Is there a campaign promise that Obama hasn’t broken yet?
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XcyLeOm6yGc[/youtube]
Joe Biden circa 2008:
“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey. Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you. I got two, if he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break. Give me a break.”
Yup, why would we worry about something like that?
President Obama on Wednesday tapped Vice President Biden to lead an administration-wide effort looking at gun control and other measures in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting last week.
…The move marks the first concrete step by the White House toward crafting new firearms restrictions. The president did not announce any major policy decisions on Wednesday, but said the task force of Cabinet officials and outside organizations led by Biden would submit legislative proposals to him no later than January.
…The president said Wednesday that he chose Biden to lead the task force in part because of his role in crafting the 1994 assault-weapons ban. Obama spoke favorably of the ban, as well as proposals to strengthen background checks and ban high-capacity magazines.
And rest assured, the gun control loons are out to get your guns:
Gun-control advocates, seeking new laws in the aftermath of the Connecticut school shooting, are drawing support from an unlikely source: the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision backing the right to bear arms.
That ruling marked the court’s first declaration that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals. At the same time, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion said the government could impose restrictions, such as bans on gun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill.
…“The Second Amendment doesn’t impose any significant barriers to any of the major reforms being talked about,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law and the author of a book on gun rights. “The Supreme Court made clear in the Heller case that there’s plenty of room for gun control under the Second Amendment.”
Ban all you want. The criminals that do these crimes are not getting these guns legally. So banning won’t do a damn thing. Keeping people who are capable of these kind of massacres locked up will. Allowing law abiding citizens to carry weapons to protect themselves and others will.
That’s how you prevent a Sandy Hook from happening.
Taking guns from the citizens of the United States won’t.
See author page
@Tom:
So the Bushmaster/mancard link no longer works. No information from you, or any left wing outlet, as to when it stopped working. You would think the Wayback machine could provide that information. Curious, do you think that Bushmaker ad is any more impressive on a young mind than the violence we see in movies and TV or hear in certain types of music? If you do, explain why. Are the alcohol commercials showing young adults on a beach, having a good time and rubbing up against each other, the cause of alcoholism and unprotected sex? Can we attribute those commercial with the cause of the spread of STDs?
As to my questions to you, the sole pupose was to create a dialog (a discussion) with you on your responses. But of course, knowing that I am a Constitutional conservative, you would suspect nefarious intent. Canned responses? I’m not the one who is quoting, and linking to, left wing websites in order to make my opinion known. You see, Tom, unlike you, I DO have a personal opinion derived from my own investigations into issues, not parrotting what others have said or finger pointing, using a questionable web source saying “See, see? How bad is this?”
Obviously you missed my response about Israel, and because you seem to have ADD, I will repeat it, although perhaps not in the same words I used before: Israel does what works for Israel. I read that their system is designed because of the constant threat of violence they are under, unlike the U.S. I guess everyone has forgotten that our threats are mostly internal, although we do have external threats (the Underwear Bomber, Nidel Hassan, ect). I can just hear the ACLU as it goes apoplectic when we require people to take mental health examinations in order to purchase anything, be it a gun or a vehicle. Ironically, I know of one school district where teachers are armed, and have been since Columbine. Odd that we are not reading about mishaps and accidental tragedities regarding that particular school district.
My father was murdered by a drunk driver driving a Volvo. The guy had been sitting in his back yard drinking Johnny Walker Red all day. Not once did I ever hear of anyone trying to strengthen the laws as to who can buy alcohol, a product whose use was responsible for my father’s death, or creating stronger rules as to who can buy a vehicle, another product that facilitated my father’s death. Yet, let a gun incident happen, and people are screaming about “assault” weapons. The Newtown shooter did not use an assault weapon.
