Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
So much for Sandy Hook!

Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 4:39

The assault weapon ban will not be in the senate bill on gun control! Politics trumps all, even dead children...


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

How disappointing
What are you doing up at 4:30AM?

I'm sure the NRA sock puppets will be gloating all day on HT.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Did any of you watch clips from the trial of T.J. Lane?

It was downright ugly. The devil was on display for national news.

I can't believe the Judge didn't see the shirt. The murderer was seated in front of him.

Here is a link that might be useful: Warning: Profane and disturbing.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Mom, the erly bird and all that sort of thing...


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Politics trumps all, even dead children...

There you have it. Aint America wonderful! So filled with paranoids (OMG, they'll take my gun!) that a classroom full of dead 6 year olds means nothing.

Depressing.

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

It's more than the NRA, it's also about being reelected.

You wouldn't want our representatives losing their jobs, would you?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 8:33

Bingo Brush!


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I mentioned this on the other thread, too. Another reason not to like Harry Reid.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

ummm.....but an assault weapon ban wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook. So.....


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Looks as if the constituion wins the battle, for now. There are many reasons to dislike Harry reid.
Maybe the clowns in Wash. can now work on some real measures to abate criminals with guns.Attacking the law abiding isnt gonna get it.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The previous assault weapons ban was a joke, basically outlawing certain cosmetics. This proposed assault weapons ban was more of the same.

Watch the universal back ground checks, magazine size, and funds to beef up enforcement.

As well, watch for the NRA sponsored riders to defund enforcement.

"A new report, set for release Tuesday by the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) and obtained by The Washington Post, highlights the decades-long practice of using riders to hamper ATF’s ability to police the flow of illegal weapons.

“The NRA often has this line, ‘Why don’t we enforce the laws on the books?,’ but for the last few decades they’ve been making it harder and harder for federal agencies to do that,” said CAP senior fellow Arkadi Gerney, the report’s co-author."

Here is a link that might be useful: article whence the quote originated


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Looks as if the constituion wins the battle, for now.

Polly want another talking point.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 10:54

And then you have your "blue steel dems"

Here is a link that might be useful: Pro Gun Dems


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

It was his mother's law-abiding gun that was used to shoot her and the schoolroom full of 6 year olds!

And what is this pious pose--the NRA is only against "bad" gun control measures. Now why don't you anti-gun people concentrate on some "good" gun control measures that are really needed--except they don't mention that they are against ALL gun control measures--so there they sit and taunt us with "why don't you come up with some good gun control measures--you know we will support them." LIARS!

What someone--actually several someones--said above. I used to dislike the NRA types, but as a result of this latest battle, I DISPISE them. They'd rather see dead bodies piled up than stop a gun sale anywhere in the country.

And I sure hate to remind you, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that it is constitutional to impose bans or other restrictions on guns. Your vaunted 2nd Amendment rights--which you see as sacred and unlimited and absolute--are NOT. They are limited--just as the 1st Amendment rights are limited in several different ways (yelling fire in crowded theatre, pornagraphy, fraud, etc.I). So can the pious act--cuz I think that might also qualify as sacrilegious also--as in, thou shalt have no stockpile of guns before me, saith the Lord--though you'd never guess it the way the gun-nutters stand on the mountaintop and wave their guns threateningly and triumphantly at the rest of us--because the gun-nutters have just succeeded in intimidating another session of Congress into bowing before the NRA's feet so that Congress doesn't lose it's funding from the NRA!

The whole thing is disgusting. America, hang your head in shame!

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I'm not understanding how a ban on "assault weapons" would have stopped a variety of crimes committed, or how anyone thinks it will help in future.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

well jodik, those who would ban any gun are blinded by fear, hate and ignorance. Those who actually think about it know it would take up to 200+ years for the millions of semi auto rifles and close to a billion hi cap mags to disappear, if not 1 more was produced. We cknow that magazines are very easily made at home by anybody with a tiny bit of talent. I mean they can be printed out on the computer.We know the bad guys dont obey laws and any new laws would only effect law abiding citizens. If all the sporting semi autos were to be gone in a flash, criminals can make their own in about 2 hours. Any ban will only make them more desirable and the black market will flourish even more than now.
These people are totally unreasonable.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

They make cars that go 120 mph, and yet we have speed limits. Of course, some very, very few people will drive that fast anyway, so we might as well get rid of speed limits all together.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 14:54

Yes, cornopean, an assault weapon ban would have stopped Sandy Hook. You seem to be misinformed.

Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 to kill 20 children and six adults. He used a handgun to kill himself.

Here is a link that might be useful: Setting the record straight.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

So who is mis -informed here ? Please explain how an assault weapons ban would have effected Sandy Hook ?

David, you lose me in your comparison? Do you think we should do away with citizens owning actual assault weapons, and other true weapons of war, we should dispense with any existing gun laws?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"...any new laws would only effect law abiding citizens."

I think this is precisely what a lot of folks neglect to keep in mind, Fancifowl... and those legislators proposing all this new legislation are only, in effect, placating those who are neglectful of that rational thought pattern.

Laws only affect those who actually follow them.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

There are no reasonable need for weapons like that...it has nothing to do with the 2nd.....it only has to do with aggression, fear , violence and I can do whatever I want!

