Liberal Forum

MistyBlue, on 22 Dec 2012 - 15:10, said:Their only purpose seems to be to inflict a lot of carnage, very quickly.What about to overthrow our tyrannical government? If that argument doesn't convince you, I suspect nothing will.That's probably the most ridiculous argument of all.What good is an AR-15 going to do against a tank or a bunker busting missile?

MistyBlue, on 22 Dec 2012 - 15:10, said:And I haven't seen anyone articulate one logical reason why ordinary citizens need this type of weapon, or these high capacity magazines.http://liberalforum....n-on/?p=2913623Like I said, the argument that you're going to put down a tyrannical government with your semi-automatic assault weapon is ludicrous.MistyBlue, on 22 Dec 2012 - 15:10, said:Their only purpose seems to be to inflict a lot of carnage, very quickly.And how is that a bad thing? Isn't superior firepower beneficial when dealing with bad people?Except the carnage is not being inflicted on bad people is it?

Makes no difference to the debate about video games, of course, but did you see this beauty? http://www.huffingto...s_b_856268.html New NRA Prez David Keene's Son Is a Convicted Road-Rage Shooter Edited by jayjay, 23 December 2012 - 12:22 AM.

Logically we spend the bucks and secure America's schools, like I have described here several times. And I do likeFeinstein idea to use national guard for the schools and the buses. The guard would ride the bus to morning stops, spend the day at school, and ride back on the bus to drop children off. And that is all that need be done. Edited by shintao, 23 December 2012 - 01:20 AM.

So we just throw up our hands and do nothing?Or maybe we take Wayne LaPierre's advice and put an armed guard at the entrance to every school.A few problems with that.There was a deputy sheriff stationed at Columbine on the day of the shooting.Virginia Tech also had armed police on campus.And the police can't be every where all the time, neither.The issue is training armed people to guard our schools, the safety of the children is their job. Nothing like these "School resource Officers" whose job it seems to be making friends.Of course Mr. LaPierre did not say that we should also have armed guards in movie theaters, shopping malls, supermarket parking lots or houses of worship, where shootings like this have also occurred.I guess people in those places are on their own.Yep,Welcome to the real world. Your self defense is your job, and nobody else's.The cops don't have to protect you, never have, as the SCOTUS has decided over and over.Oh, I know, if only someone had had a gun, they could have stopped those shootings.Can you imagine someone trying to take down the shooter (in full body armor) in a dark crowded movie theater in Aurora?The guy wasn't wearing "body armor" in Aurora, and I'll bet you the guy in CT wasn't either once the real facts come out.BTW, there was an armed citizen in the parking lot where Gabby Giffords was shot.He was coming out of a store and saw a man with a gun, and almost shot him.The man with the gun turned out to be the man that had wrested the gun away from the shooter.And yet he didn't shoot. This shows that the common CHL holder can and will make good decisions under duress and stress, despite all the antis claim to the contrary.This is a good thing, the guy walked into a situation, drew his gun and covered the action, but didn't fire because it wasn't needed. I applaud the guy.Good job,,,,If we did have an armed guard stationed at every school, they would likely be the first one shot.Remember the Holocaust Museum shooting in 2009, where a security guard was shot and killed, or the shooting at the Capitol in 1998 when two United States Capitol Police officers were also shot and killed?You got a problem with hiring trained men to be the first ones shot at?I don't.I'd much rather have the guys hired for that get shot before the bad guy reaches the office or classroom.I'm sick of the pinheads who think that the solution is so simple as to just arm everyone.And I tire of people who reduce the "solution" to this and only this.Nevermind the confusion that takes place when a shooting like this occurs, even when trained law enforcement officials are on the scene.Let's have a bunch of people without any law enforcement training running around shooting wildly.That'll work.Law enforcement training isn't needed, although it probably will be included.BATTLE training is what is called for, and the schools contingency plans should call for getting the kids out of the building. If the guys up front are dying because terrorists are shooting their way into the building, the teachers had damn well better be hustling those kids out the back.Schools practice fire drills, they should also practice active shooter drills, emergency evacuate, etc.We're starting programs in Ohio to train teachers for armed combat nowThe pilot program is going to train 24 teachers at a cost of around $1K each.The cost is being paid for by Ohio gun rights organizations, grass rootsThey're not going to the police academy. They're going to Tactical Defense Institute, to learn skills particular to their mission, protecting the kids.Education and training is the answer, Misty, taking away this or that gun.We must teach our children how to survive,We must train ourselves how to protect themAnd we should have our weapon of choice to do this with,,,,

Except the carnage is not being inflicted on bad people is it? http://www.drugwarra...rug-war-victim/ You're right.