But there are two things that most shooters have in common: the ALL created their mayhem in gun “free” zones, and almost everyone of them, from Charles Whitman forward, had mental health issues that pretty much went ignored and untreated. You see, no teacher, school administrator, or police officer wants to have to spend every dime they earn defending themselves against the ACLU who will claim that by pointing out a student’s potential danger they have violated that student’s “civil” rights. If we are discussing anything, it should be how to allow those who recognize mental illness to act on those recognitions and not be bullied into being quiet about it. In almost everyone of these mass shootings, there was premeditation. I suspect that is why the Newtown shooter destroyed his computer hard drive.
One other question you won’t answer: is there any proof that the Newtown shooter ever saw the Bushmaker ad? In order for an advertisment to be effective, would the shooter have to have seen it?
Larry, I suggest you read what I said before:
In fact, I will be involved with target shooting this weekend and people will be using the Ar-15 in the match.
As for why I have semi-auto rifles: Bolt actions are great where precision is needed and a quick follow up shot IS NOT, especially at a distance.
Assault rifles are generally designed to be intermediate range weapons with less recoil than the bolt action rifles they replaced. The Ak-47 is a prime example. It’s range is approx 300 meters. It basically replaced the bolt action 91/30 whose range is 800 meters or more in skilled hands. The AK-47 is 7.62×39 caliber while the 91/30 is 7.62×54 caliber. The difference in recoil between the two is significant. Something else opponent s of military style semi-autos don’t understand is that they ARE NOT designed to kill. They are meant to wound. A dead man requires little care or resources while a wounded man needs to be taken to the rear and given medical treatment. This ties up manpower and other resources thus increasing the burden on the war effort of the enemy.
So bolt action for distance and precision, semi-auto for closer ranges where a quick follow up shot (or shots) may be needed. And for anyone thinking the reason most people own one is some kind of wannabe Rambo image, you are sorely mistaken. Yes some people buy them for that reason, but most owners I talk to hardly see themselves as Rambo or want to be JR. For some, they are target/hunting rifles. For others they are riot protection rifles or the-end-of the-world-as-we-know-it-rifles.
@retire05:
I guess most of my emphasis should be considered as placed on the “negligence” part. The ramifications of teachers leaving a loaded handgun in a unlocked drawer are far more dire than leaving the homework answer-sheet in an unlocked drawer (which I’m sure happens quite frequently nationwide, despite the fact that no teacher would deliberately do this). It goes without saying that an unhinged CCW-qualified teacher is probably not going to respect the “Gun-Free-Zone” rules on any fateful day that he-or-she snaps (making the gun restrictions moot); however, the non-armed-CCW-teacher policy would at least limit the possibility of a teacher going “postal” to those who “snap” and remain unhinged for hours of premediation and planning.
@Kevin:
My own viewpoint is not that teachers should be armed, or every person on a block or in a theater. I contend that to advertise to would-be shooters where they can find unarmed victims is stupidity at it’s finest.
For example, it can be concluded that the shooter in Colorado chose the specific theater because of the “gun-free” zone it advertised, even though a handful of other large theaters were showing the film, including some that were closer to his apartment. Would that theater have been chosen if there was the chance that the shooter would have encountered armed resistance? Perhaps, but it’s more likely he wouldn’t have. If there were no “gun-free” zones around, would the shooter still have opted to do what he did? Probably, as it is evident that he was unhinged and saw violence as his answer. However, his target might have been different, and the numbers of people carrying would most certainly have been different, possibly, and probably, ending his violent rampage soon after it ended, and with less people hurt.
More guns aren’t necessarily the answer. It would be irresponsible to suggest that, I believe. But allowance for the possibility of armed resistance, for any would be shooter, is something to consider, and the first step is doing away with the stupid “gun-free” zones where most of the handful of recent mass shootings have occurred.
@Kevin:
In my state, even our elected representatives “carry.” And they have certain rules they abide by. What has prevented some Congressman/woman from going “postal” while the House is in session? But it hasn’t happened, has it? And are we to assume that teachers, who we trust with our children every day, are more suseptible to going “postal” than elected officials? If that is your view, you seem to have little regard for the stability of America’s teachers.
