IGX

protobuilder wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:[What's emboldened above is the crux for me and I 100% disagree. I am completely convinced that progressives want a drastically or, preferably, totally disarmed society and are using Sandy Hook as a means to that political end. ... the Obama/Feinstein/Biden/Coumo/Bloomberg, et al crowd are relentless incrementalists who won't be satisfied until their goals are reached.

Do you know nothing of the US political system? They can hate guns as much as they want but they can't wave a magic wand and get their way. It's only nuts like you, apparently, who lose their minds over the idea of people thinking differently than they do. They want to take yer guns! You want to keep them. Fine. Until Feinstein and her limited company find a way to (a) get legislation through the Senate, which includes Harry Reid, a pro-gun Senator from Nevada who happens to be the Senate majority leader, and (c) through a House that they do NOT control and which will be in near outright rebellion against any such attempts, and then (c) get such controverial legislation signed by the President, and THEN (d) get it through the Supreme Court, you can calm down.

In a little bit longer than my lifetime, the GWOT dug seriously into the 4th and 5th amendments, the WOD imprisoned millions of non-violent offenders (sometimes for unbelievably long sentences), tens of millions of unborn babies were killed, and an entire race of American people were dragged from their American homes and forced into American concentration camps.

Besides the fact that the magic wands you speak of are apparently real, my point was incrementalism.

I don't lose my mind at all over people who think differently than me. I've simply come to the conclusion that the Bill of Rights is being eroded. I don't like it so I speak up. I like that the NRA is radical on the 2nd amendment and that the ACLU is radical on the 1st amendment. If you read my posts in the voice of Morgan Freeman instead of Chris Matthews they might make you less angry.

One further point Mr. Protoboner, while you call me a nut, I'm the moderate. Look to Bloomberg, Coumo, Feinstein, and others for radical responses to the problem of massive gun violence. I simply believe that whatever laws and regulations are set in place should be the most minimal possible so we can keep our society as free as possible.

Doc, don't bother with Proto. He's one of those shit dicks that flip flops from tread to thread. He's all libertarian/conservative on one thread and then playing devils advocate for some progressive faggery on another, and then borderline conspiracy theorist on yet another.

DrDonkeyLove wrote: I've simply come to the conclusion that the Bill of Rights is being eroded. I don't like it so I speak up. I like that the NRA is radical on the 2nd amendment and that the ACLU is radical on the 1st amendment. If you read my posts in the voice of Morgan Freeman instead of Chris Matthews they might make you less angry.

Perfection....

Herv100 wrote:Doc, don't bother with Proto. He's one of those shit dicks that flip flops from tread to thread. He's all libertarian/conservative on one thread and then playing devils advocate for some progressive faggery on another, and then borderline conspiracy theorist on yet another.

Proper tinfoil hat thickness is not an exact science.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?
Given one or two adults in an elementary school classroom and a 20 minute police response?

Locking the doors?

ecalpal wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?
Given one or two adults in an elementary school classroom and a 20 minute police response?

Locking the doors?

I read he shot through the glass.

johno wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?

An armed guard outside the only public entrance, who could see an adult approaching an elementary school with 2 assault rifles over his shoulders and a backpack.

That's pretty much what Wayne LaPierre, NRA official, suggested, receiving widespread media derision.
I have another idea, but I want to hear Nafod's idea first.

It doesn't matter what we do, as long as it's not part of the status quo, is bad for millions of ordinary gun owners and isn't something gun manufacturers will profit from.

Why? Because people who don't give a second thought to the thousands who are murdered one at a time demand action when random groups of people are targeted.

Pinky wrote:

johno wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?

An armed guard outside the only public entrance, who could see an adult approaching an elementary school with 2 assault rifles over his shoulders and a backpack.

That's pretty much what Wayne LaPierre, NRA official, suggested, receiving widespread media derision.
I have another idea, but I want to hear Nafod's idea first.

