Europe. Look at Russia's murder rate 20 times higher than Norway and about 4 times higher than the US. A country that eliminated private ownership of guns. In any case, Russia as high as the murder rate is, the murders do not involve guns. Also, the official story of Sandy Hook is not the truth, it has been more than two months now and the whole story still makes absolutely no sense. Something is truly wrong with the story and needless to say our government is feeding off of it, exploiting the children to pass gun laws.

 
You're a fool if you think that any of your rights are absolute in the eyes of the government anymore. It blows me away that people are so riled up about losing a couple of types of guns when your right to privacy, unreasonable search and seizure, due process and others are all be eroded away too. That shit is way more serious than a ban on AR-15s and no one gives a flying fuck.
 
1. No one said improved gun control would completely stop gun-related violence.

2. The current gun laws ARE BEING ENFORCED. One of the talking points pundits use is that the kid had to borrow his mom's rifle because he couldn't purchase one due to background checks.

I stopped reading there because you're clearly restating the same senseless BS without actually taking into account what I posted. You're not worth the time.
 
Then point out where I'm wrong. Show me the words in the second amendment that say there are certain types of weapons that citizens should not be allowed to own. Please, I beg you. You seem exceptionally certain that they are there and that you're right, but I can't find them. Help me see the so certain truth that you see.
 
1) You are asking me to quantify something such as people being put into danger which obviously is not a quantifiable variable. While I cannot give you a statistic that says homeowners are any safer by owning one (that is ridiculous) I can give you examples where An AR-15 style weapon helped save lives. I have yet to hear a straight answer regarding this next question though. If the AWB which expired in 2004 would have been reinstated, would Sandy Hook or the Aurora shooting have been prevented? I will answer that for you and that answer is no.

http://youtu.be/j-q2zHIovOE

2) Lets get something straight AR-15's aren't Assault Weapons they are Semi Automatic Rifles. One trigger pull one bullet, not one trigger pull 30 bullets there is a difference. I refuse to buy into the media hype of having a pistol grip on a rifle makes it any more dangerous than any other Semi Auto Rifle without one. In all the media's years of experience with guns.......not, they might as well come after Springfield M1A's (Seen Below) and any other Semi-Auto style rifles because they must be so dangerous. Ridiculous

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CUglbCN_vtU/TbhNrN1uyrI/AAAAAAAAEOE/DfFSiTcIPXE/s1600/m1a-rifle.gif

3) I am well aware of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and I am also well aware of the lack in reduction of violent crime. Why would a drop in "Assault Weapon" related murders during the 1994 ban be anything surprising? Criminals just turn to other weapons they can easily access, this doesn't do anything to curb violent crime, criminals just switch tools. For the 100th time, you cannot legislate public safety by removing certain firearms from law abiding citizens. This is clearly not the case as you see the highest violent crime rates in gun free zones, and in areas that have the highest gun ownership are the safest regarding violent crime.

I guess I must just be regurgitating someone else's opinion and calling it my own, so don't take my word for it here's all the gun related stats you are looking for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI

4) Magazine limitation is a pitiful attempt at making society safer? You really think that a criminal about to go postal is going to follow these laws? Unless you physically remove all magazines in circulation over 10 rounds criminals will still have access to large capacity magazines. For the 101st time, you cannot legislate safety by limiting firearms or the magazines used.

5) The reason the majority of gun owners do not want AR-15 style rifles banned is because it is an infringement upon our second amendment rights. It has not been proven to reduce violent crime so hypothetically speaking if another AWB was enacted and violent crime continued to increase, the Dianne Feinstein's of the world will be hot on the trail to ban handguns because they are the culprit of most gun related murders and it becomes a vicious cycle. That is why people do not want their 2nd Amendment rights infringed upon regarding AR-15's.

Adam Lanza didn't even use his AR-15 in the Sandy Hook shooting he left it in the car and used 4 handguns so the media is just hopping on the backs of dead children and trying to capitalize on any opportunity to ram through anti gun legislation. This can easily be seen as New York rushed through gun legislation that forgot to remove police officers from the 7 round magazine limit. It is pretty sick to think about using the deaths of children to ram through anti gun agendas.

I fail to see how I need to be educated on guns in America.
 
it's ok for them to secretly spy on citizens, detain them indefinitely, and apparently now to kill them without any sort of legal process.

but guns are necessary in case the government ever tries to impede on their rights!

 
1. No one is saying that if the auto weapons ban was still in play that it may have prevented either one of those mass shootings. Again, that is illogical and you fail to address any of the EVIDENCE based off of the auto weapons ban. The only point that is being made is that if a ban is reinstated that it would IMPROVE the situation we are in now. If anyone is against that, you're a fucktard.

2. Same point as the first, read one of my first posts. There ya go, buddy. It's retarded to reject an action because it doesn't produce a big enough reaction, although the reaction may be positive as small as it is. (BTW still waiting on ONE FACT to support a reason to not ban assault weapons and extended clips, among other guidelines in the new proposal)

3. Proof that you may have read my posts but you most certainly are not smart enough to understand them. I stopped reading here because there's no way you could read what I posted and still would write shit that's so embarrassingly stupid.
 
Because in America any law created after the initial law makes it obsolete, unless it supports the laws you want. "mericah, where making sense makes sense only when other 'mericans told tells us it makes sense."
 
Yup. And when people say "but the founding fathers..." Seems much more likely to me that the founding fathers would think its stupid and naive to put so much stock in such an old document and be so unwilling to change it. They'd probably WANT us to question it and keep revising it to try and make it better and better. I mean that's basically what they did with the British Bill or Rights, no? They looked at it, thought "hmm, this could be better if we made some changes to it," and they did.
 