The school district I am familiar with that allows licensed teachers to carry has a number of very stringent rules, one of them being that the weapon must be on their person at all times. No leaving them in their purses, their lockers, their desk drawers. There are many holsters that are designed for concealed carry; leg holsters, boot holsters, well, you get the idea.
I have a question for you; do you have children and if so, do you use commercial air travel with your children?
@johngalt:
Here is another thing to ponder: everyone of those shooters were cowards to the bone. How many of them, after their carnage, knew that armed resistance was either by then present, or on its way, and took their own lives? The goal of the shooters was to shoot, not to be shot by someone else in possession of a weapon.
We spend millions of dollars a year creating criminal profiles. Every one of these shooters had more in common than they were different; choose a gun “free” zone with no resistance to them; history of mental illness that was basically ignored and not dealt with; pre-meditation for their carnage.
@retire05:
Yes, and as I pointed out about the Va Tech shootings, in comparison to Newtown, the carnage was similar, in spite of the difference in weapons used, the mobility of those present, the size of the area under attack, etc.
The biggest thing standing out, that was similar, is the “gun-free” zone both places advertised.
Hi John, Regarding the VA Tech shooter using pistols with (somewhat) limited magazines — this is what I mean about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Every situation is different. This morning, I read about the 47 year old principal in Newtown — she got mowed down rushing the shooter. She’d have had a better chance, had he not had such a high capacity magazine. With regard to my earlier suggestion that there should be protocols for students in these situations, which could involve the class taking down the shooter, by coincidence I listened to an interview this morning on our local NPR affiliate with a police officer in Northern California who runs “lock down” drills for the students, which do involve teaching them to throw things at the shooter and, as a last resort, to rush the shooter. Plus, in the Daily Beast, I read an article about liberals coming around to consider the idea of having armed/trained teachers in the schools. Both of these counter-measures (lock down protocols; armed teachers) would have a greater chance of success when combined with limitations on magazines.
To Hard Right: I never came out in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons in general (i.e. pistols or rifles). I am only in favor of considering bans on assault-type rifles and magazine loads, for reasons previously explained.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Sure, every situation is different. I’d agree with that. But my point in using the Va Tech shootings is two-fold. One, that “assault” weapons aren’t necessarily more dangerous to the general public, and two, that limiting high capacity magazines doesn’t necessarily make anyone safer.
And when you consider one of the presumed purposes that people buy those two things, to make themselves safer, limiting those two things will most assuredly remove some of their capability at defending themselves.
You haven’t shown any acceptable reason for an “assault” weapons ban, nor a limitation on magazine capacity, in any of your comments, Larry. Even with your suggested results of the California laws.
In contrast, it is very evident that advertising a “gun-free” zone is more dangerous to the public than not.
Hi John, I’m just curious. Are you aware of any situation in which a law abiding citizen was involved in a shoot out to save his life which involved the need for him/her to fire off more than 10 rounds? As I write this, I don’t know the answer to this. In contrast, there are numerous situations where the number of casualties in these mass shootings were certainly increased, by virtue of the shooter(s) having high capacity magazines.
I take note of the fact that you disagree with my arguments in favor of assault weapons bans and magazine limitations. Likewise, I disagree with your assertion that such restrictions pose a serious burden to law abiding citizens or an abridgement of 2nd Amendment rights. As I’ve noted, we’ve had these precise laws in place here in California for some time, and I’m unaware that they have in any way degraded the quality of life for anyone.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Is anyone able to see comments 43 thru 50, because I cannot.
Jeff
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
You pointed out that the Newtown school principal sacrificed her life by “rushing” the shooter. And what did that get her other than dead? But, let’s assume she, who obviously had the shooter in her vision, had been armed with a simply 9mm concealed weapon. Would she still be dead or would the shooter have been dead, or at least wounded to the point where he was no longer carrying on his rampage? Had she been able to get off a shot, that at least wounded him, the number of shells in his magazine would not have mattered if he had not been able to use them after being disengaged.