It doesn't matter what we do, as long as it's not part of the status quo, is bad for millions of ordinary gun owners and isn't something gun manufacturers will profit from.

Why? Because people who don't give a second thought to the thousands who are murdered one at a time demand action when random groups of people are targeted.

As I have said, Sandy Hook is a tipping point for me. You can scavenge the archives here and see I didn't have much to say for the CO movie shooting, OR mall shooting, or any of other mass shootings that killed over 70 people just this past year. However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading.

You're right, lots and lots of kids get shot each year.

Up around 2,700 kids and teens killed each year

Triple that just getting shot, so figure 8,000 taking a round.

We can expect that today 8 kids/teens will get killed. A Sandy Hook every two and a half days, day in and day out.

Another 24 will suffer nonfatal wounds, including wounds that turn them into vegetables and paraplegics or cause the loss of a limb. They will disproportionately be black kids in urban environments, but also lots of white kids committing suicide. Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them.

DDL, regarding your concerns on the Bill of Rights, the 2008 Supreme Court's ruling was a landmark, clearly breaking away from "well-regulated militia" and expressing the individual right to carry. It also recognized reasonable limits, as per Scalia's opinion.

Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

nafod wrote:

Pinky wrote:

johno wrote:

protobuilder wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?

An armed guard outside the only public entrance, who could see an adult approaching an elementary school with 2 assault rifles over his shoulders and a backpack.

That's pretty much what Wayne LaPierre, NRA official, suggested, receiving widespread media derision.
I have another idea, but I want to hear Nafod's idea first.

It doesn't matter what we do, as long as it's not part of the status quo, is bad for millions of ordinary gun owners and isn't something gun manufacturers will profit from.

Why? Because people who don't give a second thought to the thousands who are murdered one at a time demand action when random groups of people are targeted.

As I have said, Sandy Hook is a tipping point for me. You can scavenge the archives here and see I didn't have much to say for the CO movie shooting, OR mall shooting, or any of other mass shootings that killed over 70 people just this past year. However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading.

You're right, lots and lots of kids get shot each year.

Up around 2,700 kids and teens killed each year

Triple that just getting shot, so figure 8,000 taking a round.

We can expect that today 8 kids/teens will get killed. A Sandy Hook every two and a half days, day in and day out.

Another 24 will suffer nonfatal wounds, including wounds that turn them into vegetables and paraplegics or cause the loss of a limb. They will disproportionately be black kids in urban environments, but also lots of white kids committing suicide. Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them.

DDL, regarding your concerns on the Bill of Rights, the 2008 Supreme Court's ruling was a landmark, clearly breaking away from "well-regulated militia" and expressing the individual right to carry. It also recognized reasonable limits, as per Scalia's opinion.

Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

Why do you hate America?

Gen. McChrystal on gun control

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” the retired general explained. “An M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

However, echoing a sentiment held by many gun control advocates, McChrystal then said, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we have to protect our children and our police, and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Pressed for further thoughts, McChrystal added that, on gun control, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

The four-star general’s response: “I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

We have to protect our police?

tough old man wrote:Gen. McChrystal on gun control

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” the retired general explained. “An M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters, at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

However, echoing a sentiment held by many gun control advocates, McChrystal then said, “I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we’ve got to take a serious look. I understand everybody’s desire to have whatever they want, but we have to protect our children and our police, and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that.”

Pressed for further thoughts, McChrystal added that, on gun control, “I think serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges, and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

The four-star general’s response: “I think we have to look at the situation in America. The number of people killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations. I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty culture, and we need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

The Good General is first among those whose opinion should absolutely have ZERO weight in this debate. Those fucktards would violate every possible right in the entire BOR in pursuit of a single illegally immigrated towel-head popsicle vendor.

nafod wrote:Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

To be clear, closing that loophole would only limit shootings by middle class whites. Shootings among the urban poor are generally done with unlicensed weapons, and there is not exactly a supply shortage of their weapons of choice (causing one would take a long time).

