Va. Tech Shooting

[69Strat]

Am I the only that can't take a political discussion seriously when there are pictures of some guy's dick in not so flattering looking underwear?

BTW, this is a gay site. Feel free to post some pics so we can get a look at you.

 

[iman]

^Well, since you brought the topic up - Am I the only one that noticed the irony of Bush going to Virginia to comfort the students?

 

[chance1]

^Well, since you brought the topic up - Am I the only one that noticed the irony of Bush going to Virginia to comfort the students?

necessary?

we are talking about the death of 32 students

no need for Bush baiting

plenty elsewhere

 

[Lostlover]

Do you really think that? Really? Honestly? You're not just saying that to get across your point are you? If you really believe that "right wingers" want mentally ill people to have guns or want tragedies like Va Tech to happen then you're just.....I'll stop there.

Some right winders don't want mentally ill people to have guns. Most don't care about who gets a gun (look at NRA and their lobbying efforts). But they also don't want to give up their guns or give up having easy access to guns.

So, they'd rather have these sporadic shooting rampages AND easy gun access. Cause hell, making it harder to buy a gun encroaches on their constitutional rights .

They hope that Americans would operate on short term memories like Charlton Heston hoped Americans would forget him blaming gun violence on "race mixing".

 

[Lostlover]

LOL...

Forget the business incentive they have to give mentally ill hand guns. I think the only people they won't give easy access to handguns are Arabs.

 

[NickCole]

A new solution must be found because you make the claim that the US military will nuke Americans? Is this for serious?

If the reason for the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to rise up against the US Government and the Government's resource of the military, then handguns and semi-automatics are not going to do it.

In terms of firepower the US Government can supress any rebellion it wants to. You think that's not true?

 

[Kulindahr]

^^ Well LostLover has a point.

If right wingers are concerned that mentally ill people can buy and access firearms why don't they, or the most powerful lobby in Washington, the NRA, push for legislation that addresses that? It would take about two seconds to get something like that passed if the right wing were behind it. If the right wing cares about it why hasn't that happened?

The NRA won't push such legislation on the national level because the NRA respects the Constitution, which leaves such things to the states. On the state level, the NRA-ILA has in fact worked on the issue of mental health and firearms. But it's a balancing act, very reminiscent of when just one doctor could have a person sent to a mental institution pretty much for life -- make it too easy to put someone on such a list, and you invite corruption; make it too hard, and people like the V. Tech shooter get passed over.

As it is, most states have limitations on the mentally limited or ill purchasing firearms. One problem right now is the federal privacy law, which forbids doctors to pass on medical information. Another is the gray area of temporary instability -- lots of people snap over something and get put on a 72-hour hold, and then are fine for the rest of their lives; others snap and never get their balance back. Then there are the people who are on medication pretty much for life, who you'd never know were mentally ill, because the medication keeps their brain chemistry balanced.

It isn't as easy as one might wish.

 

[Kulindahr]

Am I the only that can't take a political discussion seriously when there are pictures of some guy's dick in not so flattering looking underwear?

Sorry to be a hater, but c'mon.

My law professors certainly would never have permitted such dress.

1. Use Mozilla Firefox for your browser
2. Apply AdBlock to unwanted images.

 

[Kulindahr]

In the end, as regards to gun control. it really depends on what kind of a society one wants to live in. Do you want to live in Dodge City with continual shoot outs among gun toting fools (until Wyatt Earp started making them check their guns before entering town) or do you want to live in a society where guns and shootings are rare and unusual like Australia or some European countries?

Do gun proponents really believe that 75 or 100 years from now people will still be allowed to carry firearms around? Conservatives just can't get it through their heads that this country is slowly developing and becoming more civilized. We no longer live on the frontier.

Are you still living in that liberal fantasy?
Every time a state has proposed a law to allow citizens to carry concealed, a "shall issue" law that requires the permit or license to be issued as long as certain minimal conditions are met, the press and liberal groups scream "Dodge City! Shoot-outs!" in an attempt to raise terror and panic so people will oppose the law.
Every time a state has passed such a law... none of that has happened: no shoot-outs, no crime spree -- in fact, every time, in state after state, violent crime against persons has dropped (though crime in other areas has not).

You have a strange concept of civilization. I call it the "sheep-pen" model -- everyone is turned into a sheep, a victim exposed to the wolf. That's not civilized; it's authoritarian, and it's a reduction in human dignity. Why?
Because if my life is worth anything, then I have the right to defend it, using the means of my choice. If you tell me I'm not allowed to carry the means to defend my life, you're telling me that my life is worthless.

 

[Kulindahr]

Some right winders don't want mentally ill people to have guns. Most don't care about who gets a gun (look at NRA and their lobbying efforts). But they also don't want to give up their guns or give up having easy access to guns.

So, they'd rather have these sporadic shooting rampages AND easy gun access. Cause hell, making it harder to buy a gun encroaches on their constitutional rights

Your ignorance of the NRA is showing.

The NRA wants easier gun access for two reasons: The first is because a person who isn't allowed to own his or her chosen means of self-defense might as well not be a person; a population in that condition isn't a "people", but cattle. The second is the common-sense observation that if people can shoot back, wackos like the V. Tech shooter will be stopped long before they reach double-digit numbers of victims.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the reason for the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to rise up against the US Government and the Government's resource of the military, then handguns and semi-automatics are not going to do it.