And do you really want to train kindergartners and young elementary students that they should pop their heads up and throw things at a madman, knowing that at that age, their aim is less than accurate? Why not just paint a target on those kids, because that is exactly how they would be treated by a shooter.
I remember the days that the brilliant people in D.C. decided that kids should be taught how to “duck and cover” under their desks in the event of a atom bomb attack. How the hell would that have protected those kids in any way? Just another “feel good” reaction to a problem for which they had no answer.
Why is it liberals are always supportive of “feel good” solutions that are unrealistic? Duck and cover, having speakers who talk about bullying (accomplishing nothing but making a tony salary for the speaker), zero tolerance that has reached insane levels and other absurd responses.
And I am sure that California’s strict gun laws have taken large capacity magazines out of the hands of the L.A. gangbangers, right?
And I have explained why your reasons are incorrect. You are operating under incorrect assumptions as I pointed out on your post involving pistol grips. Banning weapons based on cosmetic features as you are proposing is ridiculous and will fail like the last ban did.
As for magazine capacity restrictions, places like NY, CA, IL, D.C., and N.J. have them….to little avail.
BTW, here are two “military style semi-autos”. See anything unusual?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1A_rifle
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg&usg=__u0g4b34IuhkB_T6YFG-OmEsCRuU=&h=390&w=800&sz=51&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=7yRhHH0wmuFo6M:&tbnh=70&tbnw=143&ei=s2zTUL7aI-qc2QWL_IGgAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAR-15%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1
CT firearms laws
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/law/firearms.htm
@retire05:
Well, I’m kind of at a loss. I don’t have the patience to explain to someone why 1+1=2. Once again, click on this link FROM THE OFFICIAL BUSHMASTER WEBSITE, and then explain again to us why you doubt the existence of this “Man Card” ad campaign. I’m sure it’s difficult for a slave to NRA propaganda to believe Bushmaster markets their AR-15 to adolescents (and men who have the emotional development of adolescents) much the same as one would market a video game, but that’s the gun industry for you: no regulation + a bulletproof liability shield = zero responsibility to the public welfare.
Hi John, I’m frankly amazed that you won’t concede the simple, obvious fact that a classroom of kids and a teacher would have a better chance (of escaping, taking down the shooter, shooting the shooter) if said shooter were limited to ten rounds in a magazine, as opposed to thirty rounds.
You keep repeating the straw man that I support the concept of gun free zones. I’ve already stated, several times, that I think that there would be merit in training teachers to possess “teacher only” tamper proof guns in class rooms.
With regards to “unrealistic” liberal programs…no, those don’t come from “liberals,” they come from law enforcement, e.g.:
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/students_fight_gunmen.html
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, there are huge problems with your 10 magazine limit claims.
1) There are a very large number of high capacity magazines in circulation.
2) If the gunman has more than one gun, even with 10 round magazines, the result would be the same as with one firearm with 17-20 rounds.
Hi Hard Right, This is what I mean by making the perfect be the enemy of the good. No one thing is going to be a panacea. There will always be carnage like this. With kitchen knives, if necessary. But there are a lot of things that could be done — none a panacea, but, collectively, lives could be saved. That’s the discussion that we should be having, in the wake of Newtown. What are all the things that we could do which would make a difference, even at the margins?
Arming teachers wouldn’t be a panacea. Not every teacher could be trained or would be trained. Not every school would have a qualified teacher. If we had armed teachers, we’d then see carnage in a school which didn’t have an armed teacher or carnage in spite of an armed teacher and then “liberals” could make the claim that, see, arming teachers didn’t prevent thus and so, which is basically the argument currently being made against magazine limits and assault weapons bans.
And, as noted earlier, were I an armed teacher, I’d rather be entering a classroom to confront a shooter with 10 round magazines than 30 round magazines.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Where we disagree is that lives would be saved with magazine capacity limits. As I stated high capacity magazines are everywhere.