The right to bear arms does not mean the right to bear ANY and ALL the arms you may want ....there are reasonable bounds and it seems that you have decided what is reasonable in your world.....thank God it is not my world.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

chase, weapons like what?? Your lack of knowledge regarding modern sporting rifles and shotguns stunts your argument.This is a huge part of the problem. Assault weapons are fully auto machine guns, they are illegal to own w/o a special tax. The average citizen cannot buy them. They are a weapon of war, period.
The modern sporting rifle is a semi auto rifle just like the ones hunters and target shooters have used for nearly 7o years but with modern materials and ergonomics. They are used for hunting every type of game in America from squirrels to geese and beyond. These rifles excel at bench rest shooting and varmint hunting or just plain plinking out behind the barn. They are available in over 150 different calibers.They are the most poular style of rifle there is.
We already have reasonablebounds and there are already MANY restrictions as to what I can own and I am comfortable with that.

We live in the same world. The one where good citizens are free to exercis their God given rights, until they mis behave and lose those rights.
It has everything to do with the 2nd amendment. In fact, under the supreme court Heller case, they found that weapons in common use today are protected under the 2nd and these semi auto rifles(of all descriptions) and the magazines they use are in such common use today.
Now, I have a couple, but they are for specific uses like varmint hunting and target shooting. I do have one just for fun shooting at cans and whatever.I dont judge individuals preferance to arms.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

My lack of knowledge of the specifics of weapons is irrelevant. I object to the ownership of guns with basically no other purpose than to kill other human beings....parse it as you will...I really don't care....and I'm thankful that my world prohibits such weapons.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

David, you lose me in your comparison? Do you think we should do away with citizens owning actual assault weapons, and other true weapons of war, we should dispense with any existing gun laws?

Your argument is that banning the use of large capacity magazines won't work because there are lots out there. I counter with, there are lots of cars out there that go 120 mph, but we regulate the speed limit so that people, even those with cars who have the capacity, won't go 120 mph.

Now will some people go 120 mph? Sure, and they get caught and go to jail for reckless driving. Will some people use high-capacity magazines? Sure, and if thats illegal, then they committed a crime.

I'm going to wait and see what the legislation on high capacity magazines actually is - not the speculation. Colorado is passing a law as we speak, and I don't yet know the details.

Edited to add, I've been using a plug in my shot gun for over 40 years and never thought much about the outrage of limiting that magazine capacity.

This post was edited by david52 on Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 18:19


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

So what if Lanza did use an assault weapon. I still don't see how banning them stops him from using one to murder. ?

Using the same reasoning, we could have stopped Timothy McVeigh by banning the blowing up of buildings.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

we also regulate weaponry. If all gun bans introduced or suggested by the banners we would have banned, all handguns, all bolt action rifles, most ammunition and many shotguns. When does the grab stop? There is no use comparing autos to guns, that just isnt even comparable. For 1 thing most autos have a very short useful life, unlike weapons.


Who will enforce those laws? how will they go about that. The movement by gun owners is to ignore those new laws as they are doing in new york, then there will be court cases and the findings of the supreme court. Its just not a good nor workable solution.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 19:52

So you are saying we shouldn't have any laws regulating guns? Because.........we don't have enough people to enforce these laws..................gun owners will ignore the laws - which makes these gun owners criminals..............bad guys don't obey the laws.............and on and on and on. These arguments are ingenuous and hollow, and old and tiresome. By your logic, since some people will kill other people, we shouldn't have any laws against killing.

God hasn't actually given us any rights. All our rights are derived from our government. And we are incredibly lucky that we live in a time and place where our government has given us rights.

FYI - blowing up buildings is already banned.

You say laws affect only the people who follow them. That's exactly as it should be.

I gather you don't and won't obey any laws pertaining to guns.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"Using the same reasoning, we could have stopped Timothy McVeigh by banning the blowing up of buildings."

Hmmm. What a novel idea. I don't think that's quite how you meant to put that, Right?

"I gather you don't and won't obey any laws pertaining to guns."

And I gather that's a rhetorical statement.

-----------

I don't have a solution either, except to say that I agree with those who have stated the hundreds of laws already on the books need to be enforced.



 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

My government has given me exactly NO rights. You are free to allow them to designate your rights if you wish. I guess ya didnt actually trad my post? I havent a clue how you came to your conclusions?But after your take on rights?? who knows

Are you going to tell us how a gun ban would have prevented Sandy hook??


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Wed, Mar 20, 13 at 22:16

No, actually it's not a rhetorical question.

There's so many comments about not obeying new, or any, laws pertaining to gun control, I would really like to see people to put their money where their mouth is.

Are they law abiding good guys with guns, or are they criminals, bad guys with guns?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I just came back to re- read your above post. Do you really believe your rights derive from the government?? Are you a communist?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Actually, nobody has any "rights" to anything. Not safety, not freedom, not even the right to live. Anybody can take away that so-called "right" any time they please in spite of what government, god or nature says.

However, government can grant the "right" of having certain privileges enforced by them. Should someone deprive you of these certain privileges, the government assures you that they will intervene on your behalf or punish the person depriving you of that privilege.

Any and all "rights" granted by your government can also be revoked by them... for example, gun rights are revoked if you are arrested. The right to freedom of movement... even the right to life if they give you a death penalty.

Does this mean you lost a right? No, you never had any rights. It simply means the government has revoked it's assurance that it will enforce your privileges... sometimes by being the ones to deprive you of them.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Chase; "Does this mean you lost a right? No, you never had any rights. It simply means the government has revoked it's assurance that it will enforce your privileges... sometimes by being the ones to deprive you of them."