In terms of firepower the US Government can suppress any rebellion it wants to. You think that's not true?

Yes, I think that's not true.

Consider: Iraq's population is on the order of 25 million; the U.S. population is on the order of a dozen times that.
The U.S. military is unable to suppress the insurrection in Iraq. It would find it a dozen times as hard to suppress one in the U.S.

 

[NickCole]

Yes, I think that's not true.

Consider: Iraq's population is on the order of 25 million; the U.S. population is on the order of a dozen times that.
The U.S. military is unable to suppress the insurrection in Iraq. It would find it a dozen times as hard to suppress one in the U.S.

You seriously think, with a capable Commander in Chief, the US military couldn't supress the insurrection in Iraq?

I think you're wrong.

I think the US military is the most formidable fighting machine in the history of the world.

But you raise an important point that I've made many times: firearms aren't worth jack with an incompetent in charge but they sure end up killing a lot of innocents. So much for the theory of we'd all be safer if more people carried guns. Truth is, we'd all be safer if only competent mentally balanced people carried guns. Unfortunately a lot of people who love guns are a couple of beers short of a six pack.

 

[iman]

Unfortunately a lot of people who love guns are a couple of beers short of a six pack.

Thinking of anybody in particular?

 

[69Strat]

If the reason for the Second Amendment is to give citizens the power to rise up against the US Government and the Government's resource of the military, then handguns and semi-automatics are not going to do it.

In regard to the Assault Weapons Ban, it wasn't so much that they were semi-automatics, but what happens when they are modified to perform like the small arms used in the military. Any person with a knowledge of machine shop could modify these wpns from their orginal configuration. Factor in flash suppressors, foldable stocks, pistol grips and high capacity mags, and you're looking at an aggressive military style platform. That's the bottom line.

 

[Kulindahr]

You seriously think, with a capable Commander in Chief, the US military couldn't supress the insurrection in Iraq?

I think you're wrong.

I think the US military is the most formidable fighting machine in the history of the world.

But you raise an important point that I've made many times: firearms aren't worth jack with an incompetent in charge but they sure end up killing a lot of innocents. So much for the theory of we'd all be safer if more people carried guns. Truth is, we'd all be safer if only competent mentally balanced people carried guns. Unfortunately a lot of people who love guns are a couple of beers short of a six pack.

We have capable generals, and they're not managing. Colin Powell said a good 300,000 troops would be needed to keep order, right from the start -- we don't have even half that, and it's no longer the start. Another general, commenting on the "surge", said that 50,000 more troops would be needed in Baghdad alone to accomplish anything.

On the carrying guns business, I enjoy the way you switch subjects in midstream and want people to believe you've arrived at a conclusion.
Oh -- none of the people I know who love guns are even a single sip short of a six pack. Consistent with what's known, they're among the most responsible people I know.

 

[NickCole]

We have capable generals, and they're not managing. Colin Powell said a good 300,000 troops would be needed to keep order, right from the start -- we don't have even half that, and it's no longer the start. Another general, commenting on the "surge", said that 50,000 more troops would be needed in Baghdad alone to accomplish anything.

Exactly my point.

It's not that our military is incompetent -- far from it.

Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief.

On the carrying guns business, I enjoy the way you switch subjects in midstream and want people to believe you've arrived at a conclusion.

It's all the same subject. Use of firearms.

But it's always nice to know when someone enjoys my style.

Oh -- none of the people I know who love guns are even a single sip short of a six pack. Consistent with what's known, they're among the most responsible people I know.

Even assuming you'd be a good judge of that ...

You don't know everyone who buys and owns or has access to guns. As we saw this week, it only takes one out of many.

 

[Kulindahr]

Exactly my point.

It's not that our military is incompetent -- far from it.

Bush is an incompetent Commander in Chief.

No one said the military is incompetent. What it is, is insufficient. To put down the insurrection in Iraq at this point would take more personnel than we have, even if we pulled everyone out of Korea, Europe, and other places they're scattered.

So by comparison, the U.S. military is about 4% of the size it would need to be to put down an equally determined insurrection in the U.S. Throw in the fact that even more people would get pissed that the government is shooting Americans, and the probable reluctance of American soldiers to fire on Americans, and it's about half that, even.

Which is why, even in the face of what is arguably history's best military, the Second Amendment's purpose is effective -- would-be tyrants have to be wary.

As it is likewise effective on the "lower" level of security within a free state -- would-be mass killers have to be wary.
Which, of course, is why they love gun-free zones.

 

[JayHawk]

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder

How many times have we read of the defenseless old person bearing the brunt of an assailant. Remember the mugger in NYC.

 

[Kulindahr]

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder

How many times have we read of the defenseless old person bearing the brunt of an assailant. Remember the mugger in NYC.

My favorite is still the old grandmother in a wheelchair who got attacked by three "joggers". She surrendered her purse, and her shopping, and when they wanted more they tipped her wheelchair over and started to kick her. So she pulled her little sterling silver revolver and with four bullets killed all three.
My kind of grandma!
If only she'd been at Virginia Tech that day.

 

[NickCole]

Armed Miss America 1944 stops intruder

How many times have we read of the defenseless old person bearing the brunt of an assailant. Remember the mugger in NYC.

The woman's a nut.

She shot out the tires of a man's car when he was leaving.

She's also filed a $300 billion lawsuit against the US Government claiming that efforts to hold the tobacco industry accountable tried "to destroy a successful, lucrative American industry.''