If I were a killer intent on doing something like the New Town killer did, I would simply be holding two guns if somehow I couldn’t get 18+ round magazines.
My point is, what you are proposing is useless. It’s not a case of perfect being the enemy of good. It’s a case of just being plain bad and worthless.
@Tom:
You really do have a reading comprehension disorder, don’t you? Perhaps you would like to quote me exactly where I doubted the ad. I simply questioned when it was talken down, and you don’t seem to have the mental capacity to comprehend that.
Now, as to your questiong the reasoning behind any ad Bushmaker, or Remington, or Henry or Ruger might make, you have yet to prove that any of those ads had any influence on the shooter, or any other shooter, in a school shooting. As as to the liablity of gun manufacturers in the case of school shootings, or theater shootings or shootings from the clock towers of universities, get back to me when GM is sued for allowing a drunk illegal alien who slaughters someone in a traffic accident using their product.
CT has the 5th toughest firearms laws in the country according to the brady campaign. And while the instant backround check prevented him from buying a gun, it did not stop him from obtaining firearms.
Look, the fact is the majority of those on the far left like tom and rich want any excuse to further destroy the Second Amendment and the shooting is that excuse.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
If “gun free school zone” signs were removed, and school districts opted to allow teachers to be trained, gain a CCP, take crisis and hostage management courses, and kept the names of the teachers private, how would a shooter, with a magazine that held 10 or 30 rounds, know which school, and which teachers were armed?
Let’s try to apply some logic here and not the strawman that you seem to offer up while accusing others of doing that very thing.
Hi Hard Right,
Your suggestion would make sense in the case of a classic professional criminal, who expected to make a getaway.
What these guys want is to go out in a blaze of glory. Your suggestion wouldn’t prevent any of this; it would only limit the carnage, which is the same thing which magazine limits would do.
Let me ask you something, let’s say that you are an armed teacher. You’ve got to enter a classroom with a massacre in progress. Would you prefer that the shooter be armed with 10 round magazines or 30 round magazines? Even changing guns takes a couple of seconds. And there is a limit to the number of weapons which can be carried and still be easily accessible. All of this is about limiting carnage; nothing can really prevent it with 100% effectiveness.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@retire05:
And I already explained why it was taken down in post 47: “damage control”. Is it really that confusing for you?
@Tom:
So “damage control” is now a date on a calender?
Got it.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Does it matter? I am unaware of any case where it was buckshot loaded into a person’s shotgun, instead of birdshot, that allowed a person to defend him/her self, either, yet I don’t see that as a reason to ban the buckshot loads available for shotguns, do you?
That is speculation only, Larry. As I pointed out, the magazines used in the Va Tech shootings were a combination of 10-round and 15-round mags, and yet the shooter was able to kill and wound many more people than the Newtown shooter, and that being done in a larger area of targeting, with more mobile people.
And I understand your disagreement, but is isn’t founded upon concrete facts, Larry. You are presenting suppositions and opinions on whether “assault” weapons, and/or high capacity magazines are more dangerous to the public at large, but haven’t shown any verifiable facts or information that logically leads one to concluding as you have.
Have you ever been staring down the barrel of a gun, with your life hanging in the balance, Larry? I haven’t, and I doubt highly that I would be able to escape anywhere, from a classroom, even with the gunman changing out magazines(which takes only 4-5 seconds for even the most modestly trained person). If I had a gun of my own? Maybe. But then I’d be the first one targeted with the shooter’s initial firing, wouldn’t I?
Again, Larry, the difference in time, for the victims of Newtown, between what was used, and what it could have been limited to, is only around 40 seconds, and only about 5 seconds at a time. You think that the 40 seconds would have made all the difference in the world, and I’m telling you that it wouldn’t have, and I point to the Va. Tech shooting as my example.
I don’t believe that I’ve ever stated that you support “gun-free” zones, Larry. In fact, I’ve noted, to myself, that you have been open to the idea that they are, in fact, a stupid idea. If you believe that I’ve implied that about you, then I apologize, but will state that I haven’t done so intentionally.