" No, you never had any rights."

Down here in the USA we have this document we're (I am, anyway) pretty fond of. The Declaration of Independence, and in reads in pertinent part: “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

I happen to agree with that statement. Surely you do, too. Do you have one of these (Declaration of Independence) up there in Canada?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

People mix me and chase up so often, I just answer to "chase" now.

Down here in the USA we have this document we're (I am, anyway) pretty fond of. The Declaration of Independence, and in reads in pertinent part: “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”

Yes... your government has given you a piece of paper that basically tells you that they will (at their discretion) enforce your access to certain privileges, among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. They gave it pretty words and told you that they were working on God's behalf.

The fact remains that neither god, government or nature can grant a right to anything.

The government can, however, pledge to enforce on your behalf to give certain privileges.

Do you have one of these (Declaration of Independence) up there in Canada?

Our government also promises to enforce certain privileges for us... we call it the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But the same rules apply. Human beings all over the world have the same deal. We get access to having a governmental body enforce, or punish denial of, certain privileges. All of which are at their discretion.

You know, misunderstanding this concept is why so many westerners end up in bad situations while visiting foreign countries... staring at some prison cell stammering over and over... but, but, but...I have rights!


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

but an assault weapon ban wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook.

We can't stop every crime but we cannot tolerate the continued proliferation of weapons that can be used to terrorize and kill scores of people in a short time window.
Lanza could have wiped out everyone in that school in just a few more minutes with the weapon and ammunition that he had.

It is possible that if he had to reload more often than after 30 rounds, he may well have been stopped. It only takes a second to stop a shooter from conducting a massacre.
An old lady used her purse to attack Loughner while he was reloading in the Gabby Giffords assassination gun massacre. I guess some of you forgot about her and her heroism.

Yes we should prohibit the sale of magazines that have more than 10 bullets.

" Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles."

Here is a link that might be useful: Proof positive we need gun regulation


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

You know, NONE of us question the lawful possession and use of weapons. You have a right to have them and use them for lawful purposes including hunting, sport, and home protection.

What I don't get is why some who own guns insists on trying to convince the rest of us that we should not support regulations concerning the manufacture and distribution of military style weapons and large ammo clips.

Worse yet, why do you defend the modus operandi of these crazed lunatics like Loughner and Lanza? You have no problem with the way Lougner purchase guns and ammunition ?
You have no problem with Lanza carrying multiple 30 round clips into a grade school? Do you think he could have slaughtered so many so soon with 10 round clips? Nobody could have escaped or attacked him while he was reloading?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I was watching Piers Morgan and he had Michael Moore on discussing the Gun violence. Moore suggested that it might be that one of the parents of the Sandy Hook would release pics of what their child looked like having their face blown off. One of the parents would not close the casket until one of political officials seen what was done to her child. I do not remember now which official she waited for.

Moore said that it was effective using Emmett Till in the Civil Rights movement. I looked up the Emmett Till and wondered what effect it would have if people seen the baby laying in a casket with their face blown off if it would make a difference in this day. It does not seem to me sensitivity is in people any more or not at as high a level in our "me and I do not care about you" society of today. It is only about my rights.

Here is a link that might be useful: Picture of Emmett Till


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

we dont have access to miltary weapons, thats a simple fact. Some modern rifles/carbines have parts which look like military style weapons so they are deemed to be different than another weapon exactly the same but with different colors or parts. These civilian models are used to hunt all game animals and to compete in many different shooting principles.. They function no different than other sporting arms used for over 7o years. They are no more deadly. Its the people who misuse them that are the problem, take these guns away and they will use something else the grabbers would want to ban. On and on they go, one then another. baloney to that.
The government is supposed to gaurantee that my rights are upheld, not take them from me. No govt gave me any rights.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

BULL... call it what you want...say we know nothing about fire arms...tell us that we have no idea what constitutes a military style weapon ...and then talk to the the parents in Sandy Hook..

NOBODY needs a firearm and clips that allow such carnage in such a short period of time...NOBODY...and it is NOT anybody's right to have such weapons.

It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms...That is NOT an unlimited right and is simply YOUR interpretation of what you think the founding fathers meant because it serves your purpose.

Over and out......


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

marquest: "It is only about my rights."

That's a big part of the problem.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

But Chase, don't you know the gumint is soon coming to their door and taking away their precious guns and they are going to stand their ground. Fat chance of that happening. With all the power the military has, one drone will take care of them. They are an obsessed paranoid bunch. Less homes have guns, yet there are more guns which means the crazies are stockpiling to "defend " their paranoid conspiracies.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Maybe you havent noticed, the courts say they are ook, they are commonlu used guns, and they have been for 70 years. We do have the right ot own them. We also have the responsibility for putting those who mis use them away for a long time. Why dont we do that?

Crazy left wing loons, ya dont get it. Hardly anybody thinks the govt is going door to door to grab guns, why do you repeat that crap anyhoow. Lies lies and more lies.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Hardly anybody thinks the govt is going door to door to grab guns

How many people keep guns because they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that an armed citizenry is needed to keep the gvt in check?