Like I said, the argument that you're going to put down a tyrannical government with your semi-automatic assault weapon is ludicrous.Seems to working out for the Syrian people.Here's my offer of compromise...Background check for all weapons purchases, a non-filed background check. That is, once the background check is done the fact that Joe or Marsha, Marsha, Marsha sixpack had a background check on them will be expunged from any record. In otherwords, no gun registration on the sly by Mother goverment. In return liberals allow for vast, federal concealed carry laws.This helps keep guns outta the hands of bad guys, and puts more guns into the hands of the good guys.Let's see what weak azz crap you can come up with to be against said compromise.And... with,,,,

Seems to working out for the Syrian people. Here's my offer of compromise... Background check for all weapons purchases, a non-filed background check. That is, once the background check is done the fact that Joe or Marsha, Marsha, Marsha sixpack had a background check on them will be expunged from any record. In otherwords, no gun registration on the sly by Mother goverment. In return liberals allow for vast, federal concealed carry laws. This helps keep guns outta the hands of bad guys, and puts more guns into the hands of the good guys. Let's see what weak azz crap you can come up with to be against said compromise. There is no compromise. A person is not a bad guy until he uses the weapon in an act of aggression. You would deny a person the right to self-defense because of previous actions.

There is no compromise. A person is not a bad guy until he uses the weapon in an act of aggression.You would deny a person the right to self-defense because of previous actions.So violent felons should be allowed to legally purchase weapons?You want Bin al Saleem Hadji Mohamed here in the country on a student VISA from Yemen to be sporting an AR-15?Jose Juan Jesus Rodriquez who swam across the Rio Grande with a fistful of dollars to be able to gotoa Texas gun show and load up and arm his Mehican drug cartel buds?A nutjob who has proven to be a danger to himself and others gets to arm up?

So violent felons should be allowed to legally purchase weapons? Previously violent. Nothing indicates they are violent after they've "paid their debt to society". You know, prison terms and not being on paper. Talk to a probation agent, their position is that you're dangerous until you're off paper. Then your magically not dangerous. If rights are granted by a creator, how is it possible man is capable of denying those rights? Every person possesses an inherent right of self-defense, even felons. You want Bin al Saleem Hadji Mohamed here in the country on a student VISA from Yemen to be sporting an AR-15? If he's so dangerous why issue him a student Visa in the first place? Jose Juan Jesus Rodriquez who swam across the Rio Grande with a fistful of dollars to be able to goto a Texas gun show and load up and arm his Mehican drug cartel buds? Would this occur without government intervention, i.e., War on Drugs? Do you find it acceptable for the US government to run guns around the world to prop up revolutionaries and governments? If we're gonna support freedom and liberty, we have to support it across the board. A nutjob who has proven to be a danger to himself and others gets to arm up? If he has proven himself to be a nutjob than why wasn't he committed? Most of these mass shooters were probably nutjobs, but displayed normacly until they decided to shoot up the joint. Seems to me you could advocate for a complete gun ban based upon "what if".

Oh look, all of a sudden I get to be the liberal. I can do thatPreviously violent. Nothing indicates they are violent after they've "paid their debt to society". You know, prison terms and not being on paper. Talk to a probation agent, their position is that you're dangerous until you're off paper. Then your magically not dangerous. If rights are granted by a creator, how is it possible man is capable of denying those rights? Every person possesses an inherent right of self-defense, even felons."Paid their debt to society" is not interchangeable with slate wiped clean. If their slate was wiped clean then in the event they committed another violent crime, or any crime for that matter, their criminal record would not come into play. If they were suspected of a crime and sought by the police when the police are closing in on them the police would not be advising each other suspect has been shown to have a propensity to violence and they would not pursue this person with that mindset. Given your stance on this I suppose that felons should also be able to vote?So, simple questionIf a man has done a decade in jail for robbing someone with a weapon and he gets out of prison then he should then be able to legally obtain a weapon?You get to have a weapon until you prove that such weapons do not belong in your hands. Also consider recidivism rates.If he's so dangerous why issue him a student Visa in the first place?I never said he was dangerous. I said he wasnt an American citizen. The 2nd amendment does not apply to non-citizens. You did not answer the question.Would this occur without government intervention, i.e., War on Drugs?Again, you are avoiding the question.Do you find it acceptable for the US government to run guns around the world to prop up revolutionaries and governments?Yes.If we're gonna support freedom and liberty, we have to support it across the board.You gonna tell me the Iraqi people; the Libyan people; the Afghani people had freedom and liberty before The Mighty US of A helped overthrow those dictators? The invaded Kuwaitis? By our actions we did support freedom and liberty.If he has proven himself to be a nutjob than why wasn't he committed?Well theres a question Im not prepared to answer. Theres a whole host of issues on that one. Privacy, the ethereal nature of phycology, fantasy vs. real intent, where do you draw the line, who draws the line, is it possible to get better, meds, psychosis, funding and then how does one legislate all this? For now Id go back to background checks. If you are proven to be a whackjob under todays definitions you dont get to buy a weapon. As it stands now a proven whackjob can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon.You do understand that with my background check compromise comes no record keeping; go/no go, right?