Don’t presume to limit my rights, simply because you ‘suppose’ that banning “assault” weapons, or limiting mag capacity, will make you safer out in public. I’m not the person who committed the murders, and I have every reason to believe that an “assault” weapon, and higher capacity magazines, will make me able to defend myself, my family, and my property, much better than being limited to a shotgun or handgun that only holds a handful of rounds.
Until you can provide me with some concrete evidence leading to the conclusion that “assault” type firearms are more dangerous to the public in general, or that higher capacity magazines truly lead to more people dead, I’m not going to change my mind on those issues.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Let’s say you are an armed teacher and you enter a classroom where a massacre is taking place. Is the shooter going to continue to shoot unarmed students, or try to take you out with their next shot?
Logic, Larry. Try it sometime.
@retire05:
Sorry. In the grammatical minefield of your misspelled posts, one can be forgiven for misreading ‘when it was “talken” down’. Why don’t you take a shot at answering your own question. Google Image it, and look at all the screen grabs online that peaked, and then ended, two days ago. Put on your Sherlock cap. You can figure this out, I know you can.
@Tom:
Sorry my typos are so important to you. Perhaps you need to take up a hobby, something like basket weaving or making little woven pot holders. And I’m sure that you can also walk on water, being the perfection of humanity that you seem to think you are. Can you show us all a photo of your taking a stroll across the water?
Now, perhaps you think that I, and every other poster here, are so stupid that they will accept your dumping of the responsibility to provide the date the ad was removed on me, but it is simply a dodge on your part and equals MAJOR FAIL. You don’t know when it was taken down, and you are just too damn dishonest to admit it.
What losers you lefties are.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
I understand, but disagree that a 10 round limit will limit the carnage. All this will do is limit the law abiding.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Coming in a little late… You’re wrong Larry. The Va Tech shooting proves you’re wrong. The shooter in that case had all his targets in one room, and they didn’t take any action while he reloaded. College students, adults all, took no action to save themselves during the reloading breaks. Guess ya missed that one.
Hi Scott,
Yes, the VA Tech students simply ducked and covered and were slaughtered. But that wasn’t necessarily their best course of action.
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/students_fight_gunmen.html
– Larry
@retire05:
I already told you what day it was taken down. The only relevant fact is that it was cowardly taken down after the shooting because they were taking heat. Do you approve of the ad campaign? You seem very defensive of the company, so one could assume…
@Tom:
December 20, 2012 is a date. “Damage control” is not, and if you think you are fooling anyone with your obfuscation, well perhaps you are, but just one person, yourself.
As to the ad, I have no opinion, one way or another. I am not a person impressed, or swayed, by any commercial advertising. My purchases are based on consumer reviews, contacting the companies to get complete information on warranty, parts availability, etc. Not because some company produced some slick ad. All those millions spent on commercial advertising are wasted when it comes to me.
As to your assumptions; remember ASS starts the word “assume”. That pretty well describes you, doesn’t it?
@retire05:
Okay, we get it, you’re immune to advertising. You can stop patting yourself on the back now. Of course you’ve completely ducked the question, since the advertising in question isn’t aimed at you, it’s aimed at the very demographic that’s been responsible for mass shootings. You yourself raised violent video games as a possible contributing cause to the mindset responsible for shootings, but you simply dismiss out of hand gun advertising, and the macho gun culture it helps engender, which (in this case) literally tells insecure young men that they’re not masculine if they don’t own an AR-15. You really are one of the least intellectually brave individuals I’ve ever come across. It’s amazing to me that someone who continuously rails against our immoral culture of violence and sex will simply dismiss a blatant example such as this simply because it comes from “your side”. What a parrot, what an NRA stooge. You’d rather show yourself to be completely intellectually inconsistent and dishonest, than to step out of line with the talking point.