IMO the NRA's position has to be looked at like a negotiating position between a buyer and seller. The buyer asks for a lower price than they expect to pay; the seller asks for a higher price than they expect to receive. A reasonable position that protects the rights of gun owners to carry and protect themselves and their families, and action that enhances public safety is the NRA's real position-- and they would be stupid to tip their hand.

The NRA's argument is actually much broader-- encompassing more effective police practices (like community policing and broken windows); longer incarcerations for violent criminals; and media glorification of violent criminals. There is evidence that all of these actions work. The left wing position tends to stop at 'guns are bad' and 'can't we all just get along?'

nafod wrote:Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

It'd be great if we could stop that. But what are your solutions to stop that?

I'm curious because if you figure that one out I think we might be able to use the same tactic to stop illegal drug dealers, and declare victory in the war on drugs.

nafod wrote: However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading...

Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them...


Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

Let's drop teh NRA bashing. i am not a member and probably won't ever be, but facts don't jibe with your post.

The Sandy hook psycho used a pistol. His mom's AR-15 was in the trunk. Maybe she should have used some of that 250k alimony to get her nutjob son treated rather than waiting for goverment to pick up tab when he was eligible.

Wayne LaPierre defends a basic right that is clear cut in the constitution. One not for hunting ot target shooting but to defend against goverment if it gets out of hand.

There is no such thing as a private unlicensed dealer. Those are called "citizens"; who want to sell or give their gun to somebody else. And no i don't want the goverment in any of my business that is clearly not theirs according to the constitution.

Don't like it? Change the constitution by amending it. Good luck.

powerlifter54 wrote:

nafod wrote: However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading...

Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them...


Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

but facts don't jibe with your post.

The Sandy hook psycho used a pistol. His mom's AR-15 was in the trunk.

Say what??????

Wayne LaPierre defends a basic right that is clear cut in the constitution. One not for hunting ot target shooting but to defend against goverment if it gets out of hand.

There is no such thing as a private unlicensed dealer. Those are called "citizens"; who want to sell or give their gun to somebody else. And no i don't want the goverment in any of my business that is clearly not theirs according to the constitution.

Don't like it? Change the constitution by amending it. Good luck.

No need to change it. I am perfectly willing to live with the 2008 Supreme Court opinion from Scalia, no left-wing nutcase he. The Supremes interpret the Constitution. That is their constitutionally defined job. No need to run around yelling "Oh noz" about the gun grabbers...the Supreme Court has got your back. Of course, that's not how you sell lots of guns, but there it is. To quote him again...

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

powerlifter54 wrote:There is no such thing as a private unlicensed dealer. Those are called "citizens"; who want to sell or give their gun to somebody else. And no i don't want the goverment in any of my business that is clearly not theirs according to the constitution.

Don't like it? Change the constitution by amending it. Good luck.

While I like the libertarian sentiment, the 2d Amendment doesn't proscribe who can and can't transfer which weapons. Yes, they are citizens but there's a long list of things we can and cannot transfer and a long list of regulations regarding how and when we can do so.

The unlicensed gun sale thing is not really defensible. Hell...you can't even sell a fucking motorcycle for use on public roads without a specific grant of license form the gubment. I don't see this one as particularly onerous.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:The unlicensed gun sale thing is not really defensible. Hell...you can't even sell a fucking motorcycle for use on public roads without a specific grant of license form the gubment. I don't see this one as particularly onerous.

There's already a requirement you have a license to transfer a handgun in my State. Rifles are exempt. I think the rationale must be, rifles are often old and handed down generation to generation, whereas pistols were only used by marshalls, vagabonds and bootleggers.

nafod wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:

nafod wrote: However, Sandy Hook and its resemblance to Beslan and the imagery of kindergarteners staring down the barrel of a NRA-lobbied-for Bushmaster while they get shot 3-10 times each to the point that they are no longer recognizable isn't leaving me anytime soon, so I started reading...

