Raees wrote: No one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place.
Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.
How sad that as people are grieving the loss of their loved ones or attempting to look to what the future may hold for those who have had their lives altered forever......how insensitive people can be to turn this into a potential political play is beyond me.
I applaud the President and Mitt Romney for having the sensitivity that you obviously don't possess (not surprised though)
Can we all have a moment to grieve before you capitalize on an opportunity to further your warped agenda?
Guns don't kill people....The person holding it does.
(edited to add.....I signed up for a conceal/carry class)
If you want to grieve, don't read message boards that encourage people to express their opinions. And don't try to shame those who express their opinions.
Arlen wrote: The liberal assumption is that guns produce these crazies. They say that if the crazy did not have a gun, they would not be crazy and all would be well.
The liberal idea is that no guns equals perfect mental health. How wonderful.
I've never heard that assumption. It doesn't even make sense. But I consider the source.
What I believe is that guns enable crazies. Is there really a reason that people need to be able to buy a 100-round magazine drum?
And show me a mass murder who used a spoon or a fork.
Show me where anyone said anything about a mass murder who used a spoon or fork for that. YOU CAN'T.
Guns enable no one, doesn't matter if he could get them legally or not. If they wanted them they can and will get them. That simple. Don't know what reality world you live in but in the real world, guns are only dangerous in the hands of those that want to do harm to others, and if they want a gun they will get a gun through illegal means if needed.
Again the way you talk and think about it, we have to outlaw cars they kill people, we have to outlaw utencils they cause folks to get fat, we have to outlaw cigaretts, they kill people, all knifes have to be outlawed they kill people. Want anymore stupidity?
The AR-15 .223 ammo is a weapon that can be used either as a semi auto or full auto. Even in the semi auto position, alot of rounds can be fired in a short time. Thus the 100 round drum that can attach to it. The shotgun was a pump style plus the the two clock pistols. So far that I have read and heard they were bought legally. I am sure more will come out in the investigation. The gun has no job until put into the hands of individual. What the job is depends on the individual and what his motives are.
CJ, no one used "automatic" weapons. And what you are advocating is PERMITS for gun ownership.
Arlen, that is semantics it was close enough. Are you saying you are in favor of controls on automatic weapons?
I will say this. I saw the type of gun used. (I won't tell you who showed it to me) But it is not going to be easy to make an argument on how to control all this. People do use them for hunting because they don't have to reload. Controls, not bans, are maybe going to slow them down by a second.
Arlen, be more specific on your argument. What are the kinds of guns this kid used and I heard a shotgun was one of them, used for in the real world? Explain it better and that might help.
Gun control is unrealistic. Let's be realistic I hate the knee jerk reactions like the 6 year old that got suspended for bringing a butter knife to school. Let's be logical not emotional.
CJ, there is a enough difference between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic firearm that the BATF will not accept a."close enough" argument. I am not in favor of controls of fully automatic weapons.
Whenever we are considering the 2nd ammendment we should consider the meaning of "infringed". It involves the outter edges of a thing. It means that the government cannot even come close to any restriction that might involve firearms.
Here is a picture of rifles which are both semi-automatic..
The difference between these rifles is cosmetic. They are not different functionally.
I am not in favor of controls of fully automatic weapons.
Okay, why? Those weapons were made for war.
The 2nd amendment was written for the purpose of war. It is a protection against a government which would try to enslave its citizenry. The 2nd amendment was not written to protect sport shooting.
It's a trick. When people tell you that you shouldn't politicize a tragedy like the shooting in Aurora, Colorado they are unwittingly helping to spread NRA propaganda. After a tragedy like that, it is the most logical thing in the world to ask what went wrong and how we can fix it. When you ask that question, the obvious answer is our gun laws. It's awfully hard to stab 70 people and kill 12 of them in a short period of time like that. It's very easy to murder those same people if you have an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and two glocks.
This is the obvious conclusion that the NRA desperately wants you to avoid. So, they do a brilliant trick where they tell you that you are not allowed to talk about the problem in the immediate aftermath of the violence and death their guns caused -- that would be politicizing the tragedy.
Raees wrote: If you want to grieve, don't read message boards that encourage people to express their opinions. And don't try to shame those who express their opinions.
They were all over me yesterday for broaching the subject..They buried the thread in the Ring where nobody could see it...Like were not supposed to discuss it on a discussion board? I even got a death threat from Foundation500 for bringing it up