Thankfully, according to that last Pew poll, only about 2% of the gun owners list that as their primary reason of owning guns.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

the sandy hooke shooter shot mostly bunch children under age six. even if he had to reload they would not have put up that much resistance in an enclosed area.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

We could have stopped McVeigh by banning the sale of large quanities of nitrogen fertilizer without special licensing and guess what, for future McVeighs we have done that very thing. Farmers can still buy large quanities of fertilizer and it only takes one evil farmer to supply the future McVeigh but we dont throw out this useful limit just because it can be gotten around but that sort of witless thinking seems to fuel the discussion with gun nuts.

HG is right about rights of course-we have been fed a load of pap over the years about what government is and what our so called rights are. People have argued for centuries about 'the natural rights of man' but saying a thing does not make it true.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Okay so we have 2% of those posting on HT. I know I have seen at least 3 poster that have expressed the government is trying to take their guns and they were ready for the government.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I keep guns because I am a collector, I am a target shooter and like to work with ballistics and accuracy, used to hunt, and they are good investments. If it doesnt have an interesting history, or pretty wood, or isnt MOA it has no interest to me generalyy..I do have one I guess could be considered a deterrant to the boogie man, maybe a couple? I am a gun nut. I dont forsee a govt shootout, but as things go, ya never know?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 22, 13 at 19:15

Tactless and inept. Inconsiderate, stupid, unfeeling, vulgar

The National Rifle Association came under fire late Thursday from members of a gun-control advocacy group in Newtown, Conn., after reports surfaced of Newtown residents receiving robocalls and pro-gun postcards from the NRA.

Here is a link that might be useful: Link


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"Tactless and inept. Inconsiderate, stupid, unfeeling, vulgar"

If the alleged reports are true, I concur.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

NRA never sends solicitations to non NRA members. But the anti gun types are known to pull stunts similar to this. This would not surpise me to see this , again.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The NRA sends me stuff all the time. I have never been a member, but I have been sent MANY postcards.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I get all kinds of over-the-top political fliers from them all the time.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Huh< i eat my words! As I member I get stuff almost every day either electronic or mail. I toss it.

Wonder how you get on their mailing list?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 22, 13 at 21:52

I've never been a member, never owned a gun, but got their mailings for years, starting about 20 years ago, lasted about 5 years. They always shocked me.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I used to get them; probably because I was a member of Ducks Unlimited. Doesn't this subject get tiring? I skimmed most of the postings and in a drift of subconsciousness, relived a dozen or more recent ones, every one subsuming another and so on.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Don't recall receiving anything from NRA, so if I did it wasn't memorable. I get lots from Victoria's Secret and AARP, though. Go figure.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Check you hubby's harddrive, dear. :)


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

marshall, STOP :)


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

you guys/girls need to get a life.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

they all get tiring Marshall, but with the weathyer being so yucky, there isnt a whole lot more to do sometimes!


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Yes, Marshall, you have a good point. He can't stay away from that AARP site. And I love comfy uh, stuff.

DH does belong to the NRA, though, and we get more mailings from Salvation Army than we do the NRA. We don't get any telemarketer calls at all though. Again, go figure.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

Something Thomas Jefferson once wrote... actually a translation from a Latin phrase Jefferson once used. I think it's rather apropos to how I feel about the issue of firearms...


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

It all boils down to we are ALL sick of the shootings and other bad things that happen but no body really knows what to do. I just think it has to be a reorder of our society which is very sick for numerous reasons. I cant dwell on the bad things, just try to live my life how I think it should be and like to be unbothered by those who like to bother everybody.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The Onion has a great short vid "reporting" on the Senate failure.

Sadly, I can't link to it because it has a naughty word in the link. But you can find it easily enough here by searching on "Proud time to be a cowering sack...".


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

well, you're right, that whole thing is a sack of ..it. not that I was expecting anything worthy of more.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I just think it has to be a reorder of our society which is very sick for numerous reasons. I cant dwell on the bad things, just try to live my life how I think it should be and like to be unbothered by those who like to bother everybody.

So arm yourself to the gills and hunker down then.

I am not sure what you mean by "reorder society" but I know you aren't talking about "spreading the wealth around."
The problem is that money talks and bulsh1t walks and that applies to reordering society into a kinder gentler place.
Most of the crime is in areas that have been abandoned by white flight to the suburbs. Those urban areas are literally crumbling from neglect. The infrastructure is beyond its useful life, streets are potholed, parks are not tended and turn into dirt holes, the old housing stock is beyond its useful life and many homes are boarded up as are businesses, school buildings are crumbling and many are now closed, and there is a lack of jobs. The streets are not even safe to walk on in the day time let alone at night.
OK, let's just leave that alone and see what happens. Welfare didn't eliminate poverty so let's try the Republican approach...nothing.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

So the answer to it all is disarm law abiding citizens and do nothing about the criminals. And take productive citizens wealth to give to the poor? What will that solve in the end? The lawful will become criminals and the wealthy have no incentive to produce. mow what?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

No one's a-comin' to grab yer guns. Despite the fear-mongering NRA e-mails you get daily.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

We all know what happens when one assumes things... so, why would one assume that every firearm owner receives anything from the NRA?

No.... no one IS coming to grab my guns. You at least got that right.

It's too bad that no one wants to discuss the reality of it all and the true reasons for it... or what the real solutions could or should be. It's really not worth continuing any discussions, or defending any rational ideas. No one is listening... or hearing.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"or defending any rational ideas. No one is listening... or hearing."

Including you?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

There's nothing wrong with my hearing. I'm listening.