Wayne LaPierre's door guards will do nothing for them...


Right now anyone who is a felon or mentally ill and theoretically cannot purchase a weapon can buy one over the internet from a private unlicensed dealer, circumventing any background check. You cool with that? The NRA fights closing that hole.

but facts don't jibe with your post.

The Sandy hook psycho used a pistol. His mom's AR-15 was in the trunk.

Say what??????

Wayne LaPierre defends a basic right that is clear cut in the constitution. One not for hunting ot target shooting but to defend against goverment if it gets out of hand.

There is no such thing as a private unlicensed dealer. Those are called "citizens"; who want to sell or give their gun to somebody else. And no i don't want the goverment in any of my business that is clearly not theirs according to the constitution.

Don't like it? Change the constitution by amending it. Good luck.

No need to change it. I am perfectly willing to live with the 2008 Supreme Court opinion from Scalia, no left-wing nutcase he. The Supremes interpret the Constitution. That is their constitutionally defined job. No need to run around yelling "Oh noz" about the gun grabbers...the Supreme Court has got your back. Of course, that's not how you sell lots of guns, but there it is. To quote him again...

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1220431

For those that don't click on links article says Bushmaster was in trunk. Others say a shotgun was in the trunk and he had Bushmaster with him. Bottom line the psycho stole his mom's guns. So what law would change this?

Solution is armed guards just like BHO's kids have at their school. My oldest attended Domincan HS in NOLA for a year. Great school right in middle of the hood. Fenced, armed guards, nobody rolling up on them. Once i went to pick the kid up for dentist visit and as i turned car off and picked up cell phone and then got out of car, nice armed guard there to meet me and ask my intentions. Would be nice if he didn't have to do that but psychos, drugged up COD2 EMOs, and anarchists aren't only folks with weapons.

I said this before in the thread, ...regardless of your position on "reasonable" gun regulations..why the fuck do we not guard schools? I've seen armed guards at:

malls
banks
golf courses
ports
buses
grocery stores

But no schools? I can think of not much contained on the premises above that is really worth killing or dying for. Schools are about the clearest case of something worth killing and dying for.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The status quote helped contribute to Sandy Hook, is fucked up, and needs to be changed.

What law would realistically prevent a Sandy Hook type incident?
Given one or two adults in an elementary school classroom and a 20 minute police response?

Nafod, from your posts over the years, you seem like a pretty steady guy. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the questions above.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I said this before in the thread, ...regardless of your position on "reasonable" gun regulations..why the fuck do we not guard schools? I've seen armed guards at:

malls
banks
golf courses
ports
buses
grocery stores

But no schools? I can think of not much contained on the premises above that is really worth killing or dying for. Schools are about the clearest case of something worth killing and dying for.

Armed guards are reasonable and logical.

The idea of arming every teacher with any kind of weaponry their hearts desire to take down the "bag guys" is not.

Terry B. wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:I said this before in the thread, ...regardless of your position on "reasonable" gun regulations..why the fuck do we not guard schools? I've seen armed guards at:

malls
banks
golf courses
ports
buses
grocery stores

But no schools? I can think of not much contained on the premises above that is really worth killing or dying for. Schools are about the clearest case of something worth killing and dying for.

Armed guards are reasonable and logical.

The idea of arming every teacher with any kind of weaponry their hearts desire to take down the "bag guys" is not.

Agree on point one, not so much on point two, though not enough to really argue it.

People who aren't comfortable with guns won't be any good with them. I would guess most teachers, at least out here in the People's Republic, are not going to be comfortable with a firearm.

I'd be good with armed guards at schools, but not like DARTH wanted, with returning vets hanging out with full auto assault rifles, head checkup or not. Most people don't get themselves off thinking about playing army.

Police or private security with a .40 and a backup piece should be plenty in almost every scenario.