You gonna tell me the Iraqi people; the Libyan people; the Afghani people had freedom and liberty before The Mighty US of A helped overthrow those dictators? The invaded Kuwaitis? By our actions we did support freedom and liberty.Your pretense that they have it NOW is what makes you the swishy little nancy that we all know you to be, nanny-stater.Oh, look: The swishy little revisionist uses one photo tell tell two lies:1. That we invaded Iraq to "liberate the wimmin-folf" - a fabrication;2. That women had no right to vote under saddam - a fabrication.

Oh look, all of a sudden I get to be the liberal. I can do that"Paid their debt to society" is not interchangeable with slate wiped clean. If their slate was wiped clean then in the event they committed another violent crime, or any crime for that matter, their criminal record would not come into play. If they were suspected of a crime and sought by the police when the police are closing in on them the police would not be advising each other suspect has been shown to have a propensity to violence and they would not pursue this person with that mindset. Given your stance on this I suppose that felons should also be able to vote? The punishment imposed by the state has ended, prison sentence, parole, probation. Yet, you desire to punish the person throughout the remainder of his life. So, simple question If a man has done a decade in jail for robbing someone with a weapon and he gets out of prison then he should then be able to legally obtain a weapon? No. As a free person any person possesses the right to obtain a weapon. Like how you throw "legally" into the equation. A free person living in a free society does not require the permission (legally) of the state. You get to have a weapon until you prove that such weapons do not belong in your hands. Also consider recidivism rates. That's why the guy is in prison or on paper. If the state releases him from subjugation than he is no longer considered a risk. If he uses the weapon in an aggressive manner again, well, he either pays with his life (from the person he assaulted) or he spends more time in prison. His choice. I never said he was dangerous. I said he wasnt an American citizen. The 2nd amendment does not apply to non-citizens. You did not answer the question. The implications of your statement lead me to believe that you considered him dangerous. You want an answer? Yes. If the Bill of Rights don't apply to foreigners, can you explain when they are accused of a crime they are required their day in court under the Bill of Rights? Again, you are avoiding the question. Absolutely not. I expect a logical answer from you. You want an answer? Every person possesses the right of self-defense. This includes the cartels who are being attacked by government. Yes. And a free person possesses the right of self-defense by any and all means accessible and possible. You gonna tell me the Iraqi people; the Libyan people; the Afghani people had freedom and liberty before The Mighty US of A helped overthrow those dictators? The invaded Kuwaitis? By our actions we did support freedom and liberty. Ah yes, replace those dictators with people who put in place a constitution where all legislation is based upon Islamic Law. But you know, they get to vote for their subjugation and bondage. Cause voting is what's important. Change the dictator, but make it worse. Wonderful system. Well theres a question Im not prepared to answer. Theres a whole host of issues on that one. Privacy, the ethereal nature of phycology, fantasy vs. real intent, where do you draw the line, who draws the line, is it possible to get better, meds, psychosis, funding and then how does one legislate all this? For now Id go back to background checks. If you are proven to be a whackjob under todays definitions you dont get to buy a weapon. As it stands now a proven whackjob can go to a gun show and purchase a weapon. You do understand that with my background check compromise comes no record keeping; go/no go, right? When it comes to freedom and liberty, you take the good with the bad. You compromise once. You compromise again. You compromise again. Then you get the realization that you can't compromise anymore, not because you're gonna hold your ground, but because you already gave them everything. Since you're arguing the 2nd Amendment, what part of "shall not be infringed" is confusing you?

You compromise once. You compromise again. You compromise again. Then you get the realization that you can't compromise anymore, not because you're gonna hold your ground, but because you already gave them everything. The little gayboy thinks the nanny state has a right to TORTURE. He'll toss liberties for a warm and fuzzy feeling of security all day long, and then go all macho-24 rationaling his cowardice. After ballyhooing for the use of our military as a global police force, and defending the right of the federal nanny state to torture human beings, he will then insist that you believe he is a libertarian. I'm not making this up. Just ask him.