So the NRA just called for armed TSA in every town, every school. I wonder how the Right will feel about that. Keep in mind, all the NRA and the gun industry care about are making sure sales of firearms are not legislatively impeded. So American tax payers will have to fund and implement a federal shield to compensate and protect ourselves from the guns that they indiscriminately pour into our society. That make sense to everyone?
Is there a more cynical, self-serving individual than Wayne Lapierre? Hey Wayne, guess what school had armed guards? Columbine High School.
@Tom:
Are you familiar with the Dos XX’s ad, Tom? It portrays a man who excels in everything, an a Hispanic man, at that. I see the “Stay thirsty, my friend” ad quite often. Am I to assume that that ad promotes alcohol consumption among men looking to improve their “manhood” image, especially Hispanic men? If that is the case, and there is so much alcohol related violence committed by Hispanic men in our nation, shouldn’t that ad be banned?
Video games are designed to appeal to the younger crowd. And yes, I think our entertainment industry is responsbile for some of the “culture of violence” that we have in this country. When Jamie Foxx says that it is neat to be able to “kill all the white people” in his latest movie, is he not promoting violence against white people? Everyone on the left wants to talk about the “Rambo” affect. Hell, most of these shooters could not tell you who John Rambo was. But you can bet your sweet ass they have seen the Batman movies. Nah, no violence in Batman movies, right? Aurora, Colorado ring any bells for you?
And what about commercial advertising for automobiles? How many ads have you seen where the driver is zooming down some highway at a high rate of speed, twisting and turning on a road much like some mountain road, putting the pedal to the metal? Do those ads promote speeding? Ever notice who’se driving those cars in those ads? Young (20’s-30’s) extremely good looking people. If I use your failed logic, I could easily say that those very commercials promote young people driving at a high rate of speed on normally dangerous roads just so they would be cool. Should those ads be banned since automotive speed contributes to the number of taffic fatalities we have in our nation?
Those two examples are just a small part of the type of ads that the nation is exposed to every day on any channel you might watch. I don’t think there are any gun ads that promote irresponsible behavior on TV, but perhaps you can point to one. The only gun manufacturer ad I have remember seeing is for Henry Arms and it talks about how they are made in the U.S. 100%, now how a firearm will make you more of a man.
You call me a “NRA stooge.” You are a Marxist stooge, or maybe a stooge for Nazism, which promoted gun “control.” And obviously, you are influenced by slick commercials and think everyone is as weak minded as you are.
As to being “intellectually” brave, you also fail there, bubba. You refuse to answer my questions, although asked on two threads, by claiming I had some nefarious reason for asking them. You refuse to give me the date the ad was pulled, claim it was on “Damage Control” day. Remember, when you throw crap at others, you still have it on your hands. You seem to think obfuscation is a tactic. It’s not, it simply shows that you are unable to properly form your debate.
@Tom:
Hey, Tom, guess where the shooters studied the movement of the [known] armed guard in order to be able to carry out their pre-planned carnage in a location where he would not be available?
And the NRA called for armed POLICE at every school. And you accuse others of being intellectually dishonest? Pot, meet kettle.
hollywood liberals have glamorized violence and minimized it’s true consequences. Yet they want to pretend they play no causational role.
@retire05:
So it’s an imperfect solution. And future shooters can do the same planning and surveillance in any school with guards to avoid them and still kill students. Is that your point?
He called on CONGRESS to act. What level of government does Congress represent? It will be federally mandated solution, regardless of how you label the guards. So the Right is apparently ok with federally mandated armed guards in their schools, but are not okay with federal regulation of the sale of guns?
I shouldn’t be, but even I’m shocked that the NRA came forward and didn’t put one sensible idea regarding gun access on the table, not one dollar of their revenue stream put on the line. Nothing about the gun show loophole. Nothing that would help prevent a dangerous individual from acquiring a gun. What a historically epic fail.
NRA stooges?
You mean Constitutional supporters fighting Jim Crow type law loving wannabe fascists.