I've already stated, more than once, that I'm all for a Federally recognized set of firearm regulations. I'm all for enforcing those regulations to the letter of the law. What more do you want??


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

What if those laws had an assault weapon ban in them?

What if they had a high capacity magazine ban?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Define assault weapon.

Who needs more rounds than is already legal to hunt with? If one can't hit their target within the first 3 shots and bring it down, one doesn't need to hunt or shoot.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"Who needs more rounds than is already legal to hunt with? If one can't hit their target within the first 3 shots and bring it down, one doesn't need to hunt or shoot."

I agree.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Please define "assault weapon". I'd like to address that part of your question, too.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I would go with the wikipedia definition.

"An assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms"


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Sorry but you seem to have the anti gunners version of assault weapons. Assault weapons are FULLY automatic and unavailable to the average citizen without a class III weapons license. Some common assault weapons are the Thompson sub machine gun, the Uzi, the AK47(fully auito version) and the sten. Modern sporting rifles are NOT assault weapons, a moniker attached to them by the gun ban crowd to try and make them appear ugly. Modern sporting weapons would be aterrible choice for any assault.
There are numerous reasons for more than 3 rounds, dont be ridiculous!! That is an ignorant argument at best.

Are people just stupid or what. Most gun owners dont think anyone is gonna confiscate any of their guns! Ive had no correspondence from NRA stateing anyonwe is coming for my guns! We kmnow the games the antis play, lies and deceit.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Wow. You seem to have the NRA's definition of assault weapon. You have, however, just defined assault rifle. Don't feel bad though. I won't hold it against you.

By the by, what would be the reason for more than three shots? Pardon my ignorance.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Target practice might require more than 3 rounds, and I suppose it would depend upon what one is hunting or shooting at, and whether or not the caliber he or she has is adequate for the job...

There are certainly times when more than 3 rounds are acceptable... even necessary... but not for what I was thinking, which is the normal deer or small game hunt, the usual pursuit for someone such as myself.

I think Fancifowl has indicated the correct definition of an actual assault weapon.

I certainly have no use for a fully automatic machine gun. Not at such time, anyway. I have no plans to go to war at present, and I'd like some meat left to actually eat when I bring home game...

I'm curious, Frank... do you hunt or shoot? Have you ever?

And then, we come to reality... which is, it doesn't matter what the laws are... only law abiding citizens will follow them, as they do now. Once again, there's that pesky criminal element that doesn't seem to care about the law...


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

lets start withwhy would there be a restriction to 3 rounds? who picked that arbitrary number?

The NRA doesnt get to define assault weapons any more than you do. I carried an assault weapon in SE Asia, I now have a AR platform f carbine, I know the difference by that measure and the measure the military gives to its weapons.
And, I dont hold anything against you either.
Do you consider an remington 7400 in 30.06 an assault weapon, or, say, a Winchester 100? How about a Benelli goose gun or an rem 870 shotgun? How about the many, many .22 rifles made over the last 75 years?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I do hunt.

"I think Fancifowl has indicated the correct definition of an actual assault weapon."

I think that he has provided the NRA's definition of assault weapon.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

How long as the shotgun magazine restriction for hunting waterfowl been at 3 rounds? At least as long as I've been hunting.

Has anyone ever complained that this was some horrible infringement of their second amendment rights?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

"How long as the shotgun magazine restriction for hunting waterfowl been at 3 rounds? At least as long as I've been hunting."

To be fair, they allow magazine extenders for snow geese.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I don' t give a darn what name you want to call them but NOBODY needs a gun/rifle/magazines that can kill 20 babies without reloading! NOBODY...

if you think you need weapons like that in your society....God help you all.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

babies have nothing to do with any of this. Any one intent on mass murder can get the job done in other ways.. I dont kill anybody. I dont hunt anymore either. I do use hi caps in shooting. And at one time Id have agreed that no one needs over a 20 round mag, even a 10. Thats no longer the case. I KNOW what will come next, its been proven by the gov. of New york for one.
I dont waterfowl. I know guns have to be plugged to 3 for hunting birds, so? they are capable of more, want ta ban em? Hog hunters dont have a mag count, other game allows for more than 3 shots, thats a non argument. None of this matters, not until we address the criminal element. Why is there such a drive to persecute lawful gun owners? why dont we see anything addressing the criminal?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Hunting is good murder ain't....sleep well with your choices. We are so very different it cannot be reconciled.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

hunting good, murder bad, well yeh. I guess everybody can agree on that, cept the anti hunting crowd.
We arent that different, we both want an end to the misuse of weapons. we are different in how to go about that. i would go after the bad guys who commit crimes, you would go after good guys who commit no crimes. Who would stop the killings?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

What a pathetic argument.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

So freaking pathetic but they are getting desperate.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Three is kind of an arbitrary number, isn't it?

While I don't need more than a few rounds to chase down game, it's kind of an odd number to limit any weapon to.

What's YOUR definition of assault weapon, Frank? What would YOU classify as not for public ownership or use?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I would have to go with Wikipedia's answer. Simply put, an assault weapon is a military "style" weapon that holds A LOT of rounds.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

FF said (sarcastically): So the answer to it all is disarm law abiding citizens and do nothing about the criminals.

Aha, NRA scare talk again!

There is absolutely no bill or proposal out there to "disarm law abiding citizens."

