Gun Control

[1slow96]

The media has continued to give the impression the shooter used an AR-15. I guess that fit the story that the politicians wanted to tell. Sad,what's become of journalism in this country.

[Lance]

Well, now I have to cancel my Groupon membership:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/22/tech...gun/index.html

"Julie Mossler, a representative for Groupon, said the company "has been testing firearm-related deals including shooting ranges and concealed weapons courses for the last eight months.
Based on performance and customer and merchant feedback, it's clear they're not a fit right now."

I know they are just trying to appease their customers. But, this is crazy. There is no connection to gun Groupon deals, which are usually for safety training, to these tragedies like Newtown.

Where are all the intelligent common sense people at???

[ScottLC]

Well, the firearms were legal. Until Lanza stole them because he wasn't allowed to purchase any.

All the victims were killed by 22 pistol it appears. Still looking for anything other than blogs and FacePunch links, though. Haven't really had much time yet...

[coldsteelmike]

Let there be no question that Newtown was just a catalyst to do what has needed to be done for a long time regarding gun laws in this country. Most all of the proposals being set forth by lawmakers are reasonable to the extent that they help FAR more than they hinder.

Now the ban on big bad assault rifles and high capacity mags is bullschit, but mandatory background checks is fair and reasonable. Requiring mental institutions to report info into the database, which like 30 states still don't do, is fair and reasonable.

The problem I have with all these repub nitwits, is that they broadly refuse to change anything...even when it's fair and reasonable. Crazy to me.

Plus, I never understood fully the notion that the most powerful military on this earth, with the capability to kill every man many times over, is being somehow kept in balance and deterred from tyranny BY the people? Hmmmmm.

If read in context it could not mean this. It could only mean that the right is there to have the ability to assemble a militia quickly and easily. You think the founding fathers (a group of lawyers, engineers, scientists) wanted a banana republic so the people could oust mofo's out of power whenever they saw fit???? REALLY??

C'mon man!

-Mike

[ScottLC]

What's humorous is the idea the US military(or any military) could actually control the US, territory or population, even if the people were completely disarmed. Unless those people were also entirely willing to be controlled. First, it's simply too much territory. Second, it's too culturally and economically diverse. Third, there's far too many Citizens vs military(government) manpower. Lastly, given a matter of months the military, and police, would lose much if not a majority of their manpower...and equipment...due to men and women who simply would not fire on US Citizens no matter how much propaganda was spewed on them.

The most a military could do in the US would be to secure specific high value assets(to some degree and for a limited period) and create general chaos everywhere else. No positive outcome is likely for anyone.

And yes, the Founders were a bunch of lawyers and politicians who were also a bunch of rebellious SoB's with authority issues...

...God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

THOMAS JEFFERSON,letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. [...] It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to statesman (later president) James Madison

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.

Patrick Henry

Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.

Benjamin Franklin - 1776

If we wish to be free; if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending; if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms, and to the God of hosts, is all that is left us.

Patrick Henry - 1775

etc, etc, etc...

Oh, and just a bit of historic irony for you...

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861

[Lance]

Originally Posted by coldsteelmike

Plus, I never understood fully the notion that the most powerful military on this earth, with the capability to kill every man many times over,
is being somehow kept in balance and deterred from tyranny BY the people? Hmmmmm.

If read in context it could not mean this. It could only mean that the right is there to have the ability to assemble a militia quickly and easily. You think the founding fathers
(a group of lawyers, engineers, scientists) wanted a banana republic so the people could oust mofo's out of power whenever they saw fit???? REALLY??

C'mon man!

-Mike

Mike, read this article and let us know what you think: http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/2...fear-mongering

"No doubt the gun-rights group has a fringe element, exemplified by those who think the Sandy Hook massacre was orchestrated as part of a plot to disarm America.
But it’s worth pausing to ask: Is it really so outrageous to believe the government of the United States is capable of tyranny?"

“Beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society,” Wolf warned. “It is time for us to be willing
to think the unthinkable.”

“Just how close to the brink of executive tyranny did the United States come in the panic that swept George W. Bush’s administration after 9/11?” he asked. “The answer,
it now seems clear, is that we came far closer than even staunch critics of the White House believed.”

Patriot Act anybody???

"All of which permits only two possible conclusions. The first is that progressives knew even then, deep down, they were peddling wildly implausible paranoid fantasies—
just as they accuse right-wing “insurrectionists” of doing now. If so, then they should admit as much."

"The second possibility? Many progressives genuinely believed, only a few years ago, that the United States really did stand in the dusky shadow of a totalitarian nightmare.
Yet now they insist that Americans who want to arm against that eventuality are paranoid nut jobs. That might be politically convenient—but it doesn’t make much sense."

Funny how all of the right wing extremist are loud, vocal and threatening about tyranny under the Obama Administration but were so quite while GW and his posse
started it all under the guise of the Patriot Act.

Hate Obama if you want, but please do not be a hypocrite. It makes the rest of moderate open minded common sense thinking folks look bad. And all of you extreme left
wingers stop calling the kettle black.

[ocala]

Google the THIRD amendment.

I think it does a great job of explaining the importance of the second amendment.


http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...ird-amendment/


Without the second amendment, the third would be much less secure.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App

[Lance]

[ocala]

Originally Posted by ScottLC

Apparently the coroner has released some info today and the Sandy Hook shooter did NOT use an AR or any other rifle. The acts were committed with four pistols. He was also turned down when he tried to purchase a gun a month prior to the event when the background check kicked him back. Hence why he stole the guns and killed his mother.

In short, the system worked as well as it can when dealing with a crazy person willing to plot long term and kill to accomplish his desire to kill more.

I'll scratch up some links later...

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/tod...08495#50208495

[Erik]

What's the date of that video? It doesn't seem to be on the page. Thanks.