Logically we spend the bucks and secure America's schools, like I have described here several times. And I do likeFeinstein idea to use national guard for the schools and the buses. The guard would ride the bus to morning stops, spend the day at school, and ride back on the bus to drop children off. And that is all that need be done.What about the shootings that took place in movie theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship and supermarket parking lots?How does that help them?

Here's my offer of compromise...Background check for all weapons purchases, a non-filed background check. That is, once the background check is done the fact that Joe or Marsha, Marsha, Marsha sixpack had a background check on them will be expunged from any record. In otherwords, no gun registration on the sly by Mother goverment. In return liberals allow for vast, federal concealed carry laws.This helps keep guns outta the hands of bad guys, and puts more guns into the hands of the good guys.Let's see what weak azz crap you can come up with to be against said compromise.Maybe you should talk to Wayne LaPierre about that.40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all, thanks to things like the gun show loophole, which the NRA fights to keep in effect, even though 74% of NRA members believe that loophole needs to be closed.

40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all, thanks to things like the gun show loophole, which the NRA fights to keep in effect, even though 74% of NRA members believe that loophole needs to be closed. Links to support these claims, or are these more liberal "everyone knows" statistics? Edited by Golfboy, 27 December 2012 - 02:16 PM.

Capitalist Swine, on 23 Dec 2012 - 13:59, said:There is no compromise. A person is not a bad guy until he uses the weapon in an act of aggression.You would deny a person the right to self-defense because of previous actions.So violent felons should be allowed to legally purchase weapons?It will be interesting to see where the guy (a convicted murderer) who shot the four Firefighters and killed two of them in NY on Christmas Eve got his Bushmaster AR-15.

MistyBlue, on 27 Dec 2012 - 14:12, said:40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all, thanks to things like the gun show loophole, which the NRA fights to keep in effect, even though 74% of NRA members believe that loophole needs to be closed.Links to support these claims, or are these more liberal "everyone knows" statistics?I don't pull facts out of my *** Goofboy.When I say something, I can back it up.Maybe, if you ever watched anything but Fox News, you'd have heard these statistics by now.Republican Pollster Frank Luntz recently conducted a poll of NRA members and other gun owners.It showed strong support for common sense gun laws and exposed a significant divide between rank-and-file members and NRA leadership.Among the surveys key findings:87 percent of NRA members agree that support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.There is very strong support for criminal background checks among NRA members and gun owners:74 percent of NRA members and 87 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.79 percent of NRA members and 80 percent of non-NRA gun owners support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.http://www.mayorsaga.../pr006-12.shtmlAs for my statement that 40% of all guns sold are sold on the secondary market with no backround checks, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg made that statement recently and Politifact has ruled it 'mostly' true, only because the only statistics available are not very current.Mayor Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet.The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old. Current regulations dont allow direct tallies of sales of this sort. An undercover investigation found a great deal of internet activity, but it was sponsored by a mayor who seeks greater regulation. Groups opposed to greater regulation were asked to rebut the mayors assertion and did not respond.http://www.politifac...ent-guns-are-s/Gee, I wonder why current regulations dont allow direct tallies of these sorts of gun sales?Who doesn't want us to know how many guns are being sold with no backround checks?Groups opposed to greater regulation were asked to rebut the mayors assertion and did not respond.Of course they didn't, because they know what he said was true.

Oh, look: The swishy little revisionist uses one photo tell tell two lies:1. That we invaded Iraq to "liberate the wimmin-folf" - a fabrication;It was one of many reasons, as you and I have gone over before, you know, when you flee the debate for a while and then come back saying the same crap, like you did right there.2. That women had no right to vote under saddam - a fabrication.On no, she voted, for Saddam. Ever seen the election returns for Saddam elections?He got 100% of the vote. And yet you use those elections as evidence that Iraq was free and their leader democraticaly elected. Dumbazz. Weak.Maybe you should talk to Wayne LaPierre about that.Maybe I should, I've already made a better case for background checks, NON STORED BACKGROUND checks, mind you, than anyone I've seen trying to give ol' Wayne a hard time. Tim Russerts retarded little brother tried his best and looked like the bedwetter he is when he tried to do so.40% of the weapons sold are sold with no backround checks at all, thanks to things like the gun show loophole, which the NRA fights to keep in effect, even though 74% of NRA members believe that loophole needs to be closed.I've heard all that.Thing I haven't heard is a responce from you about my compromise. Oh sure you jump all over the background check deal but no mention of expanding and making federal conceal carry laws. So very liberal of you. Very standard liberal MO. Just as in the fiscal cliff the liberal is not concerned with compromise at all. They just say there are cause then the drive-by media can lie and try to sell that angle.