There is absolutely no bill or proposal out there to NOT arrest those who have broken the law--to do "nothing about criminals."

Why do you imply there is? You are talking pro-gun nonsense again.

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

well Kate,you are taliking anti gun gibberish again. there certainly is a proposed law to disarm citizens, read up . Limiting a mag to 10 rounds renders a huge number of pistols useless. That is taking without compensation. Banning doesnt take immediate effect but when you can no longer sell the gun nor pass it on to family members, that is taking again w/o compensation. That boils down to disarmament in any language.

The 3 shot limit, federal law, was to end market hunting of waterfowl where huge guns were used to destroy nearly entire flocks in a very short time.

You somehow see it differntly Marshall? How much effort do you see in those directions?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

well FF, if you have lots of guns that will lose value, you should do like other investers (in other commodities) do--sell quickly while there is still a profit to be made. That way, when the market falls to pieces, you won't be hurt.

But wait--I thought you bragged earlier that you were a "collector"--which was why you needed so many guns. Well FF, "collectors" don't worry about the current market value--since true collectors want to keep their guns and build up their collections. They collect for the sake of collecting--not for buying and selling to make a profit. So if you really are a collector, you might actually want some of those guns to no longer be marketable--except as collector items! They would be worth more that way, in fact. Sort of like having an Edsel car--no real market out there--except among "collectors" who like to collect rarities.

So decide whether you are in the business of buying and selling to make a profit--in which case, sell now!

Or are you in the business of "collecting"--building up your collection for your own enjoyment? In which case, hope that some guns become unmarketable so that they become prime "collector" items.

As to the rest of the country, by the time our country runs out of guns, you and I will have long been gone from this world--so nothing to worry about there.

And besides, you have also argued how easy it is to modify a gun--so if certain features become illegal, just modify the gun and then you can legally sell it (if 'collecting' is not really what you are about.).

So, now, not really very much to worry about there, is there!

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Ask the NRA whose major focus has been to subvert existing and proposed legislation. If you can't track weapons, you can't very well track criminal marketing of weapons, can you?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The law just passed in Colo re magazine size limit has to do with making it illegal to transfer those magazines to someone else. You can't sell them or give them away. If you've got one, keep it.

Of course, the NRA types are hysterical, coming up with all these bogus scare tactics about how this will end hunting as we know it because a four round magazine can have the bottom removed making it a large capacity mag, and if you loan your cousin your hunting rifle, OMG OMG OMG!!! YOU'LL BE ARRESTED!!!@! and so on.

This post was edited by david52 on Mon, Mar 25, 13 at 12:30


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I do collect Kate., but I wasnt aware of any bragging. Not that I dont do thatr from time to time on a keen grab. I wouldnt waste my time telling it to anyone here for cryin out loud! Youre right, a Bushmaster bought in 2011 for $900 is now fething up to $1500, sure wish Id bought a truckload of em but they arent my bag and the value isnt stable. I guess my interest now is accuracy. I am buying rifles which are sub moa(minute of angle) because really, only an accurate arm has interest. My firearms interest kinda flow. The modern sporting rifles actually have little interst to me. That doesnt mean I wont support the right to posess them. I recently sold 300 hi cap mags which Id been buying since Obama was elected, knowing they would soon become worth a lot more. I dont give a hoot for them axctually, they were a means to grow my real interest when they were sold.
Every gun I own is for sale, or trade if anothjer trips my trigger more.
Sheesh, there is no future in anything unmarketable? Now a ban has a tendency to spike value, about double from the experience of past bans.

Im not so much into altering a gun, unkless it improves its shooting qualities.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

word:


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

so, take yer shoes off.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

so, take yer shoes off.

Devastating.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

jodik wrote,

And then, we come to reality... which is, it doesn't matter what the laws are... only law abiding citizens will follow them, as they do now. Once again, there's that pesky criminal element that doesn't seem to care about the law...

This utterly absurd falsehood is frequently trotted out in discussions on this topic. I would be embarrassed to openly declare that I have reasoned my way to the conclusion that laws have no positive effect in society, yet some repeat this nonsensical claim over and over again.

I dismantled this bogus assertion in another thread; here it is again:

Here you resort to perhaps the most egregiously nonsensical fallacy the pro-gun side deploys: the claim that criminals don't obey laws, and therefore it follows that new gun laws will have no effect on crime.

The many dimensions of falseness of this form of argument render it unique in the extent of its emptiness, and that, of course, reflects on those who promulgate it. I hardly know where to start analyzing the multiple fallacies embedded in this absurd claim, but I'll make a go of it:

- Criminals don't obey laws. This is a meaningless assertion, because it is beyond tautological; it is even beyond circular (begging the question). it is definitional, and the definition of "criminal" is not a matter of dispute.

- Law-abiding citizens obey laws: See above.

- The implication that since criminals have a propensity to violate one or more laws, therefore they can and will violate all laws. This is a great example of one of the most basic of all logical fallacies.

- If laws have no effect on criminals, it would follow that laws have no effect, because law-abiding citizens wouldn't engage in criminal-like behavior regardless. Bad people murder even though it is against the law, and good people wouldn't murder even if there were no law against it. Therefore, it is an inescapable conclusion from your argument that you believe that laws are ineffectual. This is a nice example of a reductio ad absurdum. Now, if you instead acknowledge that laws do have an effect, it would be fallacious to assert that gun laws have no effect. QED.

