First Robert then Mr.Peanut now this SgtGE. Geez, where do they come from.

And SgtGE, don't make assumptions on someone ignoring dumb questions.

(12-16-2012 11:21 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 11:01 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:50 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:47 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:25 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Assault weapons were banned in the USA until 2004. You need a gun because you are afraid of your shadow and I don't require one because I'm not.

And that ban did a hell of a lot of good stopping the North Hollywood Shootout. Oh wait, no it didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

and look how bad rules in football are, every game both teams break the rules so we need to just throw out the rules. Wow Einstein!!!

WTF? That's not even remotely related to this thread. But I'll play your dumb game: Spearing is a problem. So lets ban all helmets for everyone. That'll stop the problem. But then James Harrison goes out with a helmet on anyways.

agree it is a silly discussion and if you go back and read it was not me who went here. I told of a historical situation and how the problem of stopping church shootings in the 1880s and 1890 era of my hometown by not allowing people to bring their guns into the church services. Someone posted something like putting up a sign will deter shootings as if it was a smart reply (you are confirming my point it wasn't) and so now we can move on from that silly defense.

If we as a society refuse to allow such things as guns in places like churches and schools, we will certainly provide security for our people. If everyone or most everyone having guns had worked we wouldn't have moved away from it long ago. I don't think my right to carry my gun is taken away if a law says you can't bring that gun into a school, or church. I really don't feel that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights and I have no trouble not taking my gun there. In fact I don't ever recall feeling I needed to take my gun to church.

So your going to stand by this BS. Cool.

(12-16-2012 10:45 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  Costas was correct. It's the gun culture.

If Obama wants a "National Discussion" on gun violence, he should start 6 blocks from his House in the South Side of Chicago and save the political photo-op in Newtown Connecticut.

(12-16-2012 10:32 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:04 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

Don't forget high capacity magazines

This rifle used wouldn't have been stopped by the assault ban. It's not even defined as one by the fairly strict CT laws. I have seen no reports about the size of the magazine used, but a magazine is a pretty easy thing to make, no matter the size. Ban their sale, and someone who wants one will just make one. As usual, the claims from the anti-gun crowd only address the law-abiders and not those who murder people.

I can drop an empty 20 round magazine and be back up firing in under 6 seconds. I dont need a 30 round or a 100 round drum for my purposes.

Considering there was no one around to stop him, even an 8 round magazine would have given him enough time to do what he wanted to do, even with a bolt action rifle.

(12-16-2012 11:21 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  If we as a society refuse to allow such things as guns in places like churches and schools, we will certainly provide security for our people.

You must not know that we already don't allow guns in schools. That didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris and Adam Lanza.

(12-16-2012 10:04 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

Don't forget high capacity magazines

Explain to me what the "assault weapons ban" really meant.

Hint: I know what it legislated and you, along with most libs, don't.

(12-16-2012 11:40 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:32 AM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 10:04 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 09:51 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  Peaunt, why ban "assault" weapns and not semi automatic hunting rifles?

Don't forget high capacity magazines

This rifle used wouldn't have been stopped by the assault ban. It's not even defined as one by the fairly strict CT laws. I have seen no reports about the size of the magazine used, but a magazine is a pretty easy thing to make, no matter the size. Ban their sale, and someone who wants one will just make one. As usual, the claims from the anti-gun crowd only address the law-abiders and not those who murder people.

I can drop an empty 20 round magazine and be back up firing in under 6 seconds. I dont need a 30 round or a 100 round drum for my purposes.

You probably get your a$$ kicked and your gun taken

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 05:42 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Just saw a report that he had tried to buy a rifle legally but was denied. So the system worked.

It worked well enough to kill 20 children

I don't understand that logic. If he was denied a rifle, that's really what the system was designed to do, isn't it? It just goes to show that this would've happened regardless.

Can anyone point to a ban on something that worked?
Drugs -No.
Booze - No.
Illegal immigration - No.
Robbery, Fraud, Murder, Rape - No.

We can't even get our lawmakers to follow the laws.

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 05:42 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Just saw a report that he had tried to buy a rifle legally but was denied. So the system worked.

It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Way to miss the entire point. The point was that this was not a failure of law/legislation/the legal system. Lanza was denied legal access to guns (the system worked), he had to resort to obtaining guns illegally, he took those guns to a place he wasn't legally allowed to carry them, and used them for an illegal purpose aka murder.

Adding more laws to restrict legal guns use won't stop incidents like this. It will only affect legal gun owners. Here, you had someone who committed multiple illegal acts. The laws that were in place didn't stop him. He chose to disregard those laws. Unfortunately, no one was able to stop him.

It's a tragedy, but law enforcement will tell you lone wolf type attacks are nearly impossible to stop.

As to the "gun culture" that's nonsensical. I could easily assert that its the "liberal victim mentality culture" that caused this. There is no evidence to back up either assertion. This guy was crazy and wanted to kill people and he illegally obtained and used guns. Nothing was going to stop him other than perhaps someone shooting him first. Simple as that.

(12-16-2012 12:56 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 07:37 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 05:42 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Just saw a report that he had tried to buy a rifle legally but was denied. So the system worked.