Let’s examine the NRA logic. For years, they’ve helped flood our society with guns by stoking fears that some day we might have to resist an army of shadowy armed government agents in every town. Today, their proposed solution to the problem they helped create, a society flooded with guns: let’s put an army of armed government agents in every town.
@retire05:
Blah, blah, blah. Whatever. Keep defending the ad. I think it’s hilarious that you find yourself compelled to twist yourself into a comical hypocrite.
@Tom:
Yeah, Tom, that evil NRA. Man, if it hadn’t been for them, we wouldn’t have the Second Amendment that guaranteed our right to fight back against an oppressive government.
Tell us, Tommie Boy, do you think the federal government should ban all automobiles that are capable of exceeding the maximum national speed limits?
When you find yourself in a hole (argument wise) as you are, perhaps it is time to stop digging.
Anti-Constitutional translations
Common sense/sensible gun laws = radical and useless proposition that will only disarm law abiding citizens. Most pushing theses laws know they are useless, but want more control over others regardless of whether it violates the Constitution.
Gun Show Loophole = Person saying it has no clue what they are talking about. Thinks that licensed gun dealers can sell guns at gun show without conducting backround checks. OR, they want to require ALL PRIVATE sales of firearms subject to instant backround check.
Assault Weapon = pretty much any weapon the left wants banned, but currently the incorrect tag placed on semi-autos which are also incorrectly called machine guns.
Sniper Rifle = according to the left, any rifle with a scope
High Capacity Magazine = Per bloomberg, any magazine with more than 3-5 rounds
Semi-Auto (auto) = firearm only meant to spray bullets everywhere and kill people.
@Tom:
You freaking moron. I never defended the ad. I said I had no opinion on that. And I could say that by your silence, you defend ads that promote the consumption of alcohol and driving cars beyond the speed limits.
Hey, here is a suggestion that would benefit you greatly; take a reading compreshension course. And stop lyging about what other people say.
@Tom:
You should know how I feel about that, due to our discussions here and in other topics. I wouldn’t support any law, or policy, requiring teachers to be armed, and I damn sure won’t support any law or policy mandating a federal agent at virtually every street corner in America.
I will say that although I don’t support any mandatory law or policy requiring “armed presence” in our schools, shopping malls, theatres, etc., that I do support the free access to them by people who wish to carry a weapon for their protection and defense. No more “gun-free” zones advertising defenseless targets.
That is quite cynical of you, Tom. While I won’t disagree that it is a purpose of the NRA, I will disagree that it’s their main purpose. It also complements their main stated goal of ensuring that the Second Amendment rights of US citizens will not be infringed.
@retire05:
The car industry is well regulated as it is. If a car is deemed excessively dangerous, the government can unilaterally pull it off the road, and they have. Can the same be said about the gun industry? No. If an excessively dangerous car kills someone, the car manufacturer can be sued for damages. Can the same be said for gun manufactures? No. The comparison aptly captures why government regulation of dangerous products is necessary. Cars are safer and more efficient now than ever, and that’s in large part due to governmental regulation and the threat of pulling a product that cost billions to develop off the road. Meanwhile, the gun industry has moved in the opposite direction, selling a dangerous product without being voluntarily responsible, because they don’t have to be. Businesses don’t forgo profits for the public good. That much, the gun industry has proven.
So thank you for raising this comparison. I would be happy to see the gun industry regulated similarly to the car industry. Would you?
owning a car isn’t a right tom.
The mask of the left has certainly slipped now that they think they are so close to getting a firearms ban.
It is clear they do not respect the Constitution or rights of others.
I can hear them goose-stepping now.
@johngalt:
Am I cynical or you naive? Who mainly funds the NRA, John? Why doesn’t the NRA voluntarily suggest self-imposed regulations on gun sales that won’t infringe upon Second Amendment rights, but could help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous or criminal persons? I suggest to you that the answers to those last two questions are quite connected.
I’m going on the road, so won’t be able to carry on with this discussion at this time. Have a good one. .