- We need to enforce the existing laws: Instant fallacy exposure. If new laws would have no effect because criminals ignore all laws, how can "enforcing" (whatever that means) existing laws have any effect? You can't have it both ways. Either existing gun laws (and all laws) cannot be "enforced" and have no effect, or both existing and new laws can be enforced and have an effect.

The truth of the matter is that laws do have an effect, of course. There are many ways laws have effects on reducing undesirable behavior even among those inclined to engage is such behavior. It's surreal that this actually has to be explained, but apparently it does.

- Laws obeyed willingly by good people can limit access and opportunity to bad things that might be acquired and used by bad people. Plastic explosives can't be freely sold in stores, by law; store owners won't sell plastic explosives because it is against the law and they want to comply with the law. A "criminal" who wants to buy plastic explosives, and would break the law to do so, has great difficulty acquiring that material because law-abiding citizens won't sell it to her/him.

- Laws have a deterrent effect. I've already exposed the logical fallacy embedded in the claim that criminals ignore laws. Some people want to engage in an illegal activity, but decide not to because of the consequences. That's one of the primary purposes of penalties associated with laws. So, bad people don't simply break every single law they want to break, killing and robbing continuously, because, in part, they fear the consequences. Of course, that doesn't completely stop all criminal activity (given history here, I feel I have to cut off the utopia fallacy early), but those penalties deter the commission of crimes. I find myself rather amazed that I have to explain this.

- Laws can be enforced. Of course, the same people who say new laws will have no effect and instead we should better enforce existing laws have already admitted this implicitly. Because existing laws can reduce crime through increased enforcement, new laws can reduce crime through enforcement. This is logic. I suggest people become familiar with it, because it is quite powerful. Enforcement takes many forms, including specific prevention measures (people boarding a plane are searched for weapons) and post-crime apprehension and adjudication. A criminal may indeed decide to risk the consequences of breaking a law, and s/he may indeed fnd a way to actually commit that crime before being stopped, but if the criminal is apprehended and incarcerated, s/he is not in a position to commit a crime during that period. Therefore, the existence of the applicable law had an effect on reducing the incidence of that activity occurring in society.

So, to summarize: The oft-issued contention that laws have no effect because criminals don't obey them is completely false for multiple reasons. Laws obeyed by law-abiding citizens make it more difficult for criminals to engage in criminal activity; laws deter criminals because of penalties; laws allow prevention measures which reduce crime; and laws enable society to remove violators from society, reducing the incidence of that offense.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Another responsible gun owner.....


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

David, in all fairness, you really ought to post the explanatory caption that goes with that photo, as one would properly cite a source:

"In this April 15, 2010 file photo, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry fires a six shooter filled with blanks as NASCAR driver Colin Braun looks on at an event in downtown Fort Worth, Texas.
/ File,AP Photo/Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Rodger Mallison"

Here is a link that might be useful: What is the context on David's posted photo?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

facts and truths serve no purpose for those gun nbanners. The blinders they've donned allows only a straight line of thought.

Past and present laws go unenforced and the crimes go largly un punished. What sense is there in passing any more with similar results.
I think most gun owners have decided any more laws will go unheeded.kinda like whats happening in New York.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Ok, here's Rick with another gun,


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

and another one


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I think most gun owners have decided any more laws will go unheeded.kinda like whats happening in New York.

FF, if most gun owners do not obey the gun laws, that means that most gun owners are criminals .

Are you telling us that you plan on being a criminal? Is that your 2nd Amendment right? To disobey gun laws?

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Kate, the founding fathers wanted gunnies to break the law to cling to their guns, don'tcha know.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

And I'm sure, WxD, that the Supremes will make that ruling any day now--thereby doubling the 2nd Amendment rights of gun-nutters. They can do anything they want then!

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

--Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.

--Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

Might bear repeating--but WxD, Chief Justice Warren Burger probably can't name all the parts of a gun, so what does he know about the 2nd Amendment, I ask you!

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Kate, speaking of using "ignorant" as a cudgel to quell dissent, much more about the history behind the 2nd Amd at the link.

The gun manufacturers and their lobbyists have completely hijacked the founding fathers' intent.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Just shows how much study you've actually put into the subject.
No kate , its my duty to stand firm against the destruction of my rights by this goverment. If its a criminal we be, so be it. But its only in the eyes of those who wish the destruction of the country who see defying unjust laws as criminal.


 o
machine guns

so David, those are assault weapons, see the difference. They are illega unless you havve a class III license. Whats the point of posting them?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

When the Supreme Court disagrees with you, FF, I'm inclined to think that the Supreme Court knows more about the Constitution than you do--and they also do not have an interest in such of ruling personally benefitting them--as you do. Self-interest can taint the source.

Since WxD and I were agreeing on the above points, its curious that you select out only me to "answer." Suppose such selectivity is significant?

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Your [posts are reasonable, Xdanos are generally blather so I really dont read them, simple. of course we often disagree with the courts, am I right. I dont pretend to know more than they. what brought that up anyhow kate?


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

So, let's repeat one more time (maybe one of these times the message will get through):

The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.

--Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

The NRA has wandered so far off this track that there is no connection between the two any more (if there ever was any, that is.). Justice Burger is NOT referring to private armies consisting of separate individuals stockpiling a lot of weapons. He specifically stated "STATE armies--militia"--get the emphasis? And "in the defense of the state"--get the emphasis? NOT self-defense AGAINST the State, but "in defense of the state"--as in, on the State's side. Resisting the State puts one in violation of the 2nd Amendment, and trying to overthrow the State (by resisting the State's laws you don't agree with) is something closer to "treason." At the very least, it makes you a "criminal"--you really want to be one?