1) I am not referring to Automatic Weapons in AWB. I was abreviating for Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Any my question was not regarding whether the weapon was automatic or not but rather if the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was reinstated (2004) NEITHER Aurora or Sandy Hook would have been prevented showing no reduction in mass shootings. I don't see how you can even make the statement that having and AR-15 style ban makes society any safer. The aurora shooter used shotguns and handguns, not just an AR-15. Adam Lanza used 4 handguns not even his AR-15 which was left in the car. My point is that there were other weapons used in these mass shootings so even if AR-15's were banned these psychos can still cause mass carnage with handguns and shotguns.

2) I referenced this in my post above. I do feel it is stupid to infringe upon my second amendment rights when it is not even causing a significant change, why even bother? It obviously wouldn't have prevented the last 2 major mass shootings so I fail to see a need to address AR-15 style weapons when the slaughter would've happened regardless.

Here's a good read at why banning large capacity magazines does not reduce violent crime. All stats are cited. I still don't see how you are going to address the millions of magazines over 10 rounds that are in circulation now. Are you suggesting confiscating all of those magazines, or are you just hoping people will obey a law that says you cannot have more than 10 rounds. Like I said last time, you can't legislate safety by limiting magazines because criminals don't follow these laws anyways. Once again your proposed solutions don't reduce violent crime.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/another-high-capacity-magazine-ban-would-not-reduce-crime/#axzz2NRF5S9O4

3) I am all for having an open discussion about this topic but it is clearly you who cannot come up with a logical argument without saying if you don't agree your a fucktard. How old are you 12? And I will respond to your previous posts
 
Current laws are not being enforced to the extent they should be. Criminals are getting off with minimal sentences for committing gun related or violent crimes. If the laws on the books were enforced or the penalties were upped for those who commit gun related crimes criminals would be thinking twice if the penalties were more severe. A man who beat his grandmother to death with a hammer was released from prison and look what happened.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/justice/new-york-firefighters-shooter

You really think someone crazy enough to kill their own grandmother should be released from prison? If judges were to convict criminals with harsher sentences for committing violent crime and not let them off easy, these types of acts of violence would be less common.

 
Every bit of evidence points otherwise that banning guns will offer a positive solution? You wanted me to address your previous posts so here I go. I don't know where you are coming up with these pro gun ban statistics but they are false.

1) Here's a Harvard study that shows gun control is counter productive.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

2) Video that compares other countries to the US in gun ownership and violent crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI

I can keep posting if you would like but I think the stats speak for themselves.

 
For all of you saying that it's unconstitutional to regulate gun control, the supreme court has ruled multiple times (under liberal and conservative judges) that it is in fact not a violation of gun control to regulate the sale of firearms, whether through limiting who can purchase firearms or limiting what guns can legally be sold to the public. If my spelling sucks I blame mobil.
 
I get the stats from those fancy sites that are 3rd parties in issues like these that provide numbers and facts without any political spin. They go those numbers by looking at gun related crimes/deaths before and after the auto weapons ban was enacted. Shocking, right? Again read my full post. this will provide you with a starting point, there are many, many sources you can find through googling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
 
Bro no one is lobbying for Automatic Weapons to be legal. Why do you keep talking about this Automatic Weapons Ban? That was done some 50+ years ago.

I don't see how political spin has anything to do with the facts? You don't even make any sense, facts are facts no matter whether you sit right or left? The Dept. of Justice as well as other govt org's conducted studies on that data and was unable to find any statistical evidence of reduced gun crime. And you call that a success?

If government organizations as well as independent professors have conducted research and found no evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun ban I don't see how your websites are going to have information any different unless you are using false data?

So let me get this straight, you want to ban guns previously removed during the 1994 ban which produced data that showed a reduction in total gun crime "too small for reliable measurement" as quoted by US Dept. of Justice. And this is making our America a safer place? Wow some great stuff right there!

Facts are facts and I guess my "3rd Party" crime statistics coming from the FBI regarding the relationship between US gun ownership/violent crime vs. the world is showing political bias. All political stance aside places with the highest gun ownership in the US have the lowest violent crime and gun free zones on average have the highest violent crime. Chicago is a perfect example of this.

Your argument was already a weak one but I would love to hear about how this Assault Weapons Ban would have saved any lives in the Newtown or in Aurora. (I have yet to hear your response)

The argument about banning specific guns is a terrible one and should be put to rest already. Semi Auto AR-15's are used in such a small amount of crime, and if it weren't for the media hype most of the general public wouldn't even know about them. If your going to talk about political bias then it is only fair to address how the liberal media refers to Semi-Automatic Rifles. When in the hands of civilians they are known as "Assault Weapons", but in the hands of Police who serve these same civilians they are called "field rifles". The "Assault Weapons" title is nothing more than a media ploy to scare those who don't have any experience or knowledge of guns into supporting their agenda.

If were going to have an honest conversation regarding gun control the real conversation should be whether to ban all guns entirely. It is crystal clear that banning certain guns does not work in America and since most of the violent gun crimes are committed with handguns then removing or limiting specific firearms will not decrease crime rates. If that were the case then shouldn't gun free zones have the lowest violent crime?

 
I never said it was a success you jackass. Try reading my first few posts, I'm not re-posting that shit again for your stupid ass that cannot read. I answer the part about why organizations cannot conclude that the ban had a great affect on gun violence. And it's the assault weapons ban which was enacted in the 90s that I'm referring to. I don't proofread everything I post so oops, I said automatic instead of assault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top