It worked well enough to kill 20 children

Way to miss the entire point.

Consider who you're talking to. He doesn't have the intelligence to grasp your point, or really any point for that matter.

Incidents like this really bring out the stupid in people like Peanut. More than usual that is.

(12-16-2012 09:10 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 08:39 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Again, Peanut. What laws would have prevented this?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

Renewing the assault weapons ban?

Wrong. He also had two stolen pistols and in a room full of children you don't have to be a good shot.


Sent from my iPad2 using Tapatalk

(12-15-2012 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 10:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So you are oppposed to proposed Georgia's legislation mandating restaurant and bar owners to allow CCL holders carrying firearms into their business?

Unfamiliar with the legislation. But my position is, as long as the business does not accept government money or subsidies in any form ... it is their choice, but their choice must be clearly posted. If they are getting tax dollars, all bets are off.

Then how did the Ga Legislature pass a law mandating that if a bar refuses entry to CCL holders, that their license to serve alcohol would be revoked?

(12-16-2012 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 10:50 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-15-2012 10:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  So you are oppposed to proposed Georgia's legislation mandating restaurant and bar owners to allow CCL holders carrying firearms into their business?

Unfamiliar with the legislation. But my position is, as long as the business does not accept government money or subsidies in any form ... it is their choice, but their choice must be clearly posted. If they are getting tax dollars, all bets are off.

Then how did the Ga Legislature pass a law mandating that if a bar refuses entry to CCL holders, that their license to serve alcohol would be revoked?

How many assaults with a gun have been committed by someone with a CCL?

(12-16-2012 11:21 AM)SgtGoldenEagle Wrote:  agree it is a silly discussion and if you go back and read it was not me who went here. I told of a historical situation and how the problem of stopping church shootings in the 1880s and 1890 era of my hometown by not allowing people to bring their guns into the church services. Someone posted something like putting up a sign will deter shootings as if it was a smart reply (you are confirming my point it wasn't) and so now we can move on from that silly defense.

If we as a society refuse to allow such things as guns in places like churches and schools, we will certainly provide security for our people. If everyone or most everyone having guns had worked we wouldn't have moved away from it long ago. I don't think my right to carry my gun is taken away if a law says you can't bring that gun into a school, or church. I really don't feel that infringes on my 2nd amendment rights and I have no trouble not taking my gun there. In fact I don't ever recall feeling I needed to take my gun to church.

I still have no clue what you're rambling about. You're the one who started talking about football rules and trying to make some sort of weird, incoherent analogy about rules. The idea that telling everyone they can't take a gun onto a school campus (and putting up little signs saying so) doesn't stop shooters from taking their guns onto campus and shooting people. We've had gun free school zones for years, and it hasn't done squat to stop shootings or improve security.

The constitution doesn't cares whether you THINK or FEEL your rights are being curtailed. It only matters if they are. Your argument is completely void of any legal grounding. Additionally, the majority of people feel that private entities should be able to limit firearms on their property whether its a church or home, and the law has backed them up. But this doesn't make them any safer or less prone to being a target.

The percentage of Americans that own a gun has significantly dropped in recent decades. People who choose not to own guns aren't going to be nearly as accommodating to gun advocates as those who do own guns, so that bodes poorly for those who want no restrictions on their guns. Lower numbers of guns will lead to lower numbers of gun deaths in America, but won't do much to prevent mass killings. Those events are much more the results of failure to address mental health issues than failure to have or enforce gun laws. Nevertheless, we will likely see new gun laws as a result of this killing. Americans are tired of seeing theaters, malls, schools, etc. shot up, so there will be some action taken.

It was also very telling that no senator would go on MTP this morning to discuss gun rights. It's a losing issue in an America that overwhelmingly doesn't own guns and is tired of gun violence.

(12-16-2012 03:29 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It was also very telling that no senator would go on MTP this morning to discuss gun rights. It's a losing issue in an America that overwhelmingly doesn't own guns and is tired of gun violence.

Maybe the reason that only a third of America owns guns are the gun laws and they're simply following them even if they disagree with them. I'm sure a lot of careful and responsible people in NY and CA want to have some sort of gun but can't becuase of the restrictions.

(12-16-2012 03:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 03:29 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It was also very telling that no senator would go on MTP this morning to discuss gun rights. It's a losing issue in an America that overwhelmingly doesn't own guns and is tired of gun violence.

Maybe the reason that only a third of America owns guns are the gun laws and they're simply following them even if they disagree with them. I'm sure a lot of careful and responsible people in NY and CA want to have some sort of gun but can't becuase of the restrictions.

If you want to own a gun anywhere in American, you can. So your argument is garbage, as usual.

(12-16-2012 03:49 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 03:42 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-16-2012 03:29 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It was also very telling that no senator would go on MTP this morning to discuss gun rights. It's a losing issue in an America that overwhelmingly doesn't own guns and is tired of gun violence.

Maybe the reason that only a third of America owns guns are the gun laws and they're simply following them even if they disagree with them. I'm sure a lot of careful and responsible people in NY and CA want to have some sort of gun but can't becuase of the restrictions.

If you want to own a gun anywhere in American, you can. So your argument is garbage, as usual.

Especially if you have no regard for the law.