Maybe you need to move to a State (as in a different country) that allows individuals to traffic in guns to their heart's content--instead of trying to make-over a State to suit your personal preferences.

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The NRA has wandered so far off this track that there is no connection between the two any more

I admire your desire to try and penetrate that bubble, Kate. IMHO it is impregnable to facts. It was constructed to avoid cognitive dissonance.



 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

oops, the courts have decided the right to arms IS an individual right. We THE PEOPLE are just that, the people, same peoples in the other amendments. lets get that straight, OK.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Chief Justice Burger was lying when he said "The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. "

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

I dont believe he was lying. I dont think he was right. That is clearly NOT the intent of the 2nd amendment, just read the darn thing. Its quite simple. probably the easiest to understand of them all. To mis interpret it is to be dishonest or youve just not read the full text of the meaning, its very well explained in many writings of the founders as they speak to it. Its been covered here in the past. It is a settled matter. As much as anything is ever settled.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

FF, unless there has been a Supreme Court ruling on the matter, it is not "settled" -- except in the minds of the NRA types.

The rest of America--what was that number, david? --the other 350 million other Americans who don't agree with the NRA on what is or is not "settled" as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned.

And I doubt that Chief Justice Warren was dumb enough to publish a casual, careless comment on something that he knew very little about or had thought very little about. I doubt that he operates like so many of us do on HT--spewing off whatever is floating around in our private mental worlds--or we'd all be chief justices--or he would be nothing more than a poster on HT.

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Kate,

despite the implicit assertion that the intent of the 2 Amd is clear, there have been several recent USC cases that "clarified" the 2 Amd, specifically whether an individual has a right to bear arms or is it solely in the hands of southern militias formed to round up escaped slaves.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Kate, forget about the past, the supreme court HAS decided individuals do have the right to posess arms as stated in the 2nd amendment.That is just the fact.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

OK--I guess I missed all those discussions. In fact, this is the first time I ever heard that anyone (evidently) believed that the 2nd Amendment was about slavery. That is a completely new one to me.

Sorry about that error.

Kate


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

The link to controlling slave unrest is new to me too, Kate, although the linked article makes a decent case for protecting the independence of slave-patrolling militias from meddling by Federal authorities.

Meanwhile, FF tells us to forget history. Next thing he might insist is that millions of Americans have died to protect the right of the individual to bear arms. But that is history we are not supposed to remember. Winners get to write history but the internet keep interfering by preserving history in easily accessible forms.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Marshall, dont be silly, you know the contest of what I was referring to.
Actually, gun control was to prevent blacks from obtaining weapoons because it was thought they wouldd form an armed uprising.
nXdanos perversion is not surprising tho.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Yeah, FF, the blacks had no rights as citizens and therefore had no rights to be armed. Arms were pretty ubiquitous back in the olden days and illegal traffic in guns was a serious matter. Ask the settlers pushing into Indian country. Seems like illegal gun trafficking is as American as Yankee Doodle or Singing Dixie. The NRA would like to keep that right alive too, just not make it SO illegal.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

First, I'm not 100% on the concession to the South for militias, but it is compelling and makes a lot of sense (plus, I see zero cons/suthin boahs able to present an alternate view or reading). Second, there is some truth to what FF says about gun control and blacks owning guns.

So. The DW's family has a hunting camp in the Rockies near 11,000 feet that is hard to get to and only a few people go there, we're there a lot and are like the stewards... We all know each other except for the mushroomers, we like to stay hidden. Anyhoo, we all see each other in the fall and we bring an extra bottle in anticipation of guests. No gun nuts out there and we all share the same concerns about what is happening now.

Something has gone wrong, and whether it is gamers or air conditioning or boomers unable to raise kids or whatever, there needs to be a change. Only a few nutters think there should be no change, and somehow we need to force the politicians to grow a pair.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

and of course, it was to prevent browns and whites from owning arms as well.As late as the late 19th and early 20th century gun control laws were enacted to prevent agrarian reformers and union organizers fro owning guns. While today there are types of gun bans in effect to prevent poor blacks from obtaining legal armes to protect themselves, Chicago maybe!! How bout DC. How bout most any large city with restrictive, draconian gun laws where only the wealthy and elite are allowed to enjoy a right. A right not given to them by any government yet taken away by a government which is corrupt.


 o
RE: So much for Sandy Hook!

Well, I assure you , ff, there is nothing racist about my desire for gun control. When I first heard about that pile of dead 6 year olds in the classroom, it did not cross my mind to even inquire if the kids were of certain races or not and was the mass murderer of a certain race or not. It is enough that a lone mass murderer--of any race--massacred a bunch of little kids of any race in a couple minutes. Race has nothing to do with my political stance on this subject--though it is interesting to consider that historically our nation has tried to preserve the 2nd Amendment rights of white men--and now most of our mass murderers who wipe out tiny children in a couple minutes are white men/boys. Hmmm--do you think there is a connection--the consequences of historically racist choices?

Won't work trying to associate today's advocates of gun control with past racist groups and actions. That's like trying to compare apples and motorcycles.